USS Gerald R Ford Vs HMS Queen Elizabeth - Nuclear vs Non-nuclear
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Get 70% off the NordVPN 3-year deal and 1 month free with the coupon code "curiousdroid" deal here: nordvpn.com/curiousdroid
Coupon code: curiousdroid
HMS Queen Elizabeth and the USS Gerald R Ford are the newest, most modern aircraft carriers in the world but why did the UK not go with nuclear to power their carrier like the US.
In this video, we look at the pros and cons of nuclear power carriers in a modern navy, in particular, the Royal Navy.
Written, researched and presented by Paul Shillito
Images and footage: US Navy, Royal Navy, Mod, UK Defence Journal, Jordan Wise
Music from the UA-cam library
Bus Da Blockbuster by Doug Maxwell/Media Right Productions
Descent by Houses of Heaven
Divider by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: chriszabriskie.com/divider/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/
Air Hockey Saloon by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
Source: chriszabriskie.com/vendaface/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/
Juicy by ALBIS
Oxygen Garden by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence
Source: chriszabriskie.com/divider/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/ - Наука та технологія
I can just imagine aircraft carriers 100 years from now, fusion powered, railguns that can shoot down orbiting satellites, lasers, cup holders, the lot!
woah woah woah.... slow down! Cup holders?! you can't have your cake and eat it too. You're gonna have to give up at least lasers if you want cup holders.
Aircraft carriers are nearly obsolete today. The United States has 12 (i believe) and hyper-sonic weapons will certainly replace these anachronisms.
Expect satellites, autonomous submarines and stealth craft for the future.
@@michaelfromaustin psssh, haven't you seen the avengers? it's clearly going to be the extremely logical and fuel efficient hover carriers. I mean why spend money on small affordable hyper-sonic missiles, when you can spend trillions on slow moving hover carriers? Did I mention they would be captained by Samuel L Jackson? haha
Can you say starship enterprise?
@@richtankone there will always be a need for air supremacy at sea. The usefulness of having a mobile, nuclear powered, and extensively armed floating airport will not be surpassed or planned to be phased out for a long time.
As a former US Navy Nuclear Engineer, I can say with honesty, the United Kingdom with its specific budget and specific need to maximize its projected Naval firepower, has made a VERY GOOD set of decisions in keeping their 2 carriers conventionally powered, and gone with using the STOVL F-35B version. Trying to build and maintain only 2 nuclear powered ships with complete customized systems and reactor plants would have been a long term cost overrun nightmare. The US Navy has nuclear design commonality with all of its Ford class carriers using the new A1B reactors. They are expensive, but that design commonality with over a dozen ships, helps maintain "some" budget efficiency.
The UK ships are pretty much akin to the same idea of our small Assault carries that carry the US Marine F-35B (only theirs is much bigger). They're much more cost effective, and much more versatile for the UK that needs a quicker response force. The US Navy has by far the most capability in its Super Carriers, but not without cost, and a more time consuming process to place those assets on station. A Super Carrier doesn't just flip a switch and go out for a spin. Everything the UK did in foregoing the EMALS and Nuclear systems makes complete sense.
If you are you who you claim to be, I wanna say thank you. Too many people acting like they know what they are talking about when it comes to nuclear, well, anything.
Nuclear is complicated it's good having someone on who knows what they're talking about
Ok, but why does it look like it is made by a kid with just 12 legos?
I agree the Brits have two potent lethal ships that serve their national needs. The UK and the US have two different Navies, tho compatible and very much working together, the UK has a different view of naval power....the US does not define Naval power, it simply defines naval power based on it's own national objective, to protect their own interest. Same with the Brits. I just pity the nations that have to wake up to these HMS carriers in their harbor.
MM EM ET? Officer?
No I have to disagree you, forgot the most important factor, that there is a bar on HMS Queen Elizabeth, and therefore is the better ship.
Yeah but it’s just not the Winchester
evan barr not US ships
David Francisco Ive never been on a ship that wasn’t registered out of some 3rd wold nation. So u.s registered ships have prohibition at sea?
Damn, there's a bar? Clearly better.
leo Ng I like a pub
Can I just say... as a Brit, this is one of the most pleasant comment sections on the internet. We will always have each other’s back and we respect you guys greatly :-)
🇺🇲 🇬🇧 Same from the USA. God save the queen.
Much love to the ‘ Mother Country’ from the U.S.A. ....We will always have Britain’s back.
TRENT ELSWICK like it or not English colonists founded an English colony to begin the settlement of North America... that includes both Canada and The United States of America...so yes, England is our ‘Mother Country’. The U. S. A. Was not founded by the French, the Spanish or the Germans ( and I am German ), so for me England is still historically the ‘Mother Country’.
Happy to be able to show a bit of humanity
Yes! Have some tea with me! Good morning! Good morning! Duuuuh... good morning!
You seem to be a very pleasant person.
Forgive my antics and jokes.
The lesson of the Falklands, any carrier is better than no carrier.
The Argentinians had a carrier near the Falklands; just that they couldn't launch any aircraft due to bad weather.
@@BHuang92 like have mom, just dead...
@@BHuang92 The Brits had their carrier in the same waters and they could launch.... not much of an excuse, eh?
@@BHuang92 The Argentinian naval plan was for a two pronged offensive against the British Task Force. Veinticinco de Mayo's task group to the north, and the General Belgrano's task group to the south. After the Conqueror sank the Belgrano the Veinticinco de Mayo's task group was ordered home. That was the first and only time that Argentinian war ships took part in the Falklands conflict.
@Zend Avesta Unless we get half an inch of snow or some 'leaves on the line'..
never thought I'd see the day lord varys tries to sell me nord VPN
Varys didn't have such a good taste in shirts, though.
Prevents his little birds from listening in to your Internet communications. So it seems.
_Lefttenant!! MY GOD MAN!! It seems we're caught in that shirt's Tractor-Beam ...........Deere John help us!!_
I'm so fucking glad I'm not alone in seeing this.
Hahahhahahaha
As a patriot of the USofA, I want to say that having the ability to begin any British ship name with the letters HMS and those letters have the same power and royalty behind them no matter who’s on the throne is freaking brilliant!!!!!
Sorry to ask but what does SS mean because HMS means Her Majesty's Ship
qckdxter United States Ship
@@GhostDrummer ohhhh calm
@@keszelll ss means steam ship
@@tcg1_qc ight thanks
I’m British myself but I gotta admit that the Gerald R Ford is an amazing ship
🇺🇲 🇬🇧
American and the British carrier is a work of art
Don't forget the Lincoln
thanks
Your ship works. Ford is little more than a $16+ billion dollar barge. They are far from fixing the design flaws.
"Nuclear is evil, it's dangerous for the environment!"
"So what you're gonna use?"
"Diesel and gas of course!"
🤦♂️
I know right.... nuclear isn't even bad for the environment at all, it emits close to nothing. I will never understand why nuclear gets all this hate, it is clearly the future of emissionless power production. More advanced nuclear plants are extremely safe and highly efficient in terms of power produced per nuclear waste. Things like Germany closing all nuclear plants in favour of brown coal plants "for the environment" is absolute madness. I think Chernobyl left this irrational fear of nuclear power in the minds of many people even though it is one of the safest (and cleanest) means of producing power. Environmentalists should adore nuclear power.
