Yes, one far better than the other. Thank our empty headed, penny pinching politicians, the same nitwits who have made such a mess of handling the pandemic. There should be a minimum IQ requirement for MPs and a medical certificate to say they are not psychopaths.
USA ship has 2 nuclear reactors needing regular maintenance limiting its options assuming ret to USA, cost of de commissioning 2 nuclear reactors?, assuming you can't just fire up a reactor like diesel so days weeks notice req? Assuming any friendly QE port could fit in could repair or maintain it . understand QEs role is part of a taskforce not a stand alone outdated battleship mentality
@@waynegazard5038 The US has excellent sealed unit nuclear reactors for its ships, and no doubt these will be made available for Australia's new subs. How do you maintain a sealed unit reactor? You don't. That's why they will equip Ozzie subs. No, they don't take ages to start up, but do QE's turbines start faster? Probably, because the nukes have to raise steam, but that doesn't take long. All carriers operate as part of a task force, to send one to sea by iitself in time of war would be criminal folly. The reactors last 30 years before they need refuelling, and probably 60 before they need decommissioning.
The fact that these two navies work together is the most important thing.. anyone outside of NATO would definitely think twice before starting anything 💀
@@lazycarper7925 chinas ballistic missiles would probably not even turn on or they’ll redirect themselves back at the control tower in the rare chance that it does 🤣🤣
People often forget the HMS Queen Elizabeth is not just a one and done carrier. It has been specifically designed to be an experimental weapons and equipment platform. The ships hull has been designed to accommodate electromagnetic catapults (like the Ford), it has the capacity to be fitted with an angled landing deck if necessary, and its heavy use of automation and electronic power generation allows it to be fitted with experimental Dragon fire anti drone laser system The UK carrier is pretty barren at the moment, but it has specifically been designed to last for decades with experimental equipment and weapon upgrades.
It doesn’t have the power to power future weapons, such as the incoming lasers or electromagnetic launch system. Don’t forget you have to fill the stupid thing up with 3,000,000 gallons of fossil fuel!
We will never know unless there is a war. 3 cheaper QEs would be better than one Ford, war is often a numbers game. QE to me looks like yesterday’s technology. The Russians could take that out easy with a hypersonic. I suspect the future will be smaller carriers with more unmanned aircraft.
For the UK, with their budget, they made the right decision. But the US can afford more than just one Supercarrier. The US studied the option of smaller carriers and determined that larger was better. The UK made the same decision and built the largest carrier the UK has ever built. If smaller was better -- that would be the trend -- but it is not. ------------------- I would rather have 10 Ford-class carriers than 30 QEC-class carriers.
@@Courage2006 the right decisions for now. I foresee aircraft becoming smaller and remote operated without on board pilots. Supercarriers will become a massive target. My prediction is more carriers that are much smaller because in war it’s a numbers game and you will lose some ships in battle. More ships but smaller with remote aircraft is what I think will happen in the long term.
If you are solely comparing capability then the Ford wins hand down. However, you have to look at the bigger picture. The Ford is astronomically more expensive than the QE and not just in construction. When the ship eventually gets retired it's decommission costs will far out way that of the QE. In fact the UK will likely sell the carrier on so will recoup some of the overall cost which wont be possible with the US carriers. Also, nuclear has it's drawbacks, some ports refuse nuclear powered vessels so the QE can dock where the US carrier cannot. The US carrier also has enormous refit times of literally years while the QE does not. While range is clearly a key factor for the US carrier she still needs food, muntions, new crew, supplies so basically you could just refuel at the same time so it isn't as huge an advantage as people think. Especially if your navy has a large solid support fleet. In reality the QE was never designed to compete with the US Ford carrier. If it was than the UK would have probably gone for just one carrier and spent the money making it nuclear and use the UK variant of EMALs and be closer to that of the Ford. Or non-nuclear and matched or even exceeded the combat capability of the Ford. The design was to give the UK a blue water navy capability and an independent strike force unmatched outside the US. It has done that and considering you could get 3 QE for the cost of 1 Ford (Meaning at surge capacity the three carriers could have over 200 aircraft) than I think the comparison is a lot closer than people think. If there was war than it would be a different story. This is just the UK stepping up to it's NATO commitments for it's size and economy something which very few other nations are doing.
The only country that denies its ports to Nuclear Powered vessels is New Zealand. There are some individual cities that pass *symbolic* motions declaring themselves nuclear-free zones. But cities don't have the power to ban foreign ships from ports that share their name. For one, often the ports are run by entities separate from the city. Also, federal governments control what foriegn ships can visit their country. This is not a decision that cities can overrule. ========================= The QEC is a great ship. And perfect for the UK's budget. And the US probably shouldn't have implemented 23 bleeding-edge technologies into the Ford. As that is causing the ship to be behind schedule and over budget. But is a fantasy that three QEC could surge over 200 aircraft. The most each QEC class is designed to handle is 36 F-35s and 14 helicopters. The QEC will usually just sail with 24 F-35s. While 36 F-35s is the surge capacity. =============== It is also a fantasy to claim that the UK could have built a carrier that "even exceeded the combat capability of the Ford." Over the past 40 years the US has built and operated more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. And it spends far, far more on R&D than does the UK. And the US also has a far larger industrial base, and is the leader in technology.
@@johngraves6378 Yes, a smaller crew means a lower running costs. It also usually means the ship has less capabilties. And it certainly means there are fewer crew members available to fight a fire, stop a flood, and repair the ship while in a war situation.
