The British Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Shocked The World

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
  • Britain's Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier is a state-of-the-art naval vessel, representing a colossal investment worth billions of dollars. This impressive aircraft carrier, commissioned by the Royal Navy, boasts cutting-edge technology and an extensive array of advanced aircraft, making it a formidable force on the high seas. With its vast size, remarkable capabilities, and strategic importance, it stands as a symbol of British military prowess and a vital asset in safeguarding national security interests, both at home and abroad.
    • Video
    #aircraftcarrier
    #britain's
    #hmsqueenelizabeth
    #aircraftcarrier
    #queenelizabeth
    #fighterjet
    #blacksea
    #nato
    #warship
    #uknavy
    #aircraftcarrierqueenelizabeth
    #queenelizabeth
    #AircraftCarrier
    #RoyalNavy
    #UKMilitary
    #DefenseSpending
    #NavalPower
    #BritishNavy
    #MilitaryTechnology
    #UKDefense
    #NationalSecurity
    #Warships
    #MilitaryInvestment
    #RoyalNavyShips
    #BritishForces
    #NavyStrength
    #NavalWarfare
    #MilitaryAssets
    #DefenseBudget
    #UKNavy
    #MaritimeSecurity
    #NavalFleet
    #BritishPride
    #Geopolitics
    #GlobalSecurity
    #StrategicAssets
    #MilitaryExpenditure
    #UKArmedForces
    #NationalDefense
    #MilitaryCapability
    #BritishAircraftCarrier

КОМЕНТАРІ • 86

  • @ExploreTheUKWithMe
    @ExploreTheUKWithMe 10 місяців тому +4

    It's an excellent platform no doubt about that very well laid out few teething issues but they can fix that no problem I'm sure
    Both of them fully equipped would be a very large thorn

  • @grahammartindouglass2413
    @grahammartindouglass2413 6 місяців тому +4

    Most expensive scrap vessels ever built..British embarrassment to the tenth degree...😂😂😂😂.China looking for a suitable target to test their new ship to ship missiles and high speed passive active torpedoes but even they too embarrassed to buy them as a target..😂😂😂😂😂😂 viva BRICS viva South Africa 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

    • @ushas6528
      @ushas6528 6 місяців тому

      LoL 😂😂😂😂😂

    • @Stewpot-p5l
      @Stewpot-p5l Місяць тому

      Talking a load of nonsense because a carrier powered with reactors needing too many crew members to operate is ridiculous for naval warfare! That would have been thaw worst plan for the carriers although I do think they should have been smaller like the Audacious class carriers because larger carriers are a very easy target

  • @jorgelrevene
    @jorgelrevene 11 місяців тому +13

    The real shock to the world came when it became known that the propeller drive shafts of her sister ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, were both bent and that the ship would have to spend a long period in dry dock. God save the king (from another embarrassing situation).

    • @bryanglover1925
      @bryanglover1925 11 місяців тому

      Its OK its all sorted now friend 💯👍

    • @leemurf2322
      @leemurf2322 11 місяців тому

      It hit an object on the seabed! Do you think anyone is at fault for that? HMS Queen Elizabeth which is built identically to Prince of Wales did its first worldwide deployment 2 years ago without issue and both carriers are currently deployed. One thing the Royal Navy builds well is warships hence why so many countries are buying the type 26 frigate and the Australians just pushed the French overboard for a better quality more capable UK built submarine 😂

    • @vMaxHeadroom
      @vMaxHeadroom 10 місяців тому +2

      These things happen when you build something new! The good news is that we built two and the Prince of Wales is now fully fixed and on duty...The experience we are now gaining as we are back in the carrier world is great and only good for the long term as the world seems to be getting crazier by the day....To all those men and women who protect us, I am so grateful to you!