@@Timbo5000 Well intentioned people can be mistaken and do the wrong things to help their cause. On top of that, people are very gullible and easy to manipulate, since they are lazy enough to not verify what they are being told, and prefer to listen to other people instead.
"[Any God] exists!"
"Why?"
"Because [Insert Sacred Text] says so!"
"Chemtrails are manipulating our brains!"
"Why?"
"Because [Insert Random Internet Personality] said so!"
See? They rarely know why they are believing A or Z. They just swallow it and leave it at that. Curiosity seems to be in short supply. Especially amidst climate activists.
@@Timbo5000 What happens when nuclear warship is sunk or blown up? Where would we be today if all the carriers destroyed in ww2 had been nuclear? as I have seen no evaluation of any environmental impact.
@@iancampbell6925 That's a fair point against nuclear warships. I'm unsure what exactly would happen and the extent to which the nuclear reactor would be exposed.
@Nobody Knows I made no assumption prior. However I will make now the assumption that you didn't even bother to read my comment til the end. I'll do the TL;DR version: environment activists *want* to save the environment. In that sense they're well intentioned. And yet, I call them: mistaken, lazy, gullible and naive to no end. In what capacity did I misjudge them? Now, you seem to be unable to see the difference between intentions and acts. One can feel concerned with something, and decide to act in order to change things. But if one is intellectually lazy, he/she will eventually do bad things, out of ignorance and a naive character that render him or her susceptible to many interested manipulations.
Both carriers are incredible feats of engineering and are a compliment to those who designed and built them.
As usual your video is very thorough and informative. Thanks for doing the work.
Indeed i got to see the HMS Queen Elizabeth in person when it came to visit and restock in one of our American ports its a beautiful ship just like the Ford and makes for a worthy ally to Aid in any conflicts to come.
Fred Flintstone Aircraft carriers in general are awesome. I stayed on USS Midway (as a floating museum) on a Boy Scout trip and it was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had.
If you think about it they complement each other nicely. If the Ford cant go somewhere because of its nuclear propulsion then send in a QEC. Oil/Gas is also more suitable for the UK as we have our own supply of both, whereas France uses Nuclear because it doesn't have much Oil and has a large Nuclear Power Program.
I agree!
@@cyborg_v271 The US has some non-nuclear carriers (~6 ish I think) but they call them LHA/Assault ships. They're about 2/3 the size of the HMS QE. The only place they can't go is New Zealand anyway so not a big issue :) Google "USS America LHA"
The UK still fields a formidable Navy to this day. Respect from the USA. You’re a small island nation, but you’ve got a big heart, and a remarkable history, and I think we’ll always be friends.
The UK is not a small nation. Their population is 60+ million inhabitants and they possess the ability to attract clever and active people from all over the world.
The british are not small
But it’s a rather small island. I live smack in the middle of it and to the west, south and east the sea isn’t much more than a hundred miles away! I do really enjoy enjoy this channel, the explanations are very clear and well thought out. We are very proud of our new carriers, which I think specifically answer a British requirement and a British budget, but the US super carriers are simply awesome. Best wishes to all across the pond!
@@kharciv It is, the British isles are could fit in Texas lol. But I know what you mean. Most of the worlds modern history involves Britain at some point
@@bunnygirl95 Texas is huge in area.
The UK is even smaller than New Zealand in territory, so what? I believe if we speak about a nation, we should consider the number of its citizens first.
"Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion".....Norman Schwarzkopf.
Why are the boulevards in Paris lined with trees? Because the German army likes to march in shade.
@@jshepard152 Why are there leather patches at the knees and elbows of english uniforms ? To better crawl away after having stabbed their friends in the back ...
Did yall hear about the firecracker that went off in the german border warehouse ??? Seems all of the French citizens threw up their hands in surrender when they heard it go off !!!
日常乳法
Norman needs to read a history book.
I had to comment on the clip with the carrier in high seas at around 6:00... That's the USS Kitty Hawk (ironically a conventional carrier). I should know as I was serving aboard her during that storm!
Took quite a bit of damage (bent catwalks, lost life rafts, that helicopter by the bow was utterly drenched in saltwater and needed substantial repairs, and an aircraft tug was lost over the side).
Love the videos! Keep em coming!
Good eyes Shipmate! USS Arkansas Nuke Plankowner here. Both great Ships of the Line. CHEERS
The only issue with British carriers in my opinion is they traded one thing for another. Vtol or stovl makes the ship simpler but the aircraft more complicated. Especially the f35 with its liftfan which will have to prove itself reliable under real combat situations. the Harrier was less capable but simpler.
@@thelovertunisia The Harrier was actually a nightmare of a plane, killing more pilots than pretty much any other semi-modern fighter. The F-35b's use of a lift fan makes it much safer. Despite being unsafe, and despite being a fairly limited fighter, the harrier proved the be very effective in war.
How's that for old and new! I was on the oldest carrier and you on the (or at least one of the) newest subs! You lucky dog. I almost crossrated to torpedomate just to get on a sub!
@@p51mustang24 aircraft from a single CV will usually not get you air superiority so, F-35b can just be used for strategic bombing, recon and let the proper dogfighter aircrafts do that job either from a local airbase or from murican CVs equipped with f-35c's.
Instead of saying what I think about the latest carriers, I'm going to say that the Phantoms in those old Royal Navy clips are still good looking airplanes.
The F-4 is arguably the best looking jet fighter to date.
cant beat cats & traps. early warning via chopper is terrible at best. lethal at worst (ask the crew of the atlantic conveyer). the idea now that the carriers are going to be multi purpose transports and evac ships is a joke. what was the fudge.. $400m to change to catapults for the RN when the actual figure was $12m... just to make sure that the f35b program stayed alive. we sold HMS ocean, the flagship chopper carrier to the Brazilians for £80m after a £70m refit. Should have just fielded the pitiful number of 12 f35 jets on that. dont get me wrong the new RN beasts are incredible but hobbled by politics from the word go. wrong aircraft, no cats & traps, no nuclear power. no savings. no point. still at least the RAF got to take over control of the FAA eh?
@@MrSimythe Glad you added "arguably" - I agree F-4s sure are pretty, but the F-14 Tomcat always caught my eye too! Both gorgeous & deadly birds.
@keith moore I worry about that myself Mate.
@keith moore even if its not as good as its made out to be, it is a better short take of and vertical landing aircraft than the harrier 2B.
Which turns the US standing 10 super carriers in 29 carriers. In total.
As now every LHD and LHA in the navy becomes a carrier.
And that is the future of carriers, supercarriers are bad in todays modern day land based missles.
Smaller faster carriers are better for the future.
They can get on station faster, and wont lose as meny people if you lose a single carrier.
A LHD and LHA as a population of just under 2000 people, a modern super carrier has close to 5000 and the new ford class is 6000 people. Thats a small town if one carrier goes down.
Like the video, I myself helped build both QEC class carriers in Rosyth, have my name on a plaque on both. Very proud to be a part of the building process
*damn*
The Nimitz class has reached it's Limitz
I’m pretty sure even the 45-year-old Nimitz has enough firepower to wipe out your ghetto neighborhood. It’s still has many years of warfare viability left.
