Great video. As a former US carrier aviator, the one disadvantage you mentioned does not make sense to me. On US carriers, FlyCo, which we call Pri-Fly, is on a different floor of the island than the bridge. So Pri-Fly personnel and bridge personnel do not work side-by-side and have to use wired communication anyway. It works fine. Frankly, I would not want bridge personnel next to me in Pri-Fly. It would be very distracting. There are times in Pri-Fly everyone needs to shut up except for the Air Boss. The chatter on the bridge is constant.
I wont say there wont be times where things get a little hectic on the carrier. But since there isn't the same kind of problematic landings or the chances of them in the same way due to the vertical landing of the f35s versus of coursee arresting wire landings. So I suppose working side by side will be beneficial in this case. Something which they will be missing. But I do think there is advantage in less cross chatter so I think its also a good thing. :D
I can honestly say that I believe the twin island option is a stroke of genius idea. The fact that there's redundancy will ensure the command of operations continues should the forward one get hit
I mean single island carriers have that redundancy in the form of a CIC bunker deep within the ship. This could be a more space maximizing effort to give the air ops/traffic tower more space. I mean look at it. Its a full grown civilian airport control tower with massive windows and big screens compared to air control section of many carriers’ towers
The arc royal wasn't "lost," we decided it could seem impolite to carry on winning with this particular carrier after it was dented and a bit scruffy looking...
HMS Prince of Wales was commissioned on 10 December 2019. The ship's commissioning date maked the 78th anniversary of the sinking of her predecessor which was lost in action along with HMS Repulse in 1941
Being American, and being used to see single island carriers, I think the engineering, and battle survivability, and use of the elevator between the two islands in a genius move. British Carriers don't have the real estate of American Carriers with their off center, slanted decks. So it's a brilliant solution to a legitimate problem. Sometimes less is more.
They were going to have two islands and a different deck layout but that never progressed, but i guess it's possible in the future to be modified and things installed if necessary. These are certainly some big ships, there's footage of this one with a nimitz ,very similar in size..royal navy carriers seem taller though
US and UK carriers operate very different aircraft, which are launched and recovered at very different airspeed. Didja notice the "ski-jump" ramp for take-off on the QE? None on US CVs.
@@sameerthakur720 I was in Australia once and complained that the beer was so cold it hurt my teeth. An Aussie replied, "listen mate, we like to drink it, not shave in it".
Fun fact: that’s how the venator class star destroyers functioned, with their two command bridges. One for flight control and the other for ship control.
@Garrett Canavan Yeah. I know some people have designed battle-carriers (as I call them). If you look up iowa class battleship on google images and scroll down a bit you may see what I'm talking about.
@@sunnyjim1355 Don't think so. We beat the tar out of the Jolly Jack Tars and Red Skirts, kicked them out and sent them home like little girls. So nope.
I'll keep this in mind when I make my first Aircraft Carrier purchase. EDIT: I was able to secure my very first 333m fleet carrier. Shes definitely a fixer upper and I'll need to obtain my own fleet first before I can go carrying it around the 7 seas, but you gotta start somewhere.
You are sort of right about the turbulence issue. However, it was not part of the original concept, it was only when windflow tests were done on large scale models that it was discovered that the turbulence from the front island mixed in with that from the rear one and they almost cancelled each other out. Many carriers have a major problem with downward trubulence just behind the ship (not on the flight deck as you say) - just where you really don't want it when approaching from astern. These ships don't have this problem. In fact when going back to a one island design was considered this became one of the overriding factors not to do so.
I actually like it but mainly for the flight controls visibility. I spent 5 years on the USS Kitty Hawk and flight deck line of sight was always something that would set the air boss off in a heartbeat. Even if we werent doing flight ops. If you were on the flying bridge, you stayed out of air boss's line of sight with the flight deck.
@@kw8757 Would have been better if we had kept the carrier based Buccaneers though, instead of relegating them to RAF airfields. They would flown completely below the Argentinian radar and utterly destroyed Port Stanley runway with ease.
@@bobhodgson3113 There was no need to utterly destroy the runway. If we had wanted to the Black Buck Vulcan would have flown down the length of it and dropped all its bombs on it instead of dropping them across it.
British design is top notch. Most Nato designs are designed in UK. Wired in Israel and coded in the Netherlands. The high precision parts are made in the UK. Shipped to Germany for tooling and fitting and then returned to the UK for final completion. Source I have an uncle in the army who works on the logistics of protecting all the tanks and fighter parts as they are shipped around the world to be finished off 10 miles away from where they get started. (Most aircraft spend more time being flown from factory to factory than on combat operations)
@@elikorn8777 Both carriers were assembled entirely in the UK. Obviously we bought some components overseas, but they all came to the UK to be attached.
Everyone have a different opinion, but this is the best aircraft carrier design I never saw, It's beautiful. Good job Brits🇩🇪🇬🇧. And for the man of the channel, nice work. * Proceeding to subscribe *
These ships are essentially 4 ships, sealed units, working in close proximity! Each diesel generator has a complete set of controls, fuel supply, cooling systems etc. independent of all the others. Each produces sufficient electrical power for one tractor motor. All 4 together produce all the ship's hotel service power and a surplus for each tractor motor. On top of this are two widely separated gas turbine engines for a speed boost to give the strategic speed required to move to trouble spots. These are extremely innovative ships.
On my last USN cruise 1989 our ship operated two jet engines, essentially the same ones as on a DC 10. For six months, they were Never ever shut down. They would power the ship from full stop to 90% of full speed in just about 7 minutes. And it took another 5 minutes to achieve full speed.
@AKUJIRULE No, it had separate electricity generator s also, if the Mane engines shut down.Ok to good range at 20knots. Point is you got nearly immediate power for speed, and the engines were robust, didn't break much. well armed. That is the Spurance class, all retired now. US Navy likes to keep fuel bunkers filled all the time. Great maneuverability. Good electronics suits. Lot off dependable bang for the buck.
I wonder if the two islands hate each other, then it would be proper British. Maybe they have football matches on the flight deck and it all kicks off.
We agree. Our comment about the “look” was a bit of a joke, but during our research we found out that some had actually criticized the design because of the the way it looks.
We appreciate the feedback. We plan to issue short and long video on these topics. The short ones are quick and to the point, and the long ones would cover the topics in more detail. Stay tuned!
@@NotWhatYouThink HAHAHA, I nearly spat my tea out when you said does she look ugly, looks are not even on the list of priorities when capability and effectiveness are all important.
If we are going based purely off of looks alone, I think the Twin Island design looks awesome and far superior compared to most other carrier island designs. It looks cleaner and makes the ship look more like an airport at sea than ever before.
The twin island design I believe is a good idea especially for survivability- both functions can be carried out from either tower if one is compromised. Where we really cocked up, I think is the ski ramp chosen over cat-n-trap. Just look at the range of aircraft supported on American carriers, everything from awac, to transporters. That makes them infinitely more versatile in their mission roll. We are stuck with the still awaited compliment of F35s and helicopters. Flying out crew or supplies, dropping off combat personnel, thats all limited to what you can fit - and the range of helicopters on this carrier.
In America we do redundancy with 20 aircraft carriers, ten of which are super carriers. Heading said that I can honestly say that none of our carriers are quite as slick and attractive as the Queen Elizabeth. Well done GB. Hers is a brilliant well thought out design.