@@Courage2006 QE has almost full automation, something Ford is close to by the way, so can deliver a higher sortie rate than previous UK carriers. I don't think any navy would put extra souls on board to stamp out flames. If a ship does get put out of action the less souls on board the better.
The Ford Class is the best (and most expensive) Carrier made by man to date, but the Brits may have gotten more for their money. As an American we are so glad to be in NATO and have partner ships like the Queen Elizabeth. It is the combined assets of NATO that make it the greatest fighting force on Earth. You can't pick the most important part of a system, as it falls apart without all components working together. It would be like picking the best part of your car, the break pedal or the steering wheel! You need both to have a safe car. The strength of the Naval Carrier group is just that, the Group, and the capabilities each ship brings to the fight.
Both carriers are incredibly powerful, and I would be very scared going up against one, but I think that the Supperior Range and speed makes the Ford my pick for best aircraft carrier.
The Gerald Ford is a better ship in absolute terms, but in term of cost effectiveness, the QE is better, since you can get 2 of them and 4 type 45s to protect them for the price of the Gerald Ford. The other thing not mentioned is the aircraft and munitions handling on the British carriers (HMWHS), which enables planes to sortie with a much shorter turn around.
QEC also has space for electric catapults to be even more efficient when the bugs are worked out and they want to install. I look at it as 3 QEC's or 1 ford class, both are top tech just different docterine.
Nuclear powered carriers haven’t seen warfare yet & I don’t think they’ll be great during a ballistic missile attack as no vessel will so them reactors won’t be protected as nothing on earth can protect them ! Over crewed as well so they’re great in peacetime but not warfare
This is like asking what is better? A Bugatti Veyron or a Mclaren F1. They're both superb ships but have slightly different roles/philosophy on how they're to be used. The US Navy said at the outset it envisaged the RN carriers to operate within their own carrier fleets during combined operations. Plus the QE carriers are able to port in countries that the US carriers cannot.
Being able to steam unlimited at flank speed all day long, all week long without using a drop of fuel, and at the same time having loads of excess energy is worth everything.
Lets be honest one is a super premium car, the best of everything, the other is a budget car. As a Brit I would be tripping if I suggested our carrier even gets near the us carriers, but once you include decommissioning costs the question becomes Does 1 us carrier beat 3 british carriers?
We’ve had only got two fool. And 100 years of carrier business, and we’ve also got a 500 year old navy , Uk are masters. Plus we use our brains and utilise cost.🇬🇧🤣🤣
Ours ain’t a budget carrier fool, hms ocean was a budget carrier based on civilian, like invincible class 3 dork, do you know anything other than talking bollox ffs learn before you talk crap Walter Mitty man🤣😡🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@markdavid9056 I know how many we have, learn to read before posting. I posed a question, does 1 us carrier beat 3 British carriers as that is the equivalent in Cost.
@@markdavid9056 omg ofcourse it is a budget carrier. it doesn't even have a cat system, why not? To save money because it is a budget carrier. Only the USA operates money no object carriers. Hence premium and budget Rather than crude remarks come at me with a sound argument or move along.
I appreciate your balanced analysis and your very reasonable question. For the UK, having three QECs (or even two) is better than having just one Ford because of the Rule of Thirds. Generally, a country needs three warships to keep one always deployed. Also, the first ship of a class will usually have a number of problems that get worked out when building the subsequent ships of that class. Just look at all the problems France has had with its one aircraft carrier. And the US is trying to implement twenty-three bleeding-edge technologies into the Ford. That is why they are running into so many problems and is one reason the ship is so expensive. Therefore, I think the UK definitely made the right choice given its budget constraints. ----- As for a never-going-to-happen hypothetical of which would win in a battle between one Ford and three QECs: Likely the Ford would win since they could attack the QECs without the QECs even knowing where the Fords are located. Plus, the Ford could attack the QEC while staying out of range of a counter attack by the QEC. * With CATOBAR the Ford can launch F-35Cs that have a greater combat radius than the F-35Bs carried by the QEC * US Supercarrier all have refueling tankers which means that all aircraft launched from Nimitz/Ford carriers have a much larger combat and patrol radius than anything deployed from the QEC. * The fixed-wing AEW&C Hawkeye E-2D can fly higher, farther, and stay on station longer -- while also having a much more powerful radar system than the QEC's rotary AEW Merlin Crowsnest. Basically, the Ford's E-2D can spot the QEC while the Ford is still too far away to be spotted by the QEC's Crowsnest.
Definitely whit ford costing 3x as much but it's no slouch it's better than the nimitz and has cutting edge weaponry and let's not forget 2 squadrens of f 35s on board will make it a massive threat to any nation
Noticed that a lot, if not most, of the footage presented was reverse-imaged. Maybe not a show-stopper, but very distracting and indicative of questionable production values.
The US has 11 supercarriers right now, 10 Nimitz Class and 1 Ford Class, the cost comparison doesn’t make much sense since they obviously chose to build the best carrier regardless of budget. It´s the only country that can have a presence in every ocean at the same time.
@@exec2968 but we are. No other nation has the extensive ability to exert influence or project military power on a global scale. Thats what defines a superpower
Money might be no object.... but if the us had built qe style ships... they could of literally had 3 times as many.... I think 3 x qe carriers are better then 1 Ford carrier
The QE class could have been nuclear but many countries which Britain still has interests particularly in the Gulf and East Asia refuse to have nuclear powered ships in their territorial waters
Hmmm! As if us Brits give a damn about respecting anyone. They couldn't have nuclear because it's costly. No shame in that, we are not as rich as the Yanks and that's okay.