    • @ArchieFatcackie
      @ArchieFatcackie 8 місяців тому +2

      There’s always one

    • @Markus117d
      @Markus117d 8 місяців тому +1

      They weren't bent They were slightly misaligned when the ship was built, Causing stress in the couplings. 100% a construction falt, Even then the ship sailed for a couple of years before one of the couplings failed, And not a design flaw as HMS Queen Elizabeth has had no such issues.. HMS Prince of Wales shaft missalignment was fixed in drydock..

  • @mac2626
    @mac2626 8 місяців тому +4

    Queen Elizabeth Class are actually 284 metres/ 932 feet by 73 metres/ 240 feet, and they are more like 70,000+ tonnes full load, 72 aircraft at surge capacity and they hit 32 knots in acceptance trials.

  • @ENGBriseB
    @ENGBriseB 10 місяців тому +6

    They can carry 72 Aircraft each and do over 30 knots.

    • @liewjames2852
      @liewjames2852 10 місяців тому

      That's only an aspiration. How many aircraft can UK afford to put on board?

    • @Dingdangdoo
      @Dingdangdoo 8 місяців тому

      Currently only 18.

    • @Markus117d
      @Markus117d 8 місяців тому

      Cost isn't the issue, What is the issue is not having the planes built yet Still awaiting delivery of nearly ½ the initial order..

    • @7521eric
      @7521eric 6 місяців тому

      B.S.

    • @Markus117d
      @Markus117d 6 місяців тому

      @7521eric No its not..

  • @66oggy
    @66oggy 8 місяців тому +2

    Once you start comparing the cost of these to HS 2, the two aircraft carriers are a bargain, and they actually look like they work, unlike the former, which will never work, even when it's working.

  • @patriotunion7211
    @patriotunion7211 8 місяців тому +5

    Keeping Britain safe? We cant even stop dinghies crossing the English channel ffs!

    • @jamesknight3070
      @jamesknight3070 5 місяців тому

      Annoyingly we are commissioning brand new Batch II Patrol Vessels, but immediately sending them elsewhere.
      HMS Trent has been sent to Guyana, with her permanent station being Gibraltar, and it's a similar story for the other four.

    • @Phlegmwahn
      @Phlegmwahn 2 місяці тому

      @@patriotunion7211 Pssst, under International Law it’s not illegal to use a dingy to cross the English Channel. Neither is it illegal to land in a foreign country provided you declare immediately upon arrival your wish to claim asylum! It is also a breech of International Maritime Law to refuse to assist a vessel in distress! Successive Tory governments have to have a scapegoat for their inability to govern effectively so they blame ‘illegal immigrants’, just as the Nazi’s scapegoated the Jews in the 1930s.

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      Whats that got to do with the Navy?

  • @extremathule982
    @extremathule982 7 місяців тому +2

    HMS Queen Elizabeth Shocked The World......in fact, sometimes it is even able to navigate... even if some planes are lost at sea 😁😂😂🤣🤣🤣

  • @freedom14639
    @freedom14639 6 місяців тому +2

    The real shock to the world is when she hasn't got the jets for her.. And still hasn't. Embarrassment

    • @7521eric
      @7521eric 6 місяців тому +3

      And due to recruiting problems they can't even man both of them at the same time. Leave the naval warfare to the big boys.

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      Only 34 but if your maths says none then you must be right, those ones i saw on her deck recently must have been blow up models.

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      @@7521eric Oh please tell me where you got that gem from and if you are referring to the (Un) United States tell me how your new carrier is getting on? can she go to sea for more than 30 days yet, is the EMALS working right yet? At least after 6 years ours is fully operational unlike some.

    • @7521eric
      @7521eric Місяць тому

      @@neilsbs8273 still working the bugs out in the Ford Clas. A fully operational Brit mini carrier is still no match for a current Nimitz. That's probably why yours is named after a girl. A fully operational mini Carrier is worthless if you can't fully man it. But don't get me wrong they are still good support carriers. Cheerio!