I think the design is awesome. Brits really do think about every situation and design to accommodate redundancies into everything they build. I believe in years to come designs will change with the introduction of UAV’s. We will see a totally autonomous carrier in the future
Fantastic idea/design! While the USA has some big aircraft carriers, we have the British to thank for the following: Angled flight deck Steam catapult Landing light system Well done, POMEs. ;-) (POME= Prisoners of Mother England.) I loved living in Market Harborough for 3 years. Love the place and the people.
@@NJ-wb1cz That's a very strange take on warfare. Countries that are unable to hurt the attacker are usually attacked. Have a chat with the Ukraine about whether an aircraft carrier would have helped them to ward off Russian attention in the Crimea. If you have a bigger stick than the bully, the bully thinks twice about taking you on.
@@EduardvanKleef Angled flight decks are for planes that are landing at speed. If the arrestor wire doesn't catch the landing plane, they need a safe exit strategy, which is basically to re-engage the engines and shoot off the side and come back around again. If they landed along the full length of the ship, the whole flight deck would need to be cleared to allow the emergency space for taking off again. This is why catapult-equipped carriers have their primary catapults at the bow of the ship, with angled flight deck towards the rear, so take off and landing can be conducted at the same time. F35Bs for the most part land vertically, so they don't need the same failed landing exit strategy. The Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing procedure is the closest they get and is only needed for fully loaded (aka 'beast mode') and heavily fueled F35B planes returning to the ship when they are too heavy to land vertically. Even in this mode however, F35Bs can land in relatively short distances since their approach speed is much lower compared to conventional carrier aircraft and do not use arrestor wires to stop themselves. They also wouldn't have the airspeed to take off again if things went wrong so it is better for the QE class to allow them to roll to a gentle stop along the full length of the flight deck on those few occasions where it is needed.
The air turbulence software on the planes had to be rewritten for two islands. Heard this from a BAE design engineer working on this project. Interesting video.
I deployed on CVN 75 for 9 months to the Middle East. While in Spain, we picked up over 100 Royal Navy sailors to accompany us throughout the tour. Their primary goal was to be trained in all manners pertaining to flight-operations. We all got along wonderfully, and those Brits took home to England valuable lessons of how to safely conduct flight ops. I'd like to say I somehow indirectly contributed to the safe operations onboard the HMS Prince of Wales. Sincerely, a friend across the pond.
Hi Nicolas, I have always been a massive fan of American carriers with their ability to launch and land almost anything with wings. Iwas deeply disappointed when we opted for the ski ramp over cat-n-trap. What are your thoughts?
@@gorway7 There's a difference in budgets per ship. The cost to build out American sized carriers is huge. Also the sizes of the crew are enormous. Britain doesn't have the budget to operate those huge resources. Steam launch (or equivalent) launch systems require maintenance and crewing too. Also, the British carrier is conventionally driven while American carriers are nuclear. Being nuclear powered ships, that can limit their ports of call or waters they can operate in. Nuclear powered ships also require an entire team of experts in those sciences on-board. Of course the more crew you add the more crew that's needed to service that crew and the more space you need for all of that plus their provisions.
@@gorway7 I wish you had went with the Electromagnetic launch catapult system instead of the ski jump. That limits you for length of aircraft. It also does away with the use of steam, which can reduce some heat and humidity on that section of the flight deck.
@@fakshen1973 The truth is that the UK can't afford any aircraft carriers with their tiny military budget As the UK wants to keep the subs with the rocket with their atomic warheads.
@@loganmarriott514 600 actuall for the ships company but obviously much larger when the air group is on board - about 1500 then. the new US carriers are about 5000!!
@@larryjeram-croft1692 One of the issues driving crew size on US carriers is a philosophy of being able to operate everything manually. Automation is great until it doesn't work. If you get down to a port and report watch rotation no one gets sleep and crew fatigue becomes a huge factor. When we tried to reduce crew size and training things like Fitzgerald and McCain happened.
It seems pretty innovative, looks like a lot of thought went into it’s design, for instance the lifts to the hangars on the Invisible weren’t in ideal places. The two islands look like a good idea and the ship can still function if one of them is compromised, and they look good and distinctive. Looks like the navy got what they wanted a carrier to be like!
I mean, at least at the moment, major nations not involved in any war directly. Having a good looking equipments don't hurt much. But yeah function over form any day of the week.
@Nema više muslimanskih dildoa noice. I was a PFC myself. After I got out, I went to medical school, became a full doc. I actually live in the UK now cause my wife is British, but amen to that. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
@@Egilhelmson Modern warships are designed so that the engines can be removed through the funnel trunking, especially gas turbines that are changed after a specified number of hours, so yes, they do need to be directly below the exhaust.
Great memories of having served on the Audacious class aircraft carrier HMS Eagle RO5 1971 - 1972. 17th birthday out in the South China Sea on our 9 month far East cruise.
Prior to the island on a carrier such ships were called flat tops, the British were the first to invented the island structure. As Britain has led the world in ship design for centuries, it is no great surprise that they should be the first with the twin island.
The colonists had first steamboat line, first ironclad, first nuclear warship, first nuclear cargo ship and first missiles fired from undersea. Now, your turn.
@@jamescpalmer I can see them both from the bedroom window and have been fortunate enough to take a boat out to be alongside when they have come in and out of the harbour. They are truly impressive up close, makes me proud to be a local. If and when you visit here’s the tourist boat details www.portsmouth-boat-trips.co.uk 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🤓🤓🤓
I’ve been fortunate enough to see HMS Queen Elizabeth in port and was especially fortunate to see her docking. I think she looks lower and leaner than other large carriers. A lovely ship, very elegant.
I too was lucky to have seen her, and HMS Prince of Wales in dock in Portsmouth. We also did a tour of the harbour and got pretty close to them both on the water (a lot closer than I thought they'd let you get) and they are BIG! Then the nice man on HMS Victory let me into the Captains cabin ( the roped off part) and I managed to get photo's of HMS Queen Elizabeth through Admiral Nelson's windows!
@@chrissavill8713 HMS Victory and two new carriers. Sounds a great day!! I’ve haven’t seen HMS Prince of Wales yet. Seeing the two carriers together must have been a very proud sight.
@@nor0845 Yes, it was a great day seeing the carriers together, HMS Victory, Warrior, Mary Rose museum etc, the walk through the submarine was cool too and then doing the tour by water topped it off! As the ticket lasted for a year I have since been back... 4 times I think was. :) I can highly recommend the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard , it's a great day out for all the family and there is absolutely loads to see and do.....
I saw HMPoW in Liverpool, she's huge, just sitting at the dockside she projected power. After many years of neglect the UK is reawakening and reasserting her military prowess. With regards to communication between the towers, I don't see an issue. All operators are using headsets and whether they are talking to a station a couple of desks away or in the next tower there's no real difference. If cabling is damaged there's always radio! Finally, I'm immensely proud of all our military services, they represent some of the best that we have to offer.
@Goyim Shekelberg To be honest frigates would do the job just as well and be much cheaper and more flexible in terms of the roles they can fulfill. Todays naval warfare is more littoral than anything and with the increasing usage of small drones that could be used to carry explosives and etc. Large Surface ships of previous decades wouldn't survive very long in an all out war against a major power. That being said large ships do look cool but then again so do large Napoleonic line formations.
@Goyim Shekelberg Just because the US does something doesn't make it right or wrong each country has to use its resources to its maximum potential to achieve the goals of their militaries. For the American Navy its to project power across the globe and protect vital shipping lanes in multiple regions at the same time. The Chinese navy is mostly old cold war era soviet ships that are really for regional security. The few modern ships they do have the crews don't have vast combat or operational experience compared to say neighboring countries like India.