TRENT ELSWICK
Tf chill dude
@@daddychocolate9214 Get a job
TRENT ELSWICK
Just... wut?
@@trentelswick7673 loser
I'm glad the USA and UK are allies.
found a wholesome comment
Yes. However, Trump is doing a great job at shattering all the relationships with our Allies!
The UK is glad we are allies too.
Till UK wont find oil in their territory and US finds out about it.
@@superman1081 How do you figure that?? Trump is very PRO-British. He has been a dual-national UK passport holder for many many years!!
I'm an American and I must say that I have always been impressed by the UK's military. They always seem to get more bang for their buck. Plus, I feel like we have each others back, like even if one of us does something stupid or controversial, the other will try to understand and be supportive. In short, I'm proud to have the UK as an ally :)
great video, thank you
peace
🇬🇧♥️🇺🇸
Its these young americans that make us feel disconnected, i respect ur millitary and your country
@Joseph Thompson i meant respect its power and size
@@aayushchalekar8260 nice essay, whens it due?
@@aayushchalekar8260 No, I'm not representing the whole population of the US, I'm simply sharing how I feel about the UK.
peace
USA and UK..allies and friends forever! We make an awesome team. I'm American so of course I am very proud of our navy but I really like the UK's new carriers as well. Both country's carriers are just amazing.
Eh...When will the Brits ever make anything that looks cool? We Yanks excel at that.
@@wolf359survivor2 After seeing all the contenders for a bunch of US military firearms trials I can confirm that the best looking gun always happens to win. If they made a bullpup that looked cool we'd probably be using it
I'm not brits or American but yes both makes great stuff like a son and a father... wait... *they are*
@@britishneko3906 Yep..GB is our parent country for sure.
@@kaylamarie8309 yup... *I guess I am probably also American then*
All I know id that it's great to see two allies with brilliant ships keeping the balance in the world.
Much love to the UK from the USA ❤️. Beautiful carrier.
Send us back the killer of harry dunn and we may actually believe you yanky c**nts
carefulcliffdriver I have no idea what that means. Who is Harry Dunn?
@@joesmith389 English lad - killed by an American bitch driving on the wrong side of the road. Yanky military whisked her off back to us of a to deny justice for the family. Look it up
@@Jennyeq While i think the Americans should turn her over, it's completely unrelated here -_-
American makes wholesome comment about UK, and some idiot with no class ruins it. Seems about right.
As an American, I can only feel pride that the only other country to truly have carriers of similar capabilities to ours, is our closest and best ally Great Britain.
Yes China is also building a carrier or two, but I would hardly call them modern or reliable.
Good on you Mates.
The Chinese carrier looks like the British carriers and the russian Kiev had a baby. I wouldn't under estimate it.
France also has a decent ship
@@nippleflexer3630 The Kiev is a complete bumbaling failure.
@@thetotalwarsmaster not entirely, sure it caught fire, but that doesn't mean it suckz
@@nippleflexer3630 its Old and Clumzy, it spends more time in port being repaired than it does at sea.
As an American of Anglo-Welsh ancestry, I always feel bound to both countries and am glad that it seems unlikely that the ties behind them will be strained or broken. It's impossible to compare the 2 carrier types because they serve different purposes.
Kudos to Great Britain, God bless the Great Britain's new venture, keep up the good work Great Britain.
10:56 Look at those wave patterns. Talk about oddly satisfying..
Beautiful
100 % agree, I paused it here and studied them for about 10mins. I saw your comment later. Hello from Preston, UK.
More like "eddily" satisfying
@@poruatokin ha, give us a wave. Is this Mr shilito
@@zakiranderson722 No, just a regular Paul
NordVPN: "Much more difficult for hackers to..." yeah, about that...
Well he has to pay the bills like everyone else, so... 😂
Ah, now I understand why there were so many dislikes
@@Truthbetold857 well you might get money at first but if you recommend a bad company, at the long run, you lose credibility along with them :-\
It was much more difficult. Hackers absolutely did not hack Nord's encryption. They hacked the insecure server that nord rented. Big difference. Data centers that leave remote access on servers are asking for it.
@Max Paine Still their problem when they use insecure 3rd-party servers.
I overhauled USS Nimitz at Newport News Shipbuilding in 1983-84 after graduating from the United States Merchant Marine Academy. This is an interesting perspective. I am sharing this video with a career nuclear engineer from the shipyard.
Any chance you can share where the shirt is from? It's not one I could find at AtomRetro... Thanks!
It is batik from Indonesia
Proud to have you Brits as our allies! We know we always have each others backs, thru thick or thin.
We do, and there is an unbreakable bond between us ....but I always feel that the delay in entering both world wars was, the American governments, (not the american people's) way of severely weakening their best ally for the future. Always strikes me as a shameful and strange decision. But what is done is done
We are also the only nation who paid back all their debts for lend lease etc think we finally did it 10 years ago.
@@p__7000 Sadly, very true. We delayed entering WWII far too long. We had isolationist tendencies back then. Thank God you were able to hold on as long as you did. If we had committed sooner, Britian might have emerged from the war stronger, and a stronger Britain is better for western democracy, including the US. Take care!
@@p__7000 This is true, and we should have entered right away. But then, we were probably still a little pissed about you guys burning the White House. But hey, I've had friends start fires at my house , time heals all wounds.We're good with each other now.
@@teaser452 yes but burning a white house, a building, during a war is slightly different..it hardly amounts to the increased deaths of millions of good men and women because you didn't help out your only ally until almost too late. One month later Germany would have developed nuclear weapons and youd have been toast. Once again very shameful and strange decision. But gold can blind..
Good video. As an ex US sailor, it seems the Brits made a good decision here, on the more limited budget. The carriers should be hignly effective in this next century.
Our boats being deployed there in the cold war era UK, we always enjoyed our British mates!!
Navy is obsolete now, there should be no navy, its like an excuse to siphon money from real hard working people, the airforce can do what the navy does just as good, deliver troops, airstrikes qnd the lot, due to refueling in mid air, the US is using our money for trash, give it back
@@crashnburn6654 Funny... I think the same about the Air Force. The Navy has planes, & no need for land missile sites... we have submarines for that!😋
+Daniel Dietsche
Britain now has an economic liberal as a PM that will mean massive economic growth over the next decade.
I doubt we are going to see British battle groups formed similar to the US model which will make the British Navy even more powerful.
It will be interesting to see if Britain resurrects more Vulcan aircraft type projects to add to this effect.
The only vessels that are classed as boats in the navy are submarines!
@@tsu8003 Wow, you guessed right... I was on a submarine.
Pretty freaking cool. Congratulations UK this warms this Americans heart. Crazy. I know nuke power is mostly safe but you guys have seriously come up with some crazy awesome ways around using it and that's awesome.
I remember when the commission of these ships was in the news. To give you the short story the reason they aren't nuclear came down to cost.
@@Stuffandstuff974 And the fact that nuclear power ships aren't allowed in certain countries (New Zealand) or through the Suez Canal. Also the UK's ships will be in dock most if the time so it would be wasteful to have the nuclear reactor running and constant maintenance for a ship that spends most of its time in the dock.