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      @@7521eric Oh dear I usually give people like you the benefit of the doubt but you are one deluded person. A difference of 50m in length is hardly a mini carrier and even your Admirals, the real ones not the Armchair ones like you, have admitted the ship is better in many respects. Now you toddle off old chap and have a nice day.

  • @chaplainsoffice6907
    @chaplainsoffice6907 11 місяців тому +2

    Pray for the suffering on both sides.
    These are the sons of Abraham at war.

  • @xenomorphelv4265
    @xenomorphelv4265 8 місяців тому +2

    Yeah, the whole world has been shocked and still feels the effect of it, don't you feel the shock of this diesel device ? don't you ? The whole fucking world has been shocked, you can't argue with that, if you reply saying you haven't been shocked it would be a shock for all of the people who have been shocked. shock it shock it. don't you want any more shock ? for one shock purschased we offer one free shock.

    • @66oggy
      @66oggy 8 місяців тому +1

      That was shocking, it shocked me, and the shocks will still shock me long after other shocks have stopped shocking me.

    • @xenomorphelv4265
      @xenomorphelv4265 8 місяців тому

      @@66oggy shock it shock it !

  • @elizabethmcintyre8529
    @elizabethmcintyre8529 11 місяців тому +3

    Why does everyone have to have a go at the British military all carriers ships navy army special forces in all countries do their bit it's ignorant to put any of them down

  • @svenda7401
    @svenda7401 4 місяці тому +1

    Just call the us next time u build one

  • @Phlegmwahn
    @Phlegmwahn 3 місяці тому +1

    What a load of bovine excrement! The RN does not have enough sailors or ships to create an effective, deployable Carrier Group. They can only deploy one carrier at a time with a cobbled-together support group from our NATO allies.

  • @davidmurphy228
    @davidmurphy228 5 місяців тому +1

    Royal Navy, not British Navy, having served on both I'm sure that there were no catapults, which you kept showing, nor is there an angled flight deck on either QEC. They are a lot better to serve onboard than the public propaganda would have you know, and have a different set up than the US CVNs.

    • @wartechmilitary
      @wartechmilitary  5 місяців тому

      🥰🥰

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      Unfortunately Spud the mainstream media loves to hype every little problem these ships have, problems that any ship will have. That along with social media tends to make everyone an Armchair Admiral these days.

  • @7521eric
    @7521eric 6 місяців тому +1

    Most formidable in the world my a--! 36 planes? A Nimitz class or the French de Gaul could take on both these carriers at the same time. The ramp take off or vtol also limits how much fuel or armament its aircraft can carry. Waste of money. Don't get me started on the diesel engine vs nuclear powered.

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      These carriers sortie rates are on a par with a Nimitz and carry 5th gen which will knock 4th gen F16s and F18s out of the sky before they even see them. Nuclear is only any good if your escorts are Nuclear therefore no advantage in the real world along with the cost both dollar and time of refuelling them then decommissioning them and the lack of ports that will accept Nuclear.

  • @williampascoe7954
    @williampascoe7954 11 місяців тому +1

    Why so much repetition?

  • @drandrewallan
    @drandrewallan 5 місяців тому +1

    Sorry but they have no got anything like the US navy’s nuclear carriers!

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      These are only 50m shorter and there is a good reason not to go nuclear and very few good reasons.

    • @WestwickKnightley-w5r
      @WestwickKnightley-w5r Місяць тому

      Yeah, I guess the British really like filling up at 3,000,000 gallons of fossil fuel for primary propulsion!!
      Nuclear energy would future proof the ships. Emals and lasers are not options now.

  • @57menjr
    @57menjr Рік тому +3

    Nothing shocking small !

  • @harrykey2448
    @harrykey2448 6 місяців тому +2

    Looks like a big target to me.
    Better off spending the money on land based aircraft. missiles and missile defence systems.