@Goyim Shekelberg You are right but we have come off topic. The main question was why does Britain need more large surface warfare ships like Destroyers meant for ship to ship action when their focus should be making more escorts for their carriers like frigates which can handle missions such as ASW and AA with much more efficiency. Destroyers are good to have dont get me wrong but a lot of the frigates in service with the Royal Navy where built and designed during the Cold War which was over 30 years ago no matter who much you retrofit and upgrade these ships it would in the long run be much cheaper to replace them with newer ships as the Royal Navy are doing with the type 26 frigates.
@Goyim Shekelberg You make it seem like the Indian Navy is the only one capable of having major accidents. This is the most recent one but if you look you can find countless accidents within the past decade in the us navy alone. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6)#July_2020_fire
When you are trying to dispatch or receive large numbers of aircraft in a short space of time, you need some sort of plan, and it helps both the deck crews and the air crew enormously to know where they are in the queue.
Funny story. When I was a kid, I thought that the "British Navy" and "Royal Navy" where two different things. My stupid child self thought that the Royal Navy was the Queen's personal military that she could use for personal stuff. I was a dumb kid.
@@Mightiflier dude, in what way was I kissing ass to the british? I just said I mistook something as a child about people referring to their navy in two different ways. Calm the fuck down. Oh, and if anything, the Soviets paid for the victory in ww2 far more than we did. Chill the fuck out and step off your fucking high horse.
just asking. The redundancy scenarios may work in WW2 in the North Sea or Pacific. The 21st century naval warfare is about beyond visual range missiles - Sea skimming supersonic cruise or the new terror - the cruise cum torpedo or even a strike submarine. One hit on the water line or below (better on the aft where the propulsion is located) or on the flight deck makes this twin island elephant a toothless sitting duck for further decapitating strikes. The last line of defence against missiles would be CIWS which would score self goals taking down the other island first. Today missiles have trajectory correcting guidance that can exploit the blind spots to take that catasthrophic hit. Carriers move in a carrier group that protect the carrier but that cancels the surprise and stealth factors. What were the design engineers thinking?
To be fair the Royal Navy is one of the few Navies who have had some experience with taking damage from more modern sea skimming missiles, so they have applied a lot of those lessons. HMS Glamorgan for example had an Exocet skid across their deck before exploding, the ship survived that attack. HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet missile, and while it eventually sunk, that was after damage control couldn't contain the fires and it was abandoned, even then it took about a week to actually sink. Redundancy isn't just for the event that they're hit by a missile though, any other number of events that could cause damage to the engine room like fires, floods and other things that are independent of an enemy attack. On top of that, large ships like carriers are still notoriously difficult to sink, yes there are many scenarios where they could be seriously crippled, but that isn't really an argument against the twin island design, it just makes sense to plan for any eventuality even if in some scenarios it may not help.
There are many things on both QE and PoW that would make Chinese and Russian mouths go dry. One day, we might let them know what they are, because it's good fun to scare playground bullies.
One cannot help but think the USA would be well off getting a few QEC carriers. Building it using one of the Bechtel A1B reactors that the USS Ford utilizes for power could make sense. By doing this but using CATOBAR and one reactor instead of two like the USS Ford costs would be greatly reduced while the ship could use all of the aircraft of a Ford class. That reactor would provide the ship with 200-300 MW of electricity and unlimited range at a greatly reduced price than the Ford class. Even a few ships just as the QEC are would greatly improve the Marines capabilities, but the single reactor version with CATOBAR would allow the navy to affordably keep more carriers active
Kinda pointless advantage when you put HMS QE sheer size into the equation but an advantage nonetheless. Size note, I have some American friends that are astonished that our Aircraft Carriers aren't nuclear powered despite the size.
@@TamamoF0X The reasoning behind the non nuclear design is an interesting one, I though it was odd too at first but the primary advantage of nuclear power is extreme range, great on a sub, where you can stay underwater pretty much until your food runs out but a carriers job is launching planes, and its the aviation fuel that runs out long before a nuclear carrier needs refuelling. The thought is why pay for a more expensive nuclear reactor when you’ll still need a tanker in the fleet full of fuel for the planes if you want to operate for a long time, the nuke really isn’t giving you much
@@maxkennedy8075 Non nuclear design is cheaper. No catapult == more planes == defensive in nature. Also if you do not want to harass people 10,000 miles away from home no need to have nuclear power. Hence Soviet design with a smaller ship / hybrid in the 1970/80s. If you are only extending the range against enemy bombers off your shore there is little need to have nukes to power you. If you don't need to load planes for heavy strike missions there is little need for catapults (at least powerful ones).
@@maxkennedy8075 pretty sure the main reason is because the UK simply cant decommission and scrap nuclear ships. Well they can, but they only have 1 port and it's full. They still trying to scrap 2 nuclear submarines from YEARS back to this day.
@@nabara6949 you're not wrong. im british and even i think our language is weird. so many strange inconsistencies and all those words like "there", "their" and "they're" that all sound exactly the same but have wildly different meanings.
@@TheFloorface There are worse examples than "there". How about "present" which has 3 meanings I can immediately think of: a gift (as in to give a present); now in time (the present tense); and to show something (as in to present a presentation). Worse still, the pronunciation changes in the last of those 3 examples, but is the same in the first 2. It's barking mad! I agree that adding an "s" on the end of inherently plural words is a very common non-native speaker's error, e.g. sheeps.
I just finished as part of a team building the exhaust on a RAN ship, 4 Wartsila diesel generators. There's a lot to consider in the exhaust for a ship which has an air wing, on this ship the exhaust came out the rear above the stern door. What this meant was that there was an accumulation of hot air to astern of the ship, hot air being less dense caused danger in landing helicopters on the flight deck. Naval exhausts are made of stainless pipe section with flexible stainless bellows which have a concertina shape to handle thermal expansion and vibration/flexing of the ship. They can have a water jacket or just have lagging (wet or dry exhaust).
As a Navy veteran this design is awesome! Any time we had the chance to conduct operations with other navies was the highlight of the cruise for me. Seeing the foreign designs was really cool. I would have loved to see this ship coming over the horizon.
Why am I watching this, I don't even own an aircraft carrier...
Because after you have watched this you can decide better which one to buy! :D
Not with an attitude like that, my guy
I've just put a down payment on my own air craft carrier and they said nothing about a second island! :/
@@jaroslavsevcik3421 yeah but there’s not much in the used market these days.
Ya but one day you might. Work hard enough save your money...
There's one for the rear-admiral and one for the front-admiral.
GETOUT!!!!➡➡➡➡
Very unfunny
Don't listen to Omar, that was awesome!
@@MonkeyJedi99 No worries I don't care about them, that's still 314 likes for me and 1 to 4 for them to this date so they're the unfunniest kind.😂
🤣
The other advantage is that against a numerically superior foe, it can split into two smaller carriers to even things up.
I think it also transforms into a super robot... with two heads!
Yeah, and why do I get the Jedi Cruiser stuck in my head? I guess the common theme is two islands.
What if there are three enemy carriers though????
Also, the rear island can separate and become airborne for strategic purposes, if needed.
Only if you have a good magician with a saw !
Argintina has already put a claim into the United nations that these two islands belong to them
Too funny!
And they call them "Las Bridgeas" and "Las Flightcontrolas"
Bravo 👏 and they have us much claim to those as the Falklands
@@alfonsomartinezinfante6685 change the flag and its not British. That's how it works.