Nuclear, non nuclear , you still have to feed the sailors and fuel the jets ...
Jesus you’re an idiot 😂😂😂😂
@@vince92664 He's right though...
@Randy Bobandy But it still doesn't matter in the end, as fossil fuel is easier and safer to handle quickly, whereas refueling a reactor takes almost a whole day to do safely. As long as the ship does it's job, who really cares (except environmentalists)?
@@specialopsdave wtf? it takes longer then a day to refuel a naval reactor... that is why they last for 25 years! technically, they could last longer. the amount of money saved from building a reactor that lasts this long vs the fuel used for the same missions on a conventional carrier... lets just say you can buy 7 more reactors for the same amount of money in fuel. as for fossil fuels... tell me how many times a naval ship had a reactor meltdown ever, and how many times in the past 4 months a conventional ship had a fire that was fueled by the fuel... then tell me again how 'fossil fuels' are safer....Idiots....
@@FNLastname I never said that. Classic naval reactors have 1 year fuel supplies, and petroleum ones have 1 month supplies. I never said nuclear was worse. It's just that, if you watched the video, you'd realize it makes little sense for England because of initial+maintenance costs. Obviously nuclear is the superior source (and yes, far, far safer: I've known this for years), but -the initial cost required to achieve this- -safety isn't worth it if you rebuild them- -every 8 years like Britain does.- For the US who needs to be able to haul ass across the whole Pacific, petroleum would be drop-dead stupid. But for Britain who keeps the ships docked 99% of the time, a reactor sitting offline that often is much more expensive in the end, especially when the US can just send their ships to help Britain with any long range missions.
I said safer to handle *quickly*. Nuclear is safer but much slower to fuel, and you don't leave offline reactors fueled, so Britain couldn't respond quickly. The US however, leaves their ships running and only refuels when depleted, not because their fuel was removed for long-term docking.
2:29 to skip the ad
NORD VPN was hacked a couple of days ago, so much for security.
@@brianlusiola It was actually hacked for months last year, it's JUST coming out though.
@@Sporora thanks for the accurate correction.
@@brianlusiola Not really, it's still safe to use.
dick
Hi. I was a US Navy reactor operator during the '70s and '80s. You did have a couple of items concerning the reactor design that were flawed, especially concerning their capabilities during high seas states. However, I found your research very well done. Both carrier classes are excellent for the purposes of the two countries. The Royal Navy has always been able to use the tools given them with great effect and the QEC carriers will allow them to project force globally. As Kashatnic K stated, any carrier is better than none, but the QEC seem right for the job. Does the UK have plans to continue with this class? I had been taught that you should have a 3 carrier rotation; 1 deployed, 1 in work-up and 1 in maintenance/refit. Thanks.
Was a Reactor Operator in the '90s, would have loved to go across the pond and help train up some of their new technicians if they had gone the nuclear route. Ran into some Brits on my Med run deployment, solid guys.
HI im from the UK and as far as i know we are only going to have the two carriers, one being deployed at any one time. there was even rumours about HMS Prince Of Wales being moth balled but that has been found out to be false information.
We would have rotated with the French but they cancelled theirs so 2 it is. Yes, it's the right carriers in the right countries using the budget and resources available.
@@user-nu1vn3yy9s Granted, they could not take on a 'Warsaw Pact' style opponent, head-to-head. However, what if they were near by when ISIS or Al Qaida type group gets snarky and that carrier can disrupt their attack. Most of the time having a carrier near by gets people thinking before they get too bellicose, no matter how big they are.
@@user-nu1vn3yy9s . . . Exactly !
Excellent, I have often wondered about this and your presentation, pace and data are very good - many thanks.
The QEC's are wonderful! Y'all have done yourselves proud!
"Y'all" - are you from Texas? No I did not think so. So stop texting in a Texas fashion.
@@indivestor I'm from Missouri. Y'all is not Texan. I picked it up when I was stationed in Virginia. But if I lived all my life in the Bronx and wanted to say 'y'all', I'm saying 'y'all'. Get a life. At least rent one for the weekend.
@@indivestor I'm English and I use Y'all, deal with it.
As the father of a soon to graduate Mechanical Engineer who has joined the US Navy to be the Nuclear Officer on a fast attack sub, (and after a bunch more schooling on the Navy's dime) I was quite pleased to hear about the safety record of the US nuclear fleet. One of the reason the US Navy has more trained nuclear engineers in its ranks is because of programs like what my son will be going into. It was a long and interesting interview and testing process for him to get into the program, but in the end, he found a new and very interesting career and he gets to serve in the US Navy. Something we are very proud of!
i wish your son all the best in his career....my son is a maritime engineer on the hms prince of wales ...we are proud of them all and our allies in the us
Tell him we say good luck
@ Chas Gordon Many thanks for your son's service! 🇺🇸❤️
Of course you are right to be proud of your son and US nuclear powered carriers. However the US is a bit of a special case with regards to the navy because of its huge budget and also because many smaller nations even western ones cannot afford these huge expenses. By the way nuclear power for a submarine is hugely advantageous but for a carrier not really because of the need for aviation fuel for the jets which makes pit stops necessary anyway.
I have to vouch for the level of training nuclear submariners receive. That said, military nuclear power is amazing due to the intense power density their NSSS can harness. The British Carriers would have been able to harness one of Rolls Royce cores on their boats. The UK has a strong nuclear industry and experienced supply chain which nobody knows about; Wood, Fraser Nash, Rolls Royce - they would all be able to assist in applying and transferring the current design onto QE class, but would be too much faff and red tape.
12:40 tall guys permanently hunched over in sub
Haha, I know a guy that was on a trident and he's 6ft 6. I have no clue why he or anyone else didnt say he needs to pick a different carrer in the navy. Poor guy
A Bar?! Like serving drinks with approriate lightings & music?! That's a Classier Ship indeed! 🌍🌷🕊
Love how the plane at the end is just hovering beside the ship
Thats how vertical landing planes land on a carrier. They come up beside the ship and side slip over the deck in order to minimize the effect of jet wash
I think both carriers are perfectly suited to the roles that each nation has intended for them. Very informative video, THANKS!
Exactly. If we needed a bigger carrier. We could have built it with ease. But no need. The technology is all that matters.
British Navy was completely destroyed by the Dutch Navy four times over.
The Dutch stand ready to do it a fifth time, if needs be.
So the Brits should pipe down and do as they are told.
@@DrWhom I believe youll find Argentina had a larger naval capability than your country... and look what happened to them when they went toe to toe with the British. The pride of their fleet sunk by a Brit nuke boat underwater they couldnt even see. So lets stop all this "used to be xyz" crap, because I think youll also find that when Hitler invaded your country in 1940, you guys surrendered in FIVE DAYS and the British took off your government to be safe in the UK, and then protected all the continental governments in exile with their naval supremacy until the Brits and Americans recovered your homeland for you.