Our aircraft carrier is made to be very versatile and cooperate with the other NATO members and support the US carriers together instead of making the US send 2 carriers in the same strike group. It was made so that it can be used in any weather condition and be allowed into more international waters then a nuclear carrier.(Though I will admit it's mainly because we don't have enough facilities to handle a nuclear powered vessel)
Yall gotta rationalize why your once great navy is now an afterthought and the USA blows yall europoors out the water now. Hell it's been that way for what almost 90 years now. Basically since ww2 we have DOMINATED the LAND, the SKY, and the OCEANS. AMERICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!
Plus it's a third of the price... So they should have compared the Ford to two or three Elizabeth's... Of course the British don't have three Queen Elizabeth's... But it's a hypothetical comparison anyway...you see what I mean. I'm also fairly sure the British don't waste money on expensive onboard gyms and friggin tennis courts.
The actual reason we did not go nuclear is because you lose space in the interior with nuclear power, it was at least in part for flexibility hence a patrol capacity of 40 planes and combat capacity of 70 from a ship more compact than the GR. It was also supposed to have catapults but the funding to fit them was cut due to "austerity". We have plenty of capacity for nuclear wessels as we already carry out service work for US Navy nuclear wessels as part of their European operations along with our (few) submarines.
@@gremlinsaregold8890 They have gyms on board but I doubt the QE class have tennis courts, spas, a selection of burger restaurants or an on-board strip club.
good point, for the same money of 1 Ford you would get 3 QE which sounds more reasonable, I mean in battle 3 QE battlegroups would probably win against single more powerful and more advanced. again if you loose 1 of 3 in battle you still have 2 more to go. on the other hand if you lose 1 of 1 you are doomed. British carrier is a match to Russian and Chinese (probably better than them) so why spent money on a such a scale? I mean I don't care, I don't like America so just keep spending your money and destroying your economy! As soon as America collapse the rest of the planet will be happy :)
@@СербскийСледопыт You've forgotten to factor in the cost the extra ships required for the additional battlegroups. You're also assuming the Ford-class carriers could be as easily hit as a QEC-class -- which isn't true. Since the Ford-class can fight the battle from a farther range than the QEC thereby being out of range of the enemy. Plus, the Ford-class carriers can launch E-2D Hawkeye for airborne early warning (AEW). Thus they can find the enemy before the enemy finds them. Plus, while the QEC has just one layer of organic self-defense, the US supercarriers have three. Plus, the US supercarriers are much more heavily armored with both thicker steel and Kevlar protecting the vital areas. Also, the larger crew of the US Supercarriers means that they are better able to fight fires, deal with floods, and repair the ship while in combat. Plus, US carriers have intermediate repair facilities aboard ship while the UK carriers do not.
You cant really compare the two aircraft carriers, they are designed for two very different roles but both of them are at the top of each of there respective fields of operations.
The video doesn’t quite capture how close these two carriers are to each other. It gathers information based on what each countries ministry of defence publishes, which is fine, but it first know about the cultural differences. The Royal Navy likes to be conservative and plays down is capabilities - discretion being the better part of valor for them. For example, if you ask them what is the aircraft capacity of the QE, it will say “45”, but if you ask what the maximum capacity is, they will say “72”. Ask the same question of the US navy and the answer is “75” for the first question and “75” for the second. You can see this culture play out in the top speed too - The Royal Navy claims 25 knots yet the ship’s been clocked at a sustained 32. If you compare the two carriers holistically as well as statistically, this is what you get: Performance: 30 knots vs 32 knots - nothing in it, but the QE is slightly faster. Range: When talking about range one should consider “practical useable” range. Sure, the Ford can run forever, but it’s going to need fresh supplies of food, ammunition, aircraft fuel and other materials just as regularly as the QE, at which point, if you’re gonna restock and refuel your aircraft, you might as well refuel your carrier. Capacity: 75 aircraft vs 72 - not much in it but, but the Ford is slightly higher. However, it’s not all about carrying capacity, it’s also about the number of sorties per day. Ford can run 160 sorties per day, whereas QE can run 110, so Ford wins. Weapons: I’d say the QE edges the Ford on Electronics. The Artisan 3D system can track 800 objects, the size of a tennis ball, coming at it from as far as 200km away. The Ford however out guns the QE with its laser cannon. But which of the two systems would be more useful, the most advanced electronic tracking in the world or the laser cannon? Let’s give this to the Ford. Ultimately, the Ford class is only just better as a stand alone single proposition but pound for pound, the British carrier is better conceptually for two reasons. The first being that you can get 3 of them for the price of 1 Ford. What is better, a carrier which can carry 75 aircraft and handle 160 sorties or 3 carriers which can carry 216 and handle 330 sorties? Given that the whole point of an aircraft carrier is to project air power, I would say the latter. The second reason is operational cost. The biggest operational cost is personnel: salaries, pensions, food, training, medical, holidays. The incredible degree of automation in the Elizabeth class means it only needs 22 crew per aircraft whereas the Ford class needs 65. What the US wishes it had done was to go with the British concept and philosophy, because for the price of the 10 Ford class carriers they are planning to build, they could have had 30 QE class carriers, which are almost as good. In other words, the QE costs over 3 x less than the Ford, but the Ford is not 3 x better than the QE.