Heard that China is claiming it as theirs also, they said they have a map to prove it
Great video. As a former US carrier aviator, the one disadvantage you mentioned does not make sense to me. On US carriers, FlyCo, which we call Pri-Fly, is on a different floor of the island than the bridge. So Pri-Fly personnel and bridge personnel do not work side-by-side and have to use wired communication anyway. It works fine. Frankly, I would not want bridge personnel next to me in Pri-Fly. It would be very distracting. There are times in Pri-Fly everyone needs to shut up except for the Air Boss. The chatter on the bridge is constant.
sure, but then you could presumably use a tactical broom to pound on the ceiling if they don't do as requested
I wont say there wont be times where things get a little hectic on the carrier. But since there isn't the same kind of problematic landings or the chances of them in the same way due to the vertical landing of the f35s versus of coursee arresting wire landings. So I suppose working side by side will be beneficial in this case. Something which they will be missing. But I do think there is advantage in less cross chatter so I think its also a good thing. :D
thanks for your insight!
We're British, we have islands everywhere ...
Brilliant 😂😂👍🏼
Please send the carrier back to Hong Kong Island.
Good one...
@@brothergrimaldus3836 ...?
You cheeky bastard 😂👏
I can honestly say that I believe the twin island option is a stroke of genius idea. The fact that there's redundancy will ensure the command of operations continues should the forward one get hit
sometimes you just have to try something different! it does looks great in our view
Thank you for your nice comment :-)
What if the enemy comes around to fire ANOTHER missile after destroying the first tower?
@@largol33t1 that's when you bring out the next carrier!
I mean single island carriers have that redundancy in the form of a CIC bunker deep within the ship.
This could be a more space maximizing effort to give the air ops/traffic tower more space. I mean look at it. Its a full grown civilian airport control tower with massive windows and big screens compared to air control section of many carriers’ towers
The arc royal wasn't "lost," we decided it could seem impolite to carry on winning with this particular carrier after it was dented and a bit scruffy looking...
Haha
HMS Prince of Wales was commissioned on 10 December 2019. The ship's commissioning date maked the 78th anniversary of the sinking of her predecessor which was lost in action along with HMS Repulse in 1941
I really enjoyed the ships commissioning. It was a grate event. And much champers was drank.
I remember the original prince of whales which ran away from the bismarck and prince Eugen after her ally hood was well blown apart in battle
_Cries in "Neratte...POM!"_
@@theT3901 You mean the one who's sister ship sunk the Bismarck, and the other sister that sunk the Scharnhorst?
@@TayebMC The Nelson Class Battleships?
Looks cool. almost "Futuristic" even. And the redundancy factor is a hands down winner.
they just riped off the venator class
@@TimOsman88 ah Star Wars ye :D :D
Tells the enemy where to aim ?! 😂
The ramp makes it look old
@@noahmoss6634 Where do you aim? Could it be for the hunk of floating metal? Is this supposed to be a secret?
Being American, and being used to see single island carriers, I think the engineering, and battle survivability, and use of the elevator between the two islands in a genius move. British Carriers don't have the real estate of American Carriers with their off center, slanted decks. So it's a brilliant solution to a legitimate problem. Sometimes less is more.
They were going to have two islands and a different deck layout but that never progressed, but i guess it's possible in the future to be modified and things installed if necessary. These are certainly some big ships, there's footage of this one with a nimitz ,very similar in size..royal navy carriers seem taller though
US and UK carriers operate very different aircraft, which are launched and recovered at very different airspeed. Didja notice the "ski-jump" ramp for take-off on the QE? None on US CVs.
Well it's been built to be retrofittable to handle CATOBAR in the future if deemed necessary - expensive though.
@@N330AA we just have to wait for the chinese to shave off the ramp for use so we can install the catobar as a retrofit.
@@georgethompson1460Why not a catapult that leads to a ramp? haha
The second islands is for " Tea Storage ".
...and the second island for warm beer.
@@sameerthakur720 no that's wrong we have the Americans to thank for warm beer.
@@muckspreader1able I've read a historical record from 50 BC (Asterix in Britain), which proves that Brits had warm beer in those times.😂🤣😂🤣
@@sameerthakur720 I was in Australia once and complained that the beer was so cold it hurt my teeth. An Aussie replied, "listen mate, we like to drink it, not shave in it".
A tea-making facility not tea storage
They built two islands for social distancing.
Yes.
Oh, thank you for that. really handed me a laugh. Well done.l
haha so funny :/
@@om-gha :/
say hi to Nancy for me
Fun fact: that’s how the venator class star destroyers functioned, with their two command bridges. One for flight control and the other for ship control.
I like where this is going
@@djt7447 Giggity, giggity, giggedy!
However, the republic used Venator only fleet for many battles.
@Garrett Canavan Yeah. I know some people have designed battle-carriers (as I call them). If you look up iowa class battleship on google images and scroll down a bit you may see what I'm talking about.
Exactly what I was thinking!
It looks amazing, the Royal Navy is ready for the 21st century it seems, well done. Grts from Belgium
Ready for the 21st century. With windows XP....
Thank you !
@@JrTr_03 It's old, but, it's very stable. That stability is more important than people realise
@@JrTr_03 it's used in a lot more modern shit than you realise. The US still uses it
A diesel carrier in a world of nuclear ships
We're getting closer and closer to a Venator Class Star Destroyer with every carrier design.
And we will have peace.
@@Frizzleman Peace in our new empire.
@@brandonmin6204 Peace and security*
How do you think we get to be a galaxy wide fascist dictatorship anyway?
Remember, if it isn’t obvious or confusing, it isn’t British
Don't know about that. British cars, and the Centurion tank, are a bastard to work on … or they were back in the day.
Australian my friend.
Or Canadian, Australian.
@@MegaPeedee in britain we dont have british cars ourselves, we have cars from different countries, so no wonder they are complicated
Like the oil filter of a Land Rover Freeland 2.
Being a former U.S. aviation sailor I have to say I am impressed I love the idea and it looks great. I would love to see one up close.
I saw the Prince of wales it’s beautiful mean looking and spacious inside it just needed a pool on the top and id live there
"I would love to see one up close." Be carful what you wish for... you might just get it. 😈
@@UA-camstolemylife used to see it every other day. Pretty ship tho it’s buggered of somewhere I think
@@sunnyjim1355 Don't think so. We beat the tar out of the Jolly Jack Tars and Red Skirts, kicked them out and sent them home like little girls. So nope.
Sail in out out of Portsmouth on a Brittany Ferry to France and you'll sometimes see both very up close indeed!
If this was BRIGHT SIDE, This video would be more than 10 minutes long.
If this was Bright Side, I wouldn't believe any of it.
So true
But what if an invisible shell hit the aft island? Would definitely be in the bright side video
Yeah Bright Side drag stuff out so much.
I swear bright side only drag out videos to 10 minutes because the required length to make money off a video is 10 minutes
I'll keep this in mind when I make my first Aircraft Carrier purchase.
EDIT: I was able to secure my very first 333m fleet carrier. Shes definitely a fixer upper and I'll need to obtain my own fleet first before I can go carrying it around the 7 seas, but you gotta start somewhere.
F*ck it, I'm going three islands!
Let's make that 4
One island is party island.
Hammerite isn`t bad until you can afford the real paint.
If you need crew I’ll cook food or whatever
You are sort of right about the turbulence issue. However, it was not part of the original concept, it was only when windflow tests were done on large scale models that it was discovered that the turbulence from the front island mixed in with that from the rear one and they almost cancelled each other out. Many carriers have a major problem with downward trubulence just behind the ship (not on the flight deck as you say) - just where you really don't want it when approaching from astern. These ships don't have this problem. In fact when going back to a one island design was considered this became one of the overriding factors not to do so.
A "bonus" feature it seems..