I think youll also find these new QEC aircraft carriers will place the British second only to the Americans in terms of naval air power. Their choice to go non-nuclear fits their budget, their needs and their expertise. They also have the capability to add catapult systems to these ships in the future if the need arises. Despite being non-nuclear, these are in top the top three best aircraft carriers in current service, and the RN has the oiler infrastructure to run extended missions all over the globe just like the USN. Also, these QEC carriers will be protected by objectively the most modern destroyer in current use, and arguably the best (and definitely the quietest) nuclear attack submarines currently in service anywhere. They will also be launching the best naval attack aircraft in service anywhere.
Remind me how many aircraft carriers the Royal Netherlands Navy operates?
@@DrWhom Your shit navy couldn't destroy a French finishing boat. Pipe down and do as our told. Lol. Silly child. We could wipe your non-nation off the face off the planet. Enjoy your Islamic cultural enrichment. 😂
@@thepewplace1370 Exactly. The trident subs. E type destroyer and the qec carriers.
Finally an militairy video with an ACTUAL human. ME LIKE!
Interesting video :D
Are you sure though?
You should check out Drachinifel, he’s started doing normal voices.
Also check out Matsimus
Mark Felton.
The History Guy has a lot of good military videos (though not exclusively military)
As always, your presentation was well reasoned,even-handed, and packed with highly informative content. Your research is extremely high quality. I look forward to all of your content. You tube has some great researchers : you, Scott Manley, The Everyday Astronaut, Marcus House.What a fascinating time we live in! Keep up the good work. :)
I’ve just rewatched this as we saw HMS prince of Wales. Leaving port as we were arriving from the isle of white on the ferry. We had to wait 30 minutes for her to leave the channel. All the crew were stood all around the ship for ages. Was an impressive sight. I wish all the crew the best of luck for their voyage and war exercises.
04:53 "Oi.....You can't park there, that's a disabled spot."
😂
Oi m8 you got a loicense to land here?
"I have overlyexpensivecostidas."
you sir, deserves a medal
Priceless! Thanks for the chuckle.
The U.K. government should order a third and call it the Ark Royal......
Adetv1616 we have to get our brexit done first
We don't have enough fleet ships, aircraft or crew to support two in operation, so why would we build a third? The Prince of Wales should have been called the Ark Royal... even Prince Charles has said he's fine with the idea of changing the name.
We have an ark royal
HMS Ark Royal RO7 was sold to Turkey as scrap in 2012....Is there another Ark Royal you are referring to?
What about Illustrious or Formidable? Those were beautiful aircraft carriers during WWII as well smh they named an aircraft carrier with the same name as one of the famed battleships of WWII but didnt even consider HMS Hood....
Tons of factors I'd never thought of - Fascinating!
Enjoyed watching. Thanks for uploading.
I was a US Navy Nuclear reactor operator, but I agree that this was a good choice for Britain.
@T R
Two reasons - the fuel load for a carrier is huge, AND takes up a lot of volume in the hull that can be better used for jet fuel, ammo, spare parts and equipment, etc. It also greatly reduces the need for oilers. On many deployments we don't need them at all - for example, in the Persian Gulf a carrier can stay on station for months, while other ships of the task force rotate out to refuel at friendly ports nearby. They still may need jet fuel during such a long deployment depending upon operation tempo - but they carry enough fuel for about 1,000 sorties, and in many areas that can if needed be extended by having the jets land for fuel at an airbase before returning, or more commonly, using in flight refueling from land based tankers so that they don't arrive with dry tanks and need little fuel from the 3 million gallon stores aboard.
Also, in the long run refueling a carrier with conventional fuel is more costly. There is one further advantage on a modern carrier - especially the newest ones - massive electrical power generation capability. With their reliance on modern electronics and the switch to electromagnetic catapults rather than steam that is increasingly important.
I think the biggest advantage is having two carriers for less money. Don't get me wrong the benefit to wider society through the technological development that is required to produce the nuclear ships must be huge. But simply from a strategic point of view, having twice the number of carriers for the same budget makes more sense. Could you imagine the US navy having twice the carriers in it's fleet that it currently sails?
@@Stuffandstuff974
Except that these cost about 75% of the cost of a Ford class supercarrier and are not as capable. They are excellent ships to be sure, but your contention of a 2 to 1 ratio is just out of line. But thanks to the F-35, the Queen Elizabeth class can be a very potent weapon.
Having 25% more less capable carriers is not necessarily a good choice.
@@pdoylemi it states in the video two QE ships can be purchased for the price of one Ford, plus change.
@@Stuffandstuff974
The video is wrong then. A US carrier costs a bit over $12 billion, this cost well over 6 billion pounds - so well over $8 billion. Maybe the producers just looked at the numbers and forgot about the value of the currency.
But a US carrier can carry a few more fighters than the QE, along with important aircraft such as the Naval variant of the AWACS that the QE cannot launch or recover. US carriers have even landed and launched C-130s - though I doubt this is something one would do regularly.
They have another advantage that to my knowledge has not been needed or used yet, which is switching task forces. By that, I mean something like an exercise run in the early eighties. The Nimitz went through the Suez with her task force and headed for the Pacific at high speed - too fast for the support ships. When her escorts were running out of fuel, they were near the Philippines, and took on a new task force to escort them without slowing down. Admittedly, if we did not have large naval bases all over the world, that capability would mean nothing - but we do.
There is also the concept of the submarine/carrier task force. It has its drawbacks, but fast attack subs can go as far and fast as a carrier. They are not good for air or missile defense, but send them fr enough downrange in a war situation and they can kill most anything that might be planning to attack the carrier - in theory, allowing them to operate with near impunity as long as they have fuel for the jets, and food for the crew.
Lord Varys, you da man
lamo i cant stop laughing 😂😂
Lol, that's all I see when curious droid pops up in my notifications.
Great video as always. Keep up the good work ☺ Very interesting content this one as I work in Devonport dockyard.
Wow, there was a ton more insight here than I was expecting. Really interesting stuff.
I'm putting a fusion reactor in my Fiat wish me luck boys.
Couldn't find a Robin? Or not the heavy springs for cobtrol rods to deal with rolling...
yeah, tell us how it goes )
Those reactors require a lot of maintenaince. You'll likely have to Fix It Again, Tony.
I hope your going with the Mr Fusion brand...it’s fueled off table scraps and water:-)
Once you do that, you can sell the technology for a fusion reactor to any nation for *big* money
2:29 ad skip, video start
Excellent analysis! Well done sir!
Never paused to consider that US carriers may have unlimited range, yet none of their escorting ships do, rendering that range functionally a total wash.
Very good point/thought there.
Glad that both the US and the UK have such new and powerful ships. It is a dangerous world, it is good to have allies that are also powerful.
It is not dangerous. There are just morons like Trump and Johnson. The new Hitlers
@@Mr.SpocksBrain Trump and Johnson are idiots but hardly "the next Hitlers". Trump is corrupt and stupid but he doesnt have the kind of control needed to start a world war on his own initative and while Hitler was evil and made some stupid decisions toward the end of the war he was still a fairly effective leader. When he got into politics Germany was fractured, broke, and heavily divided poltically and he was able to rebuild them into a mostly united country with a massive economy and military. Trump has mostly just farted around the white house making stupid comments and spending recklessly and Johnson hasnt done much of anything besides fall ass first into office. Hitler built up his own private army, started a race war, and carried out covert actions sparking global war largely using his own private military within the German state while Trump can barely keep a single person in a position of power for more than a few months. Hitler executed 12 million of his own citizens, Trump said mean things on TV and Twitter. Hitler was one of the main causes of the bloodiest war in human history, Trump and Johnson mostly just jerk themselves off while blaming all their problems on other people while getting little to nothing accomplished. The worst you can accuse Trump and Johnson of is criminal corruption and incompetence.