The QE was made for the country it serves, smaller than the US so its capabilities are different to what the Nimitz and Ford class carriers can do. US carries are made for power projection while the British carriers are for more support roles. You can add the QE to the US carrier task force with the Ford and it would fit in nicely.
@@joshuajgrillot The operation was CSG21. It lasted eight months and took QE all over the world, including the Pacific to piss of China. It was the only aircraft carrier in the group but it did conduct training exercises with other carriers along the way including Charles de Gaule and Cavour.
Your EGO is too big and you need to realise that most carrier technology is actually British and the British once had the largest navy but went through two World Wars when bombs landed on the nations homes & industry for many years
American Carriers as a group enjoy a significant economy of scale advantage. Construction is continuous in dedicated facilities as is the mid-life maintence to produce a constantly revolving fleet with no idle or wasted capacity. Upgrades are amortized over multiple ships which makes the cost quoted here for Ford misleading, future members of the class will be cheaper. The Carriers of all other nations are singles or pairs which means they incure all overhead costs and then have few ships to ammortize over. Also we should remember that operating coss far outweight build costs in the long run, this is why crew size reductions are so desirable because crew is the main driver of operating costs. This makes the American Carriers more cost effective, aka more power per unit cost. But when you don't need such high performance a smaller cheaper ship is the right choice. The real question is do the British have the right power level for what they expect to do? NATO members might be better off buying Ford type Carriers from the US rather then each designing and building their own small production run carriers. Meanwhile the US lacks good production capacity for smaller ships and should buy more from Europe to reach the ship number targets that have been a strugle.
I would like to point out that the design of these ships denotes completely different intended operation and doctrine of the 2 navies. The QEC intended use is similar to the America Class Amphibious assault ship in that it's primary focus is fast deployment of landing forces and supporting aircraft to further assist the assault. The Ford on the other hand is power projection tasked with securing air supremacy anywhere on the planet. Basically continuing the role of "the great white fleet" of Theodore Roosevelt (which one of the Nimitz is named after)
NOW YOUR'RE TALKING SHIT BRO there is no naval fleet that has or ever will match the might of the british navy NOT EVEN THE SPANISH ARMADA STOOD A CHANCE!! nuff said.. DON'T ASSUME JUST BECAUSE YOUR GUNS ARE BIGGER THEY ARE BETTER LOL this is the BRITISH we are talking about here not some rag tag band of noobs 'when all else fails we sit and sip tea while bombs drop' with no fear in our hearts we march unto dawn with the sun at our backs and victory in hand! US you may be our brothers/sisters from across the pond but when we BRITS say JUMP you americans would be wise to say 'HOW HIGH!! :) XD
@@jamiemarsden3823 My statement was not to disparity the British navy. It was to point out the different doctrines behind the designs of the warships. The QEC was not designed to dominate the skies. It serves the same purpose as the Jeep carriers from WW2 or the amphibious assault ships the current marine fleet. Aiding landing forces establish a beachhead. It performs that task very well. In terms of aircraft turn over (dispatching, receiving, rearm, and refueling), total takeoff weight capacity of aircraft, and number of aircraft available all are important if you are going to attack another carrier battle group. Even the Nmitz class carrier wins in those metrics before factoring in their numbers as well. You can claim you have the edge in training but as far as equipment goes please keep it realistic.
@@chemislife equipment doesn't mean squat if your the men/women lack the training/tactics to get a job done! A gun is only useful when manned! That said bigger weapons, ships, jets etc etc don't succeed that of training which is what the US lack on a drastic level vs British. Was my main point. Also, ya got a stop swinging ya cocks about if you don't have the grit to hold em up! Take note my friend. :)
@@jamiemarsden3823 I remember it was the rifle that allowed us to kick you out of our land and establishing this country you seem to hate. It was also American manufacturing that saved you in the battle of Britain. We are also the only nation to win a 2 front war. The wars we have lost was due to politicians controlling the generals not the lack of proper training of our soldiers. Constantly calling our military incompetent makes your claims of respect ring hollow. You think you are still the global power you where before the world wars and that just is not true. Your navy is similar in size to Russia's with warships similar to the US but smaller. In a head to head contest there is no question that the USN would win. We built your aircraft and have more of them. If we are talking ground war then there is evidence that our forces are in need of a reality check but our pilots have shown they can hold their own and the navies on both sides have never fought an actual naval battle against first nation navies and have no data to back your claims.
Very fair summary. Hate to say it (as a Brit) but the Gerald R Ford has the best stats - BUT - because it's nuclear, it isn't allowed through the Suez canal - hugely important to the RN, not so much to the USN. Also, Britain gets two QE-class carriers for two-thirds the price of the GRF. Most important to the RN now isn't the size of the carriers, but getting the support ships (particularly GM Destroyers and anti-submarine frigates) it needs for two independent carrier battle groups - no carrier wants to be on it's own in a peer-adversary fight, not even the GRF...
Cost is a big factor with the Ford costing 3x as much as the QE, but it does not seem to have 3x the punch. That said, the purposes for each carrier differ, so the Ford forms part of a larger navy and so the US could equally also produce QE equivalent carriers to complement its fleets.
It does have 3x the punch though in terms of sustained sortie rate. More than that actually. A Nimitz can conduct 150 sorties per day for a month straight (Ford even more) while a QE can manage around 75 sorties/day for maybe a week. Sustained operation is what that 5,000 crew and far bigger ship gets you. QE is a beast compared to any non-US carrier though, that's for sure the American carriers are just monstrosities
Why would the U.S. want to produce a baby carrier like the QE? It's a nice little support ship, but you wouldn't want to create a task force around it.