The ski jump concept sucks
@@jamessveinsson6006 Well, the aeroplanes would have a greatly reduced payload/range without it!
@@jamessveinsson6006 And catapults suck when they stop working. Not to mention arrestor wires being very dangerous.
@@jamessveinsson6006 faster sortie rate than catapults.
Pilot: “permission to buzz between the towers”
With all the likes... Pilot: “this looks like a good idea”
Negative the pattern is full.
Best comment
I guarantee that it's probably been asked already! 😂 Brilliant
Now that would be exciting!
Pretty sure every pilot who operates on these carriers has to say that at some point XD
I actually like it but mainly for the flight controls visibility. I spent 5 years on the USS Kitty Hawk and flight deck line of sight was always something that would set the air boss off in a heartbeat. Even if we werent doing flight ops. If you were on the flying bridge, you stayed out of air boss's line of sight with the flight deck.
Intresting fact is why the US never came on the idea to add a "half tower" to the island
@@mammutMK2 I bet the us officials praise it after seeing it in action when onboard. I wonder if they would ever do it
when you were at the kitty hawk, did you happen to be in japan?
1996 - 2000 NAF Atsugi Airman thinks one island is more optimal than 2. RIP Indy and Kitty Hawk.
@@TheVinchan no, I left her while in the gulf during desert storm and stayed there for a few more months.
Stan Lee at 3:46. This guy just never stops with cameos in cool stuff 😎
That arent stan lee
Maybe hes a cosplayer
@@ngockhoanguyen2886 woooooooosh
@@ngockhoanguyen2886 bruh
That guy looks more like Q from James Bond movies.... After all the career is British!
The Royal Navy was the 1st Navy to use aircraft carriers and now they are 1st to use the twin island design. Well done to Britain for naval inovation
And don’t forget we pioneered angled and armoured flight decks, steam catapults, deck landing mirrors and much else besides.
@@davideades9588 Not to mention the Harrier jump jet, key in securing victory in the falklands.
And we grow the best tea in the world... Oh hang on
@@kw8757 Would have been better if we had kept the carrier based Buccaneers though, instead of relegating them to RAF airfields. They would flown completely below the Argentinian radar and utterly destroyed Port Stanley runway with ease.
@@bobhodgson3113 There was no need to utterly destroy the runway. If we had wanted to the Black Buck Vulcan would have flown down the length of it and dropped all its bombs on it instead of dropping them across it.
3:45
The green guy with the moustache has to be the coolest dude to ever live
There seriously should be an action figure of that green dude with the 'stache.
He Looks like hickok45, lol
That's Giorgio Moroder taking a break from music.
That's Stan Lee btw
Magnificent solution! Even though I'm not British, I feel proud of your design. Kind of feels like when you designed the Spitfire!
British design is top notch. Most Nato designs are designed in UK. Wired in Israel and coded in the Netherlands. The high precision parts are made in the UK. Shipped to Germany for tooling and fitting and then returned to the UK for final completion. Source I have an uncle in the army who works on the logistics of protecting all the tanks and fighter parts as they are shipped around the world to be finished off 10 miles away from where they get started. (Most aircraft spend more time being flown from factory to factory than on combat operations)
Aircraft carriers, and most modern aircraft carrier technologies are British Inventions. We industrialised the world.
@@elikorn8777 Both carriers were assembled entirely in the UK. Obviously we bought some components overseas, but they all came to the UK to be attached.
Everyone have a different opinion, but this is the best aircraft carrier design I never saw, It's beautiful. Good job Brits🇩🇪🇬🇧. And for the man of the channel, nice work. * Proceeding to subscribe *
Is the queen Elizabeth class carriers the closest thing we’re got to a Venator class star destroyer
And that is a cool looking vessel.
Yeah with the twin bridges didn't even think of that
Yes a fellow Star Wars fan!
We have a female Palpatine too 🤣🤣
i think the same
These ships are essentially 4 ships, sealed units, working in close proximity! Each diesel generator has a complete set of controls, fuel supply, cooling systems etc. independent of all the others. Each produces sufficient electrical power for one tractor motor. All 4 together produce all the ship's hotel service power and a surplus for each tractor motor. On top of this are two widely separated gas turbine engines for a speed boost to give the strategic speed required to move to trouble spots. These are extremely innovative ships.
On my last USN cruise 1989 our ship operated two jet engines, essentially the same ones as on a DC 10. For six months, they were Never ever shut down. They would power the ship from full stop to 90% of full speed in just about 7 minutes. And it took another 5 minutes to achieve full speed.
They were efficient.
@AKUJIRULE No, it had separate electricity generator s also, if the Mane engines shut down.Ok to good range at 20knots. Point is you got nearly immediate power for speed, and the engines were robust, didn't break much. well armed. That is the Spurance class, all retired now. US Navy likes to keep fuel bunkers filled all the time. Great maneuverability. Good electronics suits. Lot off dependable bang for the buck.
Well duh, it’s British if there was a shortage of islands they wouldn’t feel like they were at home lol
I wonder if the two islands hate each other, then it would be proper British. Maybe they have football matches on the flight deck and it all kicks off.
@@BBoySnakeDogG oh another Britain hater
@@G_Diddler hmmm
@@G_Diddler * Bri Ish hater
@@G_Diddler not a hater honest that's how it is all four major nationalitys hate one another
The Queen Elizabeth class looks
Frigging Awsome..
Amen
"Does it look ugly" - Aesthetics are not a factor when it comes to war machines.
Look is not important but function is important
*Laughs in WW2 German Uniforms and Tanks
It looks fine. It’s got a unique identity too which is great for PR
True. But it is also good when function yields aesthetic beauty
Whoever said it looks ugly doesn’t have able eyes
I'm American and I actually really like this design, visually and functionally.
From my views it looks cool and usability is more important than looks in these cases
We agree. Our comment about the “look” was a bit of a joke, but during our research we found out that some had actually criticized the design because of the the way it looks.
@@NotWhatYouThink btw your videos are really good. The best part of it these are concise than other videos on these types of topic
We appreciate the feedback.
We plan to issue short and long video on these topics. The short ones are quick and to the point, and the long ones would cover the topics in more detail. Stay tuned!
@@NotWhatYouThink HAHAHA, I nearly spat my tea out when you said does she look ugly, looks are not even on the list of priorities when capability and effectiveness are all important.
@@zeromii3234 Your comment makes no sense, I think you need to go back to primary school and learn to write effectively, you utter gobshite.
If we are going based purely off of looks alone, I think the Twin Island design looks awesome and far superior compared to most other carrier island designs. It looks cleaner and makes the ship look more like an airport at sea than ever before.
“To lose one island, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
You get an Oscar for that . . .
This is not ugly! This is masterpiece and tbh i like this desgin more than usual air carft carrier.
Look ugly? Aircraft carriers all fell out the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down as it is. Function outweighs form with these things.
Aircraft carriers look fucking awesome. Especially the U.S. carriers. I just dislike the ramp.
I'd have to disagree. I think carriers look aesthetic as hell, but I still have to agree with function over form.
Not every ship can be Scharnhorst...
How do make an aircraft carrier not look as ugly?
Land helicopters on it that are uglier
Like nuclear weapons.
Does the bridge crew ever swap islands before the captain wakes up, just for fun?
The twin island design I believe is a good idea especially for survivability- both functions can be carried out from either tower if one is compromised. Where we really cocked up, I think is the ski ramp chosen over cat-n-trap. Just look at the range of aircraft supported on American carriers, everything from awac, to transporters. That makes them infinitely more versatile in their mission roll. We are stuck with the still awaited compliment of F35s and helicopters. Flying out crew or supplies, dropping off combat personnel, thats all limited to what you can fit - and the range of helicopters on this carrier.