Arthas Menethil you are definitely right on that. But don’t get me wrong, there are some parallels no one will ever see again
Sasuke Uchiha lol just cause you don’t agree with someone’s ideology doesn’t mean they are Hitler
@@Mr.SpocksBrain clearly you haven't heard about Chinese aggression recently plus I don't see any concentration camps in the UK
Needs more advertisements from a security company that’s bad at security.
2 minutes before video actually starts is excessive. I don't think he's being harsh at all
@Lovecraft
Reality is harsh.
@Lovecraft
That's a stronger argument.
Virgin Electromagnetic Aircraft Catapult System vs THE CHAD RAMP
Real planes takeoff under their own power 👍
A very interesting and informative report. Thank you.
A great video that pretty much sums up why it is a good idea for the US to stick with nuclear powered aircraft carriers, but not a good idea for the Royal Navy to build them.
No experience and military operational difference yet the QE has been operating with the US navy with no issues so yeah.
The British have no experience with nuclear power?
Surely ye jest.
The only nuclear submarine to ever sink another ship in combat was a British one.
@@Bartonovich52 we are talking surface ships not subs.
@@Bartonovich52 Here's some tea and cookies and chill down. He wasn't insulting the brits brah.
The MAIN issue regarding putting the QEC carriers as diesel rather than nuclear is that we can now dock them in Canadian, Australian and NZ ports. We could not do that before. If we wanted to put a nuclear reactor in those ships we could have done quite easily.
If they run out of fuel they can get electricity from a nuclear sub via an extension chord, problem solved.
If the batteries die u can jump start it
You need steam for propulsion.
That's retarded
@@appa609 Am I missing something because these ships use electronic propulsion. I think it was 4x30MW GE induction motors.
Oh you're right. I was thinking about the Enterprise.
Fantastic job, that was a great watch.
Nicely done video. A pleasant surprise.
NordVPN saying it protects you after it was hacked. Bad look man.
Hahaha. Greatnesss..
Yup. Seen that on Jayztwocents
huh ? Nordvpn was hacked ?
The bad part is not that they were hacked.
Everyone gets hacked these days. Even Google and the FBI got hacked.
But NordVPN tried to play it down and not inform anybody which is very suspicious.
For more infos check out Jays2Cents Video regarding Nord
ua-cam.com/video/CBJZFTy_SAc/v-deo.html
@@dvgsun google it
I lived a stones throw from the dockyard the QECs were assembled at, Rosyth. I watched the ships take shape from my window. They're bigger than anything I've seen dock there before.
My uncle worked on them. Says they're more weld and patch than sheet steel. So many changes made, so many holes cut that were then welded back shut. One of them even had a fire onboard during construction and someone had told one of the many non english speaking contractors to cut a hole in an internal bulkhead. In the confusion of mistranslated instructions, the guy started cutting into the wrong bulkhead on the other side of which was a fully installed piece of electrical equipment (Breaker unit apparently).
And there was also a band of ass wipes from the Glasgow Govan yards, disgruntled that their work was sent to Rosyth (an 80 mile round trip commute for them) that took to taking shits in a corner some place deep in the ship causing the ship to have to be evacuated and thoroughly checked and cleansed (due to over active health and safety rules). This added a good 3 weeks to the final build time as they did it often. Until they were found out. Gaffers noted that every time the alarm went for everyone to get out, the same group of lads were some of the first to come off the ship, despite them being deeper in the bowls of it than those who exited behind them. These lads were "given" some vacation time and the phantom shitting stopped.
Don't forget the crane operators were Chinese but that's okay since they signed the Official Secrets Act and promised they weren't going to tell their government everything they saw while constructing the ships.
@@ptonpc the cranes were Chinese built. The operators were not.
Dont forget we are in the EU and as such cant discriminate against other nations so we have to employ them as we cant employ British above a foreigner. Saying that you cant also build Royal Navey ships outside the UK so if Scotland ever went independent these ship yards would close as the contracts would have to be given to shipyards in the UK - probably Northern Ireland or England
Mr Frisky
Not Northern Ireland! Harland and Wolfe, that bastion of tolerance and equality, has gone to the breakers yard in the sky...
@@dunneincrewgear Its actually still ticking over with a skeleton workforce of about 100.
Cranes and docs etc can still be put back into play if required. UK government had it as a back up if Scotland got independence a few years ago so if they try again it could mean major investment.
This guy explains everything very well. I can see now why we went for the carrier's we did. They are great looking ships and do what we want them to. They fit our needs, very good video
Great job in analysis and explanation. Makes me think when it comes to nuclear the issues with decommissioning are often sidelined as a "Future me" problem.
decommissionning of nuclear reactors is a fake problem, a lie spread by greenpeace. look in the US, there already a bunch of nuclear power plants that have been decommissioned and "returned to grass" as they say.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 This is about the cost of decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier as a running cost vs a fossil fuel carrier. Take your rambling elsewhere.
As an American I love the American Super Carriers, but the new British design is a beautiful ship, and if it gets the job done, for cheaper, that's a win, win for the Royal Navy.
Everybody keeps talking about expenses,and logistics. Well,DUHHH !!!! The Brits are set up for conventional powered ships,so the support ships and personnel are already in place. That's just smart. Some seem to be saying,"they can't afford it like the US can" like that's a dig on the Brits! Well of course they're not gonna have the defense budget we have,or the ability to absorb cost over runs when building something like a super carrier. I don't know the exact numbers,but the population of the United Kingdom can't be but just a small fraction of the US population. So naturally they aren't gonna have the tax base, required to support a bloated military budget like we do.
It's not good or bad,it's just the way things are!
They also don't require the military machine we do,cuz they don't seem to piss people off the way we do. T
These "smallish" carriers they are projecting are pretty damn good,and are more than adequate for the kind of flag waving affect they need! You also must remember,that in the Naval grand scheme of things,the Super Carrier is a relative new comer! The Nimitz class was first operational in the mid to late 70's! We made do with carriers like the Saratoga and the Kitty Hawk, for a great number of years,and they are about the same weight class as these British ships.
Our British cousin's have a WORLD class naval tradition,and I think they will do Exactly what they need to do with these new carriers!
UK population is 65 million which means the UK should be spending £100 billion to be in line with US level expenditure.
The UK spends about 200 billion in welfare which means there has been a 5% yearly growth of UK welfare expenditure while inflation has been at 2.5%.
UK defence expenditure has actually gone down. It is clear what is actually happening.
If you look at the sizes of these ships on the picture, most of the extra lenght of the Ford Class is in the big long nose section that the QE doesn't need because of the ramp and Stoval. The QE class has more deck space than just about anything in operation and can pretty much match the Nimitz class for sortie rates, given a max wartime compliment of aircraft. For 1/3rd the price and 1/4 of the crew. So not so small and weight class in Aircraft Carriers means bugger all, compaired to sortie rate. A bit patronising calling these anything similar your third teir or less. Very capable ships.