  • @JC-kz3ut
    @JC-kz3ut 5 місяців тому +1

    Disgrace that they are "protected" by 5 dinghies either side. Since when did we let the Septics be the model example of what a navy should look like?

  • @No-timeforimbeciles
    @No-timeforimbeciles 3 місяці тому +1

    HMS Queen Elizabeth is currently in dry dock for repairs, this is shocking to world, not even 6 years in service, maybe one day britain will have both in service at same time. !!

    • @neilsbs8273
      @neilsbs8273 Місяць тому

      Its actually been launched 10 years and 7 in service. Every major warship has a docking down every 5 years or so. Its a non event, preventative maintenance is required on every ship from a 20mtr survey vessel to a 65000 ton aircraft carrier.

    • @No-timeforimbeciles
      @No-timeforimbeciles Місяць тому

      @@neilsbs8273 😂😂😂😂😂, yes okay, you continue telling yourself that if it makes you feel better !

  • @Gsmooth10455
    @Gsmooth10455 Рік тому +1

    I love HMS QE, but how exactly did it "shock the world?

    • @ianclegg9572
      @ianclegg9572 10 місяців тому +1

      The shock is it got Built

  • @christianterraes8334
    @christianterraes8334 5 місяців тому +1

    Très bien 👍.... Une bonne flotte.

  • @frankthompson6503
    @frankthompson6503 10 місяців тому +1

    3 Rd British aircraft carrier HMS Charles

  • @liewjames2852
    @liewjames2852 10 місяців тому +2

    What is shocking is how much it costs !

    • @davidbrown2571
      @davidbrown2571 9 місяців тому +1

      The cost is large, BUT not as large as the money our governments waste , but they aren't bothered as they can raise your tax.

    • @Orbital_Inclination
      @Orbital_Inclination 8 місяців тому +1

      Around a quarter of the cost of a US carrier

  • @vishaldhekale
    @vishaldhekale Рік тому +3

    😂😂

  • @mariuskuhrau761
    @mariuskuhrau761 Рік тому +3

    Yep, but the British Aircraft Carrier uses steam turbine propulsion which means it has to be refueled on a regular basis, while the Americans Aircraft Carriers uses nuclear propulsion and will last probably its entire lifespan. The clip that starts at 05:10 clearly shows a large flotilla of several USA Aircraft carriers and other strategic supporting vessels, including a submarine or two somewhere beneath all those ships

    • @Radictor44
      @Radictor44 Рік тому +7

      US carriers still need support for food and jet fuel replacement. So even though British carriers use diesel & electrical generators, both nations carriers still require support vessels for food & jet fuel, so carrying along diesel as well isn't a problem. Besides for the Brits, it's cheaper and still just as effective, so can't blame them really.

    • @glastonbury4304
      @glastonbury4304 Рік тому +3

      ​@Radictor44 ...plus the QE Carriers can dock anywhere in the world, whilst Nuclear Carriers can't, plus whats the point in nuclear propulsion, other than for Subs!!

    • @g8ymw
      @g8ymw Рік тому +5

      The Royal Navy carriers are NOT steam turbine.
      They have two Rolls Royce gas turbines and 4 diesel gererator sets
      The last steam turbine carrier to serve in the Royal Navy was HMS Hermes R12

    • @glastonbury4304
      @glastonbury4304 Рік тому

      @@g8ymw ...exactly

    • @Gsmooth10455
      @Gsmooth10455 Рік тому

      @@glastonbury4304 Nuclear carriers only need to dock where they have to be. Who cares if they can't dock in NY City, Miami, London, Sao Paulo Brazil, Finland, or Nova Scotia. If war breaks out that's not where they're going to need to be. On the West Coast of the US they're docked in San Diego, the Pacific fleet is docked in Guam and Japan. The Atlantic fleet is anchored in Virginia and Jacksonville Florida. So your comment that "Nuclear Carriers can't dock anywhere in the world" is as useless and worthless as telling a homeless person that "if you're homeless then buy a house".