If this was the infographics show, It would digress into stuff about the USS Gerald R Ford in like 2 seconds
They are crazy patriotic
I worked on these on the clyde ,Beautiful well crafted machines built with love and pride.
Well, string a clothes line between them and you can get a whole load of laundry dried
The Chinese laundry men blocked that idea.
this is the first non-US carrier whose looks i really liked.
My first one was the french one
Charles de Gaulle (R91) looks really sexy
@@t.g.5256 yes
@@iaaf_nw2367 Chinese has a new better one coming this year. I am looking forward to see it.
@@peterw5840 hopefully they dont use it to pressure my countries waters
In America we do redundancy with 20 aircraft carriers, ten of which are super carriers. Heading said that I can honestly say that none of our carriers are quite as slick and attractive as the Queen Elizabeth. Well done GB. Hers is a brilliant well thought out design.
da FUQ you talking about? that design is uglier than jo mama!
Brits are islanders so they gotta have islandy thought. It looks bloody majestically stunning , supposedly second to none , in my opinion.
I think the design is awesome. Brits really do think about every situation and design to accommodate redundancies into everything they build. I believe in years to come designs will change with the introduction of UAV’s. We will see a totally autonomous carrier in the future
"Does it look ugly?"
No, no it doesn't.
Ah, Somebody I agree with.
and even if it did - who cares? This is Function Over Form (which always looks better anyway)
@@TriumphT140 Yo i’m pretty sure its a joke
Looks a lot better than just one Long Island. Have you seen the Indian one 😂 That is the definition of ugly
Oh come on! It does look a bit like yaw mamma!
Who cares if it is ugly, as long as it is effective. Hopefully we don't have to have a war to find out.
>As long as it is effective
Spoiler: it isn't
@@AbleOneOne how so
@@AbleOneOne how do you know? It might be so great that all new aircraft carriers the world over have two islands from now. Only time will tell.
I expect more conflict in the next 4 years , just wait and see.
@@podnolej7784 Would not surprise me in the slightest due to the political situations around the world.
Fantastic idea/design! While the USA has some big aircraft carriers, we have the British to thank for the following:
Angled flight deck
Steam catapult
Landing light system
Well done, POMEs. ;-) (POME= Prisoners of Mother England.) I loved living in Market Harborough for 3 years. Love the place and the people.
Carriers are fundamentally an invasion weapon
Why would any peaceful country have one, let alone several?
You missed off VTOL aircraft !
So why is there no angled flight deck on this one?
@@NJ-wb1cz That's a very strange take on warfare. Countries that are unable to hurt the attacker are usually attacked. Have a chat with the Ukraine about whether an aircraft carrier would have helped them to ward off Russian attention in the Crimea. If you have a bigger stick than the bully, the bully thinks twice about taking you on.
@@EduardvanKleef Angled flight decks are for planes that are landing at speed. If the arrestor wire doesn't catch the landing plane, they need a safe exit strategy, which is basically to re-engage the engines and shoot off the side and come back around again. If they landed along the full length of the ship, the whole flight deck would need to be cleared to allow the emergency space for taking off again. This is why catapult-equipped carriers have their primary catapults at the bow of the ship, with angled flight deck towards the rear, so take off and landing can be conducted at the same time.
F35Bs for the most part land vertically, so they don't need the same failed landing exit strategy. The Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing procedure is the closest they get and is only needed for fully loaded (aka 'beast mode') and heavily fueled F35B planes returning to the ship when they are too heavy to land vertically. Even in this mode however, F35Bs can land in relatively short distances since their approach speed is much lower compared to conventional carrier aircraft and do not use arrestor wires to stop themselves. They also wouldn't have the airspeed to take off again if things went wrong so it is better for the QE class to allow them to roll to a gentle stop along the full length of the flight deck on those few occasions where it is needed.
It’s a sea going venator star destroyer... I’m proud of my navy!
The best star destroyer in all.👌🏼
Why two islands? One to make the tea ofcourse!
Nah, just one to give to China when the lease runs out...
@@Icanhasautomaticcheeseburger bruh 😂😂
One for tea, the other for your momma. The lads love stirring both.
one for tea, and the other for jaffa cake. yeahhh
So that if there's no war they can fight one another
The air turbulence software on the planes had to be rewritten for two islands. Heard this from a BAE design engineer working on this project.
Interesting video.
British: *makes carrier with an island *
Also British: *There is another*
It grew on me as the video went on, I think I actually like the way it looks and the new options it opens the ship too
I deployed on CVN 75 for 9 months to the Middle East. While in Spain, we picked up over 100 Royal Navy sailors to accompany us throughout the tour. Their primary goal was to be trained in all manners pertaining to flight-operations. We all got along wonderfully, and those Brits took home to England valuable lessons of how to safely conduct flight ops. I'd like to say I somehow indirectly contributed to the safe operations onboard the HMS Prince of Wales. Sincerely, a friend across the pond.
Hi Nicolas, I have always been a massive fan of American carriers with their ability to launch and land almost anything with wings. Iwas deeply disappointed when we opted for the ski ramp over cat-n-trap. What are your thoughts?
@@gorway7 There's a difference in budgets per ship. The cost to build out American sized carriers is huge. Also the sizes of the crew are enormous. Britain doesn't have the budget to operate those huge resources. Steam launch (or equivalent) launch systems require maintenance and crewing too.
Also, the British carrier is conventionally driven while American carriers are nuclear. Being nuclear powered ships, that can limit their ports of call or waters they can operate in. Nuclear powered ships also require an entire team of experts in those sciences on-board.
Of course the more crew you add the more crew that's needed to service that crew and the more space you need for all of that plus their provisions.
@@gorway7 I wish you had went with the Electromagnetic launch catapult system instead of the ski jump. That limits you for length of aircraft. It also does away with the use of steam, which can reduce some heat and humidity on that section of the flight deck.
@@fakshen1973 The truth is that the UK can't afford any aircraft carriers with their tiny military budget As the UK wants to keep the subs with the rocket with their atomic warheads.
Do British carriers sail on the left side of ocean ways? 😂
All shipping sails on the left
Everybody does. civilized, like.
Fuck, bet you regret that comment lol
@@tesstickle7267for good reason too!
At least it's not a damned tea joke...
Another consideration is automation, the crew size is significantly reduced to run these ships, than Carries of similar size and aircraft complement.
They can run on on a minimum crew of I believe 700
@@loganmarriott514 600 actuall for the ships company but obviously much larger when the air group is on board - about 1500 then. the new US carriers are about 5000!!
@@larryjeram-croft1692 One of the issues driving crew size on US carriers is a philosophy of being able to operate everything manually. Automation is great until it doesn't work. If you get down to a port and report watch rotation no one gets sleep and crew fatigue becomes a huge factor. When we tried to reduce crew size and training things like Fitzgerald and McCain happened.
It is such a beautiful ship. The UK knocked it out of the park with the design. Well done
It seems pretty innovative, looks like a lot of thought went into it’s design, for instance the lifts to the hangars on the Invisible weren’t in ideal places.
The two islands look like a good idea and the ship can still function if one of them is compromised, and they look good and distinctive.
Looks like the navy got what they wanted a carrier to be like!
You mean, Invincible, not Invisible XD
Whether it "looks ugly" is a silly irrelevance.
Do you want it to survive a war or want it to look nice as it sinks? Most people prefer the former.
@@Shadowdoc26 as if you'd survive a war.