@@tonytye8963 Wasn't being patronizing at all. The weight class was used as a distinguishing statement as I didn't know the names of the British ships in question. Those earlier carriers of ours I mentioned were in no way third tier. They were state of the art,and when they were retired they were still first rate capital ships.
I find it difficult to believe a ski jump, V/STOL carrier with maybe a quarter the compliment of aircraft can even compare to these non nuke carriers much less the Ford class. That "extra long nose", is the the result of the island super structure being moved back,and the over all size is the very reason your QE is not even comparable to even the Nimits class much less the Ford class. Can't generate the same number of sorties with a fraction of the aircraft.
The old gator Navy LPH's ( they have new nomenclature now) like the Tarawa carry nearly as many aircraft as the QE is gonna.Fixed and rotary wing.
So sorry about your thin skin,but that concept,(ski jump) has been obsolete since the Soviets built the Minks or whatever it was 30 someodd years ago. Put in a real wartime situation and the capability of the larger carriers are going to shine through. Can put up more carrier air protection specific planes, without diminished strike capability than the QE can put up in total.
@@tomcline5631 A bit patronising as a description does not denote thin skin as i wasn't refering to myself but the ship, not that it has feelings. its just a fairly mild responce at best and doesn't imply any level of upset or hurt.
And third teir isn't really a bad description regarding placement amongst US carriers, with Ford class as top teir and Nimitz class as second, kind of leaves anything else US as third tier or less.
The QE class can carry up to 72 aircraft compliment even though mostly it won't, and has a 110 sortie rate compaired to the Nimitz 120, which is pretty good concidering you can get over 2 QEs for each Nimitz class and 3 or more for each Ford class carrier. Bang for Bucks its better.
A 3.5 billion carrier will never reach the capability of the 13 Billion Ford class carrier, there would be something very wrong if it could. But it nears the Nimitz class sortie rate despite being less than 1/2 the old price and 1/4 the crew.
The Tarawas are smaller at 132 ft wide compaired to 240 ft in the QEs, and 834 ft long compaired to 932 ft in the QEs(and that ramp aystem means it is shorter than it would be without one, it would extend out more, with a longer nose like the Nimitz and Ford). The QEs have twice the top deck space and way more under that on its 7 decks. And since you brought it up, but like i said not overly relevant how fat you are. 72K displacement with up to 72 aircraft vs 44k with helicopters and 6 harriers. You cannot compare the two without patronising the QE class which is much more comparable to the Nimitz class, at less than half the price of the Nimitz cost decades ago. The QE is a more price and crew efficient vessel and is very capable with more to come i suspect.
@@bighands69 So the UK is spending more on helping it's population than waging war. Sounds good to me.
Let’s be honest, we ALL learnt several important lessons from the Falklands war.
Lucky Maggie Thatcher was in charge. A lot of her countrymen wanted to roll over and "go wobbly."
Ye the Argentines can’t even trust each other to hold up their part of the war (Air Force and army just decided to up and leave to war)
@Gaius Wyrden Argentina wasted lifes invaded British Sovreign territory u mean
@Gaius Wyrden they were uninhabited we colonised them which is why we have them there inhabited by British people who want to be British not argentinian. They recently asked the people would they prefer British or Argentine citizenship and 100% said british so fight for them because they British its Britain its people are British need I go on?
@Gaius Wyrden also the British state never invaded india its was the East india company crown rule was passed on by the east india company to British government following the Indian rebellion 1857.
Thanks for the advice, really helpful. I didn't want to shell out extra for nuclear if I wasn't going to be using my aircraft carrier as often.
You can save by not going for the leather upholstery also.
I like these carriers and I'm still waiting for mine to be delivered...
Silly, you must not have Amazon Prime ... =P
You have a big garage then!!
Did you ask your neighbour? May be it´s already there. :)
When I first phoned them it was 'sorry that kit is restricted'. So I came back with human rights, cvs are good, so surely aircraft carriers aren't just for privileged elites...they are for everyone. Otherwise you are withholding goodness from the ordinary man. All this was for nothing if my order has been lost in transit...
You must have a very big back garden?
As an ex-nuke (USN), I am impressed with Britain's new carriers. Thanks for the info!
QEC can carry up to 72 jets max despite being bit smaller than Ford which carries 75+. QEC also just needs 600 crew to run the ship due to automation and not thousands and has better crew amenities fit for 21st century sailors that demand more comfort.
It has the longest runway out of any carrier too, and its jets can land in a conventional way too with SRVL ( Shipborne Roll Vertical Landing ) pioneered technique by the Royal Navy which US Marines boarding soon QE look forward trying as it allows fuel not to be dumped and give more range and weight capacity to the F35B
The ship can converted to catobar once Tempest Britains 6th generation jet is ready if needed along with Taranis stealth drone
@@theancientsancients1769 QEC can carry approx 48 jets max but we probably won't put more than 12 on it most of the time. I suspect over its lifetime of 30-40 years it might have 36 jets on it on maybe 3 or 4 occasions during major crises, assuming no major wars occur of course! There just isn't any reason to tie up such a large percentage of our F35s on a ship. Ford is a better pure carrier but we would need to buy 5 for it to make any sense and we just don't have a need or funding for so many carriers with our current foreign policy.
lol
As an ex-nuke (USN), I can't say I am impressed but I can say the British will have a lot less stressed out sailors by going conventional.
EU: France build an aircraft carrier, but use fuel instead of your advanced nuclear power plants to power it
France, a country powered by 75% nuclear power: yeah we’re actually not gonna due that.
This is so awesome! :-D
Career highpoint for me, working on the QEC project. Proud to have been part of her gestation.
That would something I would have loved to do. How is it stabilized in roll with such a large deck?
So the main 2 reasons are 1)Budget and 2)Infrastructure.
Yep, they were very clever on this. They fully used the possibility offered by the F-35B
When you have to military on a budget. Though, the lengths Britain went through to just land a single bomb on a runway in the Falklands showed a real hole in 1970's-1980's military planning.
@@fakshen1973 Yea if the argies had waited just a little longer those tiny carriers would have been decommissioned and they wouldn't have had anything at all. That war was won by the skin of their teeth.
These days the uk military wastes its budget on things like women, had to pay out 100k when they were injured marching along side men alone, because you know, its unfair that men are taller.
Kashatnic K couldn’t they technically operate on the ocean carrier as well?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech yes but choosed the most expensive fighter jet in the world that still has problems and in some years GB will be behind U.S china and maybe russia in the naval power and agility so IMO if you lack the infrastructure just focus on building one.
Budget is another thing but still they choosed f35 so
At the end of the day..our 2 countries will always defend each other to the last. It’s all good.
As a British person, I have always felt the 'Special Relationship' was a British deceit. Seems the US party in power could give a damn about any foreign relationship
Suez? Northern Ireland?
@@gastonlaberge2119 that jackass is allmost gone thank God we are great again that he is gone
I was on a U.S. nuclear powered attack submarine and, to be quite honest, we pretty much considered aircraft carriers to be little more than targets regardless of their country of origin.
That said, I'm afraid I think both the UK and the US have interesting approaches. The UK leans toward fiscal responsibility - which the US never has.
Everybody to their strengths.
It's absolutely true that in combat no one is completely safe. Subs can be nearly as vulnerable as surface ships.
I've worked with the British Navy and I'm really glad we're on the same side.
This was a fascinating and refreshing change of content
Typical American Engineer:
Eh, can we fit a nuclear reactor in this thing?
Just wait till we have nuclear powered planes that never have to land.
@@aggie427 just open your checkbook George
@@SpecialEDy Nah my money only goes to destroying this country not protecting it hahaha
@@aggie427 The US air force and NASA tested that, deemed the exhaust as radioactive fallout.
Incite The Millennium - They tried. Couldn’t get the reactor to be small enough while also having proper shielding for the pilot. The 2 reactors they made are actually sitting outside the world’s very first nuclear reactor site. It’s a museum now.
What a great show. Learned a lot. Thanks.
Great video. Love the QEC carriers, as I think they fit what the UK needs brilliantly--the UK is always pragmatic and these carriers are no exception; they're well designed, capable, and fit what the Brits need. The USN has a different mission, and therefore needs different carriers. My husband served on 6 different carriers (Enterprise, Nimitz, America, Lexington, Carl Vinson, and Kittyhawk) during his 20-year career with the USN, so I have the utmost respect for USN Carriers and the projection of power. As always, glad the UK and commonwealth nations are our closest allies.
Thought for sure the Brits would refer to the ski jump deck as “Eddie the Eagle”.
@Anglus Patria
Oh you're a youngster!😜
@Anglus Patria a ski jumper that held the record in the uk back in the 80's
@Anglus Patria Eddie was a complete amateur who decided that England didn't have an Olympic ski jump team, so he would do it. He'd never done it before. He was heralded by everyone but the British Gov't, who made him withdraw from the competition. That's when I knew Britain was in serious trouble, and their response to the take-over of their nation by Sharia Law has born that out.
Anglus Patria A National Legend 🇬🇧
@@kevinbendall9119 love how you have went from eddie the eagle to sharia law, brilliant. think that particular bit of propaganda has ran its course now though, we`re all about the brexit conspiracies these days.
I’m a know-nothing about this stuff but found this exploration of nuke vs. oil fueled war ships to be thorough, well organized, and persuasive. Thanks for the effort.
John Richards you do know that nukes and Nuclear power are Completely different.
Non nuclear ships big drawback (especially during war):
“Hey bad guys hang on I’ve gotta get gas”
Oh dose the USA also use nuclear aircraft and crew
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 : Yeah all our Aircraft Carriers are nuclear powered
@@limabravo6065 but that doesn't matter if you have too resupply food and jet fuel
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 / clearly you’ve never been on one these ships so let me enlighten you. With multiple nuclear reactors providing power to the ship they can hold enough jet fuel to fly for much longer than most conflicts last, and food is the same deal. And with food if need be it can be delivered (air dropped, or ship delivered) while the ship is in an AO. And the aircraft can be refueled in the air almost indefinitely
@@mephistophelescountcaglios1489 / nuclear crew? Nuclear aircraft were considered back in the day, engines and aircraft were built but they scrapped it due to expense and the potential for radioactive contamination
Maybe the UK had the right decision because in war your escorts are diesel powered so there would be no reason for the carrier to be nuclear powered
Since you asked what I think, I think that the two Navies have different expertise and expectations, and the QEC carriers look quite well fitted to their projected role. This was a great review and presentation. Thank you.
When I went through training to operate reactors in the navy, the first thing we had told to us was no accidents were allowed
Mmm.. that's a good deterrent to stop accidents right there. Top training.
At the first indication that someone can't handle it, they are removed from the program. It had a 60% drop rate when I went through. You didn't even see a real reactor until you had nearly a year of training.
Like how in the Marines they tell you that you are not allowed to be killed
They don't shut the entire program down if a marine dies. One accident and Congress has promised to defund the entire nuclear fleet.
I hear Russia teaches the same but adds the word published. 😂
Probably the most comprehensive and factually correct video I've seen on this subject matter. Very well presented. Not sure about the shirt.
Very interesting. Good video.
I worked on the HMS Prince of Wales, it's massive the first week I was in it I got lost a few times lol
Its a toy compared to the gerald r ford carrier
@@PS3Goat94
No one:
Americans: USA USA USA
Ugh why can’t everyone get along. FOR ONCE.
PS3Goat93, just chill dude. Our militaries are BOTH very capable and professional and that’s that.
@ALSO-RAN ! No one cares
@ALSO-RAN ! learn the difference between salty and finding someone tedious
@curiousdroid Nimitz class aircraft carriers use A4W reactors, and the USS Enterprise used A2W reactors. Other than that slight error, I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. I served on CVN 76 for two years in the aft reactor plant so I'm very familiar with the benefits of using nuclear propulsion.
Nuke here too, I also wanted to comment that it's an A4W plant XD
So you approve of destroying the planet if there is a meltdown.
Coal is where it's at.
Gerg C guess you didn’t watch the video 🤣. He clearly stated the US Navy’s record of melting down reactors. Get a dictionary and do some research before claiming about coal power for foundational grid loads and sea ships.
@@jbc5877
Lol. ✈✈✈✈✈
The Royal Navy has basically been relying on the close alliance with the US Navy for some time.
The Royal Navy remains as one of the most technologically advanced sea forces on the globe, but it is little brother to the United States.
I don’t see the UK deploying their carriers in a theater of war without US involvement.
It seems the Royal Navy isn’t concerned/can’t afford/no longer needs the global force projection they once relied on.
The United States and UK seem to be joined at the hip, when it comes to the global military picture.
A long time ago, this one nation became two. After sorting out the differences, these nations are the staunchest of allies.
Our citizens may poke fun at each other and even look down on each other, but these two nations are as close as any two can be.
Good Video, Thank you
Heavy springs will drive the rods into the core if power is lost in spite of the ship's attitude.
What if the ship is really really sassy?
@@TheMAXBOY89 doesn't matter the control rods will keep her in line.
Well, Max, then the rods get really cross!
Yeah, such expensive springs! Oh the cost!
@@TheMAXBOY89 then they have a cup of tea 🧐🤪🤯
You could have just said "The US defense budget is 60% of the total British national budget" and saved 15 minutes.
As Brit, he was trying to not make their Navy seem small while implying the US overspends.
@@ericwsmith7722 Europe loves to say the US "overspends" on defense. As an American, I can't help but notice you don't say that in Russian.
@MrNotadream
Indeed; cost it seems was not the only, and not even the most influential reason - rather is was more logistics than cost. The U.S. has more military port & drydock capacity on its Atlantic coast than the whole of the U.K.
@@HuntingTarg Well, my sarcastic comment was trying to say the US Navy operates on an much larger scale than any other navy.
It doesn't help that they have 20% lower GDP per capita. More tax rate = less productivity. Less productivity = less tax revenue. Less tax revenue = less budget.
Video: Nuclear Vs Non Nuclear Aircraft Carriers
HMS Gotland: How to sink an Aircraft Carrier in 2 steps. Step1, activate invisibility mode, step 2, sink it.