Let’s put a couple of scenario’s down, if both carriers defences failed to intercept a missile off the tower, which one could still operate? The QE has two separate towers; which can take full control of operations if required. If both carriers failed to intercept a missile to the engine bay, which carrier could carry on under a separate propulsion system under the secondary tower? Would you rather x4 HMS Queen Elizabeth class carriers at 3.2 billion each with 200k change or x1 Ford class carrier?
Problem is, this assumes that the queen Elizabeth and Nimitz find each at about the same time. Problem is, the Nimitz will likely find the qe first. It has awacs planes with more range, and much more planes. It will launch a much bigger strike, and from further away. Also, the general r ford is going to be cheaper in the long run since it's nuclear, and it also carries about as many aircraft as 4 QE'S.
The answer to which is better depends primarily on which has the best defensive systems to remain combat ready in time of war. That includes the escort vessels protecting the aircraft carrier. Otherwise they have similar technical capabilities while the Ford can carry more aircraft and maintain a higher sortie rate.
you forgot to mention one small detail.... after the success of strapping Royal Marines to apache helicopters in Afghanistan .. the Royal Navy now have a small hook on the Bow of all ships where they have two royal marine commandos constantly hanging there
The UK Minister of Defence announced a few months ago that the maximum purchase limit for F35s will be 138. That's across all UK armed services. The F35B will be the only type operating from these two QE Class carriers. With full compliment, that would be 80 F35s between them. No way the UK would risk such a massive investment in aircraft and pack the carriers to capacity in a combat situation in which if a carrier was hit or even sunk, the whole caboodle would be up in smoke. The latest exercise had 8 F35s on board with 10 more from the the US Marines to make the carrier look more impressive. Also, given Brexit and the pandemic and the maximum 138 statement, the inference is that the target of 138 will not be achieved.
Yeah, and it's impossible to get 100% mission capability rate on any type of equipment and that goes double for advanced fighter jets. The UK would do great to achieve a 70% mission capability rate for the F-35. The announced plan by the MoD is to eventually be able to patrol with 24 F-35s -- and be able to surge to 36 F-35s in an emergency. The QEC is designed to handle a maximum of 36 F-35s.
You seem to be subscribing to the wokist view that carriers are for show and too valuable to risk with actual fighting. I beg to differ. Barmy Boris squandered £2 trillion on controlling the pandemic, only half of which was unavoidable. The rest was caused by incompetence and corruption. Boris must go. How many carriers could you buy with £1 trillion? Quite a few, complete with aircraft.
Hi just one point the British Government didn't choose Non-nuclear propulsion of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers because of cost it was because of ports across the world that do not allow Nuclear Powered Vessels into their ports, Don't forget we also operate Nuclear powered vessels and in some countries, they cannot dock because some countries won't allow them too.
Let's be fair now, you can have 3 queen elizabeth class carriers for the price of a Ford. And crewing the two different carriers is also another massive difference, 600 vs 2000 or there abouts. I'm in favour of the queen elizabeth for its price,crew,it's 30 plus knots of speed, 70 aircraft,survivability with having a 2nd island as a backup and it's design to allow modifications for cats at a later date. 75000 tonne is a very good size and it's certainly not small
That figure of 70 aircraft for the QEC is a fantasy. The QEC was designed to handle a max of 36 F-35s. The plan is to have it carry just 24. Currently, the most UK jets the QEC has carried is eight. Also, the QEC has two islands to house the two smokestacks for the diesel engines -- not for survivability. Plus, the diesel engines are housed in the sponsons making them very vunerable to a missile attack. But either way, it is the Ford which is much more survivable. The US Supercarries are CATOBAR and so can fight the battle from a farther range than the QEC thereby being out of range of the enemy. Plus, while the QEC has just one layer of organic self-defense, the US supercarriers have three. Plus, the US supercarriers are much more heavily armored with both thicker steel and Kevlar protecting the vital areas. Plus, the US Supercarriers have a control room below deck that can perform all the functions normally done in the tower. Also, the larger crew of the US Supercarriers means that they are better able to fight fires, deal with floods, and repair the ship while in combat. Plus, US carriers have intermediate repair facilities aboard ship while the UK carriers do not. ------------------------------------------ Don't get me wrong, I think the QEC is a great ship and the right purchase considering the UK's budget. But the US has way more experience designing, building, and operating carriers. Plus, it spends way more on R&D. Plus, it spent nearly three times as much building each carrier. Experience, R&D, and money all matter.
@@Courage2006 your wrong in many aspects there my friend there are two islands for what you said but either island can do what the other one does if a missile etc strikes the island of the Ford carrier it's obsolete in a fight yet the hms queen Elizabeth can stay in the game in terms of crew size loosing nearly 5000 lives is a much bigger loss than 1800 so another benefit to the UK and in terms of experience building aircraft carriers us Brits have been building them since they were created another invention you can thank us Brits for but ultimately speaking the Ford class are better protected with better weapon systems but is it worth 3 times the cost? Also 72 aircraft can be put on a uk carrier fair enough we haven't got the planes at the moment but that's more than likely because they'll be a varient of the tempest being used in the future and more automated aircraft if you look on hms prince of Wales news feed you will see some of these. Either way USA and the UK are allies we should be thankful that we are both pioneers in democracy and rule of law
@@callumflowers5720 My friend, much of what you've written is either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant. But, before I address your other points ... If you can't even acknowledge that the US has far, far, far more experience designing, building, and operating aircraft carriers than any country in the world -- then this conversation isn't even worth engaging in. Yes, the Royal Navy has a long and proud history -- but the UK did not "invent" the aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier is a composite of inventions from many nations. But more importantly, It is silly to go far back in history and cherry-pick who invented what. If it wasn't done by people *currently* involved in the military -- then it isn't very relevant to what we are discussing. And cherry-picking things from the past is always a silly game. For example: Yes, the UK invented the steam catapult and carrier ramps .... But the US was the first to fly an airplane off a ship and also the first to land an airplane on a ship. The US also invented the first airplane catapult and invented barrier arrested landing equipment. See? Both sides can go back and forth like without addressing anything relevant. ----------------- As for things that are relevant to our discussion: The US has built and operated far more aircraft carriers than the UK -- and this is *especially* true over the past 30 years -- the time frame that matters. The UK has so far spent nearly half the 21st Century without *any* fully operational aircraft carriers. In fact, the US Navy has been teaching the Royal Navy how to operate their new carriers. And while the UK is still working on getting just two aircraft carriers operational. The US has 20 fully operational aircraft carriers -- and has had around that many for the last 30 years -- the time period that matters. ---------------------------------------------- www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13368/royal-navys-new-supercarrier-trains-alongside-us-navy-counterpart-for-first-time Below are quotes from the above article: “We stand shoulder-to-shoulder here today to help them [the Royal Navy] refine and enhance their carrier strike group capabilities,” U.S. Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, head of U.S. European Command and NATO’s top officer, said ahead of the exercise.… But training for carrier operations is especially important for the Royal Navy, which hasn’t had a carrier with fixed wing aircraft since it retired HMS Ark Royal in 2011.“The U.S. Navy, out of huge generosity, has given us the whole of their carrier strike group so that we can practice the command and control of a carrier doing these operations in British waters,” Royal Navy Captain Ken Houlberg, Chief of Staff to the Commander of the U.K. Carrier Strike Group, said. “We are extremely fortunate,” Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander James Capps, who is the service’s Fixed Wing Operations Officer for Saxon Warrior 2017 and is situated aboard George H.W. Bush, said. “Being here on the George H.W. Bush has given us the opportunity to see where we are and what we need to achieve for our own U.K. carrier strike capability and to be here to see how the U.S. does it has been fantastic preparation.”
@@Courage2006 It's designed to carry 40 planes in patrol mode and up to 70 in combat mode. The QE actually has comparable hangar space to the GF because the combustion engines don't intrude the bow and stern like the nuclear plants do. The twin islands are a byproduct of the dual fuel systems, the exhausts are routed through them from the engine rooms in the depths of the ship. The low plane count is due to 12 years of cuts to our armed forces by our "patriotic" Conservative "government".
How about everyone stops trying to compare the two. A Ford costs more than 3 times to amount to build as a Lizzie and you're obviously going to get a bigger vessel and more bang for your buck if you can afford to splash 3 times the price. They are both amazing pieces of engineering and fill the roles required of them by their respective nations.
They are both great and show how you must cut your cloth according to your means. But in terms of bang for bucks I think the QE class is (surprisingly) doing rather well. The US is spending an incredible amount of money on the Ford class for not much more relative capability. They'd be better off having many more smaller carriers and subs for the same money.
As one who personally works on aircraft carriers and seen both the ford and QE there both good ships and would beat any Russian or Chinese aircraft carrier any day
I understand that QE carrier can function with a crew of 750 that of course doesn’t include air and marines. I can’t post photos but when QE carrier was commissioned by her late majesty Elizabeth ll the onboard Chefs made a cake with a miniature Queen Elizabeth holding a sign saying HMS Me, there was also an enormous cake of the new carrier with aircraft etc
@@bennymule3226 It was the national government that cut the navy to the bone, y'know the flag waving and patriotic Conservative government. They cut the planes, the catapults, half the order for the type-45s and other vessels such as frigates and submarines meaning we now only have 19 F-35s after we crashed one into the Med and even if we borrowed some planes we can't form a full battle group to protect a carrier. They even cut the expenditure on the missile defences aboard so it is incapable in practical terms of defending itself in operations.
Both great ships but the Ford (& all Nimitz class carriers) have a major advantage in its air wing. The E2-C Hawkeye early warning aircraft. It's a force multiplier in terms of early detection of enemy aircraft & command and control.
Both vessels are incredibly powerful and suited for their primary missions. With her limited endurance, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is design more for North Atlantic operations. Closer to her home port, shorter strike missions and submarine hunting and defense. But true blue water action. The USS Ford is a traditional heavy carrier the U.S. Navy is known for. Able to be deployed for long periods in hostile seas with a huge air wings. The speed and numbers of aircraft carried are slightly off. The speed of course is classified but rumour has it that’s she’s faster than even the Enterprise, indicating 35-37 knots. I believe during wartime conditions, she can accommodate upwards of 100 aircraft, but that might include next generation fighter and strike drones. Both are very modern vessels and both have been and will continue going through some teething problems. Both send very strong messages of deterance to potential adversaries.
Skimming the posted comments, it looks like most are judging only by the raw numbers of personnel and aircraft. The Ford is so much more than simple numbers. There are qualitative upgrades and bleeding edge technology everywhere, and the individual aircraft are much, much more capable (F-35C vs F-35B means longer range, heavier payloads, more capabilities). Because of the Ford's totality of quantitative and qualitative capabilities that are beyond any other ship now afloat, the ship is far more versatile and capable than any other ship. That justifies the Ford's cost and ambitious design... The ability to do things that no other ship can do, even if for the same money you can buy more copies of any alternative.
The purpose of comparison is unfair, USA's ship is infinitly more expensive. 100 million vs 200 million is huge but $5Billion vs $15Billion is gargantuan for a fair comparison. Like the $Trillions of tax payers money wasted over 20 years in Afghanistan by USA, they have more money than sense.
These 2 ships have very different design and operation strategies. I feel both ships are equal when considering design, operational capabilities and defense spending. France and England wanted to jointly build nuclear powered carries. England didn't have the capacity to dispose of extra nuclear waste on top of disposing of nuclear submarine waste. The partnership was broken: France operates 1 nuclear powered carrier. The UK operates 2 conventionally powered carriers. 2 is better than 1, especially if you build a support fleet to protect a carrier.
These vessels serve very different rolls. The US carriers are global vessels, while the British carrier is regional (in an around England & the Mediterranean). Also the British navy didn’t have the infrastructure to support a nuclear powered aircraft carrier or support the cost of the system.
The Ford and previous classes of US carriers are designed for conventional aircraft while the QE is designed for STOL and VTOL aircraft only, hence the need for a larger and longer flight deck.. If the US moves further toward the same STOL and VTOL aircraft then I would expect their carriers to be designed very differently in the future. Mind you, this is probably 50 years away.
Looking at all the comments and replies it looks to me you lot are having a pissing contest to see who is the best. I can’t see why you don’t accept that the two ships are different and built for different reasons and budgets. At least the two navies can get along.
Don't forget how expensive and difficult it is to manage and maintain nuclear powered vehicles and a aircraft carrier can only be active for as long as it's food lasts and the real question is 1 ford or 3 queen Elizabeth carriers but apart from the engines and radar the ford is better but at the end of the day they'll be fighting together
The Ford Class is clearly a winner but when it costs 3x the price a better comparison would be 1x Ford Class vs 3x HMS Queen Elizabeths lol I would argue numbers is becoming largely more important with the uprising of Chinas naval missile threat too, might be worth America downsizing a section of their aircraft carrier fleet in exchange for more of them
in my opinion both carries are sitting ducks spotted by a space satellite and for a smart guided missile that arrives almost vertically from a high space trajectory.
Not from choice, but because it has to. Our empty headed, penny pinching politicians couldn't spare a few bob to put catapults on board. Yet they can squander £1trillion on their incompetent management of the pandemic, half of it unavoidable and the other half, £1 trillion, due to their incompetence and corruption. Watch out at the next election, Boris, the British people will be after their revenge! But when the Tories give him the bum's rush, Boris will be laughing all the way to the bank. It's not fair!
Always a massive debate about nuclear reactor or diesel power, they both have advantage's and disadvantage's. There are many ports around the world that will not allow nuclear ships any where near them. Downside to diesel is refuelling, But if you need food every week then refuelling at the same time is no big deal. Sick of hearing "we don't have to refuel for 30 years" , are your planes also nuclear powered? your refuelling aviation fuel every week just like the rest of us :P. I would much prefer the diesel bill than the bill of the R&D and maintenance cost of a reactor and the salary's of the staff that have to work on them. The US have reduce them cost's massively with constant development and well trained staff that can teach others. UK would pretty much have to start from scratch, which was why our Astute class subs where so over budget.
Didn't mention the C-2 Greyhound, a twin-engine turboprop airplane the Ford has. It's a flying bus or supply van, hauling people and cargo onto and off the carrier.
I understand the Greyhound has been replaced by the V-22 Osprey which is supposed to support transporting an F-35 engine (The Greyhound can't). Unless the F-35s aren't being deployed the Ford (very unlikely), there won't be any Greyhounds aboard unless to augment the Ospreys.
@@tonysu8860 The transition is underway but far from over. And the Ford is one of the carriers it hasn't happened at yet, which is odd considering it's brand new.
The ford is better for one reason if nothing else. We use the angled approach landing area not to save space, but to save lives. When the landing and the takeoff reas are the same, bad things on one end of the ship spread to the other end quickly and quickly affect the planes in the air.
While both are great, lets put them into perspective, The Ford is a nuclear powered carrier that actually cost 13 billion dollars, has some of the most advanced current technology, the ford can go longer distances and can go for few decades without refueling, while the HMS QE, is a diesel carrier that cost around 8.4 billion USD, and would require maintenance a bit more often than the ford, and everything the HMS QE can do the ford can do, but with a strike group around the ford its almost unstoppable, while the hms does have a group, im not sure of its possible maximum performance, but a beautiful ship regardless, i do have to give this win to the ford based on sheer performance and (R&D) of the vessel
It doesn't matter how she looks, what matters is her fighting capability, and that is about the same as one of Japan's mini-cariers which will carry about the same number of F35s. For a comparativly small extra cost she could have been so much better. Everything our empty headed, corrupt politicians touch turns to excrement, yet the greedy bastards have the cheek to demand higher salaries! They are a disgrace.
@@splatoonistproductions5345 I have an awful suspicion that our crazy and corrupt politicians have skimped on the armour to save a few quid. Obviously the carriers should have been made as damage resistant as possible, but allowing our stupid politicians to have a hand in the design was the height of folly. You can see how competent they are by the mess they have made of the anti-covid campaign. Of the £2 trillion it cost us, half was unavoidable, but the other trillion was due to their corruption and lack of common sense. That £1 trillion could have bought us a fleet of carriers to rival the US fleet, yet I wouldn't put it past the bastards to skimp on the arour to save afew quid. That's why the carriers have no catapults.
@@splatoonistproductions5345 Fortunately the Ford is our ally and existing Chinese carriers are similar to ours. There i a rumour, however, that they are building one comparable with a Nimitz class.
Ford is 3x the cost of QE but is it 3x better ? I dont think so. Speed is almist at par, plane capacity as well at par during wartime, while defensive wrapons aboard the Ford is only necessary under very extreme circumstance if you have fighter planes and type 45 destroyers as escorts. So dollar for pound i think QE is better.
You've fallen for a common myth. Plane capacity is not "at par during wartime". The US Supercarriers are more than fifty percent larger than the QEC. Plus, the American Supercarriers are nuclear powered leaving much more room for a larger hangar deck and more storage space for munitions and aviation fuel. Also, it isn't safe or effective to just stuff a modern aircraft carrier full of planes during wartime if one hasn't appropriately outfitted the warship and practiced with that many planes before going to war. Yes, the UK did that during the Falklands War. But those were much smaller carriers with much less sophisticated operations and technology. And the carriers weren't trying to fly a large, sustained number of attack sorties. Most of the planes were used for defense. -------------------- The QEC was designed and outfited to carrier a maximum of 36 F-35s at surge capacity. Normally, it hopes to carry 24 F-35s. Right now, the maximum the UK has been able to deploy is eight F-35s. -------------- Yes, Supercarriers are designed to handle "extreme situations". But the US Supercarriers also have far more capabilities and capacity that can be used in non-extreme situations. -------- Yes, the QEC is a great carrier and more cost effective -- it wisely didn't try and implement anywhere near as much bleeding-edge technology as is on the Ford carriers. The UK should be proud of those carriers. There is no need to claim it is as capable as the much larger, much more advanced, much more expensive Supercarriers.
Guys the United states develops things with the future in mind. The ford class has been designed so that it can take on future threats and advancements. I dont know much about the Elizabeth and those carriers so i cant say which is better or not
The Ford is definitely more powerful but for a smaller nation like the UK the more cost effective QE is definitely the way forward. You could have 3 QEs for one Ford. It should be who would win 3 QEs against one Ford.
Which is better is a silly question. Clearly the Ford is better in terms of raw combat capability and extensibility. However, it costs over 3 times as much. There are surely missions where the Elizabeth is the more cost effective solution. I’d might rather have 3 Elizabeth’s in the Mediterranean but 1 Ford in the Pacific. You need a mix.
Very well presented. These are two very different aircraft carriers.
Yes, one far better than the other. Thank our empty headed, penny pinching politicians, the same nitwits who have made such a mess of handling the pandemic. There should be a minimum IQ requirement for MPs and a medical certificate to say they are not psychopaths.
USA ship has 2 nuclear reactors needing regular maintenance limiting its options assuming ret to USA, cost of de commissioning 2 nuclear reactors?, assuming you can't just fire up a reactor like diesel so days weeks notice req? Assuming any friendly QE port could fit in could repair or maintain it . understand QEs role is part of a taskforce not a stand alone outdated battleship mentality
@@waynegazard5038 The US has excellent sealed unit nuclear reactors for its ships, and no doubt these will be made available for Australia's new subs. How do you maintain a sealed unit reactor? You don't. That's why they will equip Ozzie subs. No, they don't take ages to start up, but do QE's turbines start faster? Probably, because the nukes have to raise steam, but that doesn't take long. All carriers operate as part of a task force, to send one to sea by iitself in time of war would be criminal folly. The reactors last 30 years before they need refuelling, and probably 60 before they need decommissioning.
@@waynegazard5038 The type you're talking Occurs after their 7th month tour unless there was some type of nuclear accident.
@@waynegazard5038 I'm from the UK and desperately want the British to win but aren't the US/UK ships always battle ready?
Two very different ships, but you can't deny it, that they're both works of art.
True
The Ford and Queen Elizabeth in reality play for the same team (NATO), so it's a Win-Win scenario...🇺🇲⚓️🇬🇧
Fire power lol
"NATO"
Israel - Rothschild
@@donall5302 tin foil hat
If one is attacked holy hell will rain upon the attacker
Not when it's been vaporised
Be happy they are both on the same side .
ya
@swdwe21 erm no
best comment on here so far lol besides mine XD
@Royal naval study that scenarios would never happen! The Queen never leaves court without her entourage!
The fact that these two navies work together is the most important thing.. anyone outside of NATO would definitely think twice before starting anything 💀
chinas df missles would sink them easy,
@@lazycarper7925 chinas ballistic missiles would probably not even turn on or they’ll redirect themselves back at the control tower in the rare chance that it does 🤣🤣
@@sovkhan4359 even america have made statements about chinas missle tech and said they are very advanced now but we are catching up
@@lazycarper7925 Of course they could...but what do you think would happen to China if they did attack these ships?
@@johncee853 they get a free hand job round the back of the old tyre factory?
People often forget the HMS Queen Elizabeth is not just a one and done carrier. It has been specifically designed to be