I mean, at least at the moment, major nations not involved in any war directly. Having a good looking equipments don't hurt much. But yeah function over form any day of the week.
@@MrSMLEWeeb I was 68W in the US army. Combat Medic.
@Nema više muslimanskih dildoa noice. I was a PFC myself. After I got out, I went to medical school, became a full doc. I actually live in the UK now cause my wife is British, but amen to that. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
"The engines must be directly below the exhaust."
PLA" Write that down! Write that down!!!
When did nuclear reactors need an exhaust? Oh, it is parallel to the Oriskany, not any commissioned carrier. Just not sunk as a reef, yet.
@@Egilhelmson the carrier is not nuclear powered.
@@Egilhelmson Modern warships are designed so that the engines can be removed through the funnel trunking, especially gas turbines that are changed after a specified number of hours, so yes, they do need to be directly below the exhaust.
PLA's third carrier is already more advanced than the Queen Elizabeth
@@Egilhelmson And nuclear reactor do need an exhaust anyway, just not for fumes but water vapor
Great memories of having served on the Audacious class aircraft carrier HMS Eagle RO5 1971 - 1972. 17th birthday out in the South China Sea on our 9 month far East cruise.
Prior to the island on a carrier such ships were called flat tops, the British were the first to invented the island structure. As Britain has led the world in ship design for centuries, it is no great surprise that they should be the first with the twin island.
carriers are still referred to as flat tops.
@Michael Pezzullo an urban myth, nobody said it was unsinkable
The colonists had first steamboat line, first ironclad, first nuclear warship, first nuclear cargo ship and first missiles fired from undersea. Now, your turn.
The physical features that make current U.S. aircraft carriers instantly recognizable are British inventions.
@@stevek8829 them there colonists are making a pretty shitty job at democracy at the moment aren’t they......
Awesome! Another great carrier for the Royal Navy!
HMS Queen Elizabeth ( R08) and HMS Prince Of Wales(R09) are the largest aircraft carrier built for the Royal Navy
Thank you
Am still waiting for a third HMS Illustrious CV
They are the size of an American LHD
Biggest junk
@@nick21614 about 20/25 thousand tons heavier
I love this look. It is way better looking than a single long tower.
I worked on these in BAE systems on the Clyde in Glasgow , the aircraft carriers and the type 45 destroyers in the fleet
Nice :) Looks like you boys did a great job, me and the missus wanna visit the carriers in Portsmouth when lockdown 3: return to the flat is over.
@@jamescpalmer I can see them both from the bedroom window and have been fortunate enough to take a boat out to be alongside when they have come in and out of the harbour.
They are truly impressive up close, makes me proud to be a local. If and when you visit here’s the tourist boat details www.portsmouth-boat-trips.co.uk
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🤓🤓🤓
I’ve been fortunate enough to see HMS Queen Elizabeth in port and was especially fortunate to see her docking.
I think she looks lower and leaner than other large carriers. A lovely ship, very elegant.
On the only day I’ve spent in Portsmouth in about 40 years I was lucky enough to see HMS Queen Elizabeth heading out on trials.
I too was lucky to have seen her, and HMS Prince of Wales in dock in Portsmouth. We also did a tour of the harbour and got pretty close to them both on the water (a lot closer than I thought they'd let you get) and they are BIG! Then the nice man on HMS Victory let me into the Captains cabin ( the roped off part) and I managed to get photo's of HMS Queen Elizabeth through Admiral Nelson's windows!
@@q.e.d.9112
Lucky indeed! Not many get to see a new carrier. Hope you got pics.
@@chrissavill8713
HMS Victory and two new carriers. Sounds a great day!!
I’ve haven’t seen HMS Prince of Wales yet. Seeing the two carriers together must have been a very proud sight.
@@nor0845 Yes, it was a great day seeing the carriers together, HMS Victory, Warrior, Mary Rose museum etc, the walk through the submarine was cool too and then doing the tour by water topped it off! As the ticket lasted for a year I have since been back... 4 times I think was. :) I can highly recommend the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard , it's a great day out for all the family and there is absolutely loads to see and do.....
Because they saw star wars the clone wars and were like "Wow, those Venator class look so cool"
well it did give the redundancy.. as one of the in early cone wars season got the flight control tower destoryed.
Actually I think it looks super cool, well done Brits, always ahead in carrier design.
I saw HMPoW in Liverpool, she's huge, just sitting at the dockside she projected power.
After many years of neglect the UK is reawakening and reasserting her military prowess.
With regards to communication between the towers, I don't see an issue. All operators are using headsets and whether they are talking to a station a couple of desks away or in the next tower there's no real difference.
If cabling is damaged there's always radio!
Finally, I'm immensely proud of all our military services, they represent some of the best that we have to offer.
Reasserting naval and expeditionary capabilities. Which was something Britain was great at up until the cold war.
@Goyim Shekelberg To be honest frigates would do the job just as well and be much cheaper and more flexible in terms of the roles they can fulfill. Todays naval warfare is more littoral than anything and with the increasing usage of small drones that could be used to carry explosives and etc. Large Surface ships of previous decades wouldn't survive very long in an all out war against a major power. That being said large ships do look cool but then again so do large Napoleonic line formations.
@Goyim Shekelberg Just because the US does something doesn't make it right or wrong each country has to use its resources to its maximum potential to achieve the goals of their militaries. For the American Navy its to project power across the globe and protect vital shipping lanes in multiple regions at the same time. The Chinese navy is mostly old cold war era soviet ships that are really for regional security. The few modern ships they do have the crews don't have vast combat or operational experience compared to say neighboring countries like India.
@Goyim Shekelberg You are right but we have come off topic. The main question was why does Britain need more large surface warfare ships like Destroyers meant for ship to ship action when their focus should be making more escorts for their carriers like frigates which can handle missions such as ASW and AA with much more efficiency. Destroyers are good to have dont get me wrong but a lot of the frigates in service with the Royal Navy where built and designed during the Cold War which was over 30 years ago no matter who much you retrofit and upgrade these ships it would in the long run be much cheaper to replace them with newer ships as the Royal Navy are doing with the type 26 frigates.
@Goyim Shekelberg You make it seem like the Indian Navy is the only one capable of having major accidents. This is the most recent one but if you look you can find countless accidents within the past decade in the us navy alone. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6)#July_2020_fire
it features new methods and advanced and original: ideas, something that we British are brilliant at !!
Funny how the Flyco island has an airport-like like screen showing arrivals and departures, like if operating war machines was that simple.
ATC is ATC no matter where you are
When you are trying to dispatch or receive large numbers of aircraft in a short space of time, you need some sort of plan, and it helps both the deck crews and the air crew enormously to know where they are in the queue.
Beautiful and awesome aircraft carrier 👍
"Not what you think?" I know almost nothing about aircraft carriers, yet it was EXACTLY what I first thought upon seeing the title.
Ahhh yes, the Venator-class star drstroyer
You made my day, I love that comment
As a star wars nerd, i really appreciate the post lol.
Genius!
It’s NOT ‘the British Navy’, it’s THE ROYAL NAVY!🇬🇧
Who cares?
Funny story. When I was a kid, I thought that the "British Navy" and "Royal Navy" where two different things. My stupid child self thought that the Royal Navy was the Queen's personal military that she could use for personal stuff. I was a dumb kid.
@@left-2-write28
Are you an American?
@@Venezolano410 I am. So I suppose being culturally ignorant is expected. Lmao.
@@Mightiflier dude, in what way was I kissing ass to the british? I just said I mistook something as a child about people referring to their navy in two different ways. Calm the fuck down. Oh, and if anything, the Soviets paid for the victory in ww2 far more than we did. Chill the fuck out and step off your fucking high horse.
just asking. The redundancy scenarios may work in WW2 in the North Sea or Pacific. The 21st century naval warfare is about beyond visual range missiles - Sea skimming supersonic cruise or the new terror - the cruise cum torpedo or even a strike submarine. One hit on the water line or below (better on the aft where the propulsion is located) or on the flight deck makes this twin island elephant a toothless sitting duck for further decapitating strikes. The last line of defence against missiles would be CIWS which would score self goals taking down the other island first. Today missiles have trajectory correcting guidance that can exploit the blind spots to take that catasthrophic hit. Carriers move in a carrier group that protect the carrier but that cancels the surprise and stealth factors. What were the design engineers thinking?
To be fair the Royal Navy is one of the few Navies who have had some experience with taking damage from more modern sea skimming missiles, so they have applied a lot of those lessons. HMS Glamorgan for example had an Exocet skid across their deck before exploding, the ship survived that attack. HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet missile, and while it eventually sunk, that was after damage control couldn't contain the fires and it was abandoned, even then it took about a week to actually sink.
Redundancy isn't just for the event that they're hit by a missile though, any other number of events that could cause damage to the engine room like fires, floods and other things that are independent of an enemy attack. On top of that, large ships like carriers are still notoriously difficult to sink, yes there are many scenarios where they could be seriously crippled, but that isn't really an argument against the twin island design, it just makes sense to plan for any eventuality even if in some scenarios it may not help.
Proud to see this up and running and I hope they have some goodies that they can't declare, we need another two though.
There are many things on both QE and PoW that would make Chinese and Russian mouths go dry. One day, we might let them know what they are, because it's good fun to scare playground bullies.
I think it was smart, especially considering the power plant design.
The brits know their stuff when it comes to the oceans.
"I want isles on my floating isle . . . so I can serve the British isles"
*-First Sea Lord Radakin*
Two proton torpedoes into that vent shaft from one rebel pilot who stays on target is all it takes @ 0:46
You mean space wizard?
Not so far fetched imagine 2 small drones less than the 2 metres across dropping in...... game over on the propulsion front
@@saab900classic6 Thats actually a really interesting idea... tiny drones wouldn't be hit by AA fire and could easily mess up an exhaust pipe.
I really think it looks cool and having operational redundancy is a great idea.
To have one island in this age, just isn't cricket. Damn it, we're British!!!
@Darran Sykes Of course it isn't I mean, could it be cricket with a single wicket?
@Anta Go Sorry you feel that way. That statement says a lot about you which isn't much...
Respect for this beauty! Greetings from Germany!
One cannot help but think the USA would be well off getting a few QEC carriers. Building it using one of the Bechtel A1B reactors that the USS Ford utilizes for power could make sense. By doing this but using CATOBAR and one reactor instead of two like the USS Ford costs would be greatly reduced while the ship could use all of the aircraft of a Ford class. That reactor would provide the ship with 200-300 MW of electricity and unlimited range at a greatly reduced price than the Ford class.
Even a few ships just as the QEC are would greatly improve the Marines capabilities, but the single reactor version with CATOBAR would allow the navy to affordably keep more carriers active
The twin island design has another advantage not mentioned.
A reduced radar signature from broadside on.
B
Kinda pointless advantage when you put HMS QE sheer size into the equation but an advantage nonetheless.
Size note, I have some American friends that are astonished that our Aircraft Carriers aren't nuclear powered despite the size.
@@TamamoF0X The reasoning behind the non nuclear design is an interesting one, I though it was odd too at first but the primary advantage of nuclear power is extreme range, great on a sub, where you can stay underwater pretty much until your food runs out but a carriers job is launching planes, and its the aviation fuel that runs out long before a nuclear carrier needs refuelling.
The thought is why pay for a more expensive nuclear reactor when you’ll still need a tanker in the fleet full of fuel for the planes if you want to operate for a long time, the nuke really isn’t giving you much
@@maxkennedy8075 Non nuclear design is cheaper. No catapult == more planes == defensive in nature. Also if you do not want to harass people 10,000 miles away from home no need to have nuclear power. Hence Soviet design with a smaller ship / hybrid in the 1970/80s. If you are only extending the range against enemy bombers off your shore there is little need to have nukes to power you. If you don't need to load planes for heavy strike missions there is little need for catapults (at least powerful ones).
@@maxkennedy8075 pretty sure the main reason is because the UK simply cant decommission and scrap nuclear ships.
Well they can, but they only have 1 port and it's full.
They still trying to scrap 2 nuclear submarines from YEARS back to this day.
@@maxkennedy8075 And also food, water, medicines etc.
The largest majority of early aircraft carrier innovations came from the British. The US just followed in their steps. We owe so very much to them.
Yeah, especially after committing treason on 4th July.🤨🇬🇧
Not completely true youtube : Nimitz Class - Rise of the Aircraft Carrier - Big Bigger Biggest
the plural of aircraft is ‘aircraft’ not ‘aircrafts’.
Thanks for the info
This is a very common mistake , I find in UA-cam videos. Too common
It's english, don't be too harsh. A weirdly difficult language that become international language.
@@nabara6949 you're not wrong. im british and even i think our language is weird. so many strange inconsistencies and all those words like "there", "their" and "they're" that all sound exactly the same but have wildly different meanings.
@@TheFloorface There are worse examples than "there". How about "present" which has 3 meanings I can immediately think of: a gift (as in to give a present); now in time (the present tense); and to show something (as in to present a presentation). Worse still, the pronunciation changes in the last of those 3 examples, but is the same in the first 2. It's barking mad!
I agree that adding an "s" on the end of inherently plural words is a very common non-native speaker's error, e.g. sheeps.
We should just build one big ship with like ten islands, they definitely wouldn’t sink that...
Habakkuk? Make the island the ship.
@@mostevil1082 yeah a ship island, your on to a winner there
the british shoould work on the mainland first and solve their issues with scotland before jumpstarting the empire
@@charlestonianbuilder344 we don't have issues with Scotland, they have issues with England. 💁🏼♂️ 😄
@@charlestonianbuilder344 You seem to be confused. Scotland is part of Great Britain, and it is also part of the United Kingdom
I'm getting Venator class Star Destroyer vibes from it
Royal Navy: A fine addition to our collection
The 2 island design reminds me of the Venator Star Destroyer.
Yes a fellow Star Wars fan 👋
Serious piece of equipment, greta loves it haha
I just finished as part of a team building the exhaust on a RAN ship, 4 Wartsila diesel generators.
There's a lot to consider in the exhaust for a ship which has an air wing, on this ship the exhaust came out the rear above the stern door. What this meant was that there was an accumulation of hot air to astern of the ship, hot air being less dense caused danger in landing helicopters on the flight deck.
Naval exhausts are made of stainless pipe section with flexible stainless bellows which have a concertina shape to handle thermal expansion and vibration/flexing of the ship. They can have a water jacket or just have lagging (wet or dry exhaust).
Watch the queen Elizabeth arrive into Portsmouth Harbour yesterday, I think she looks great, makes me so proud to be British.
Been up close with both QE and Prince of Wales, only when you stand next to a carrier can you comprehend its size
Indeeed. I was at Liverpool. Awesome.
As a Navy veteran this design is awesome!
Any time we had the chance to conduct operations with other navies was the highlight of the cruise for me.
Seeing the foreign designs was really cool. I would have loved to see this ship coming over the horizon.
Useful video.Thanks for clarifying about two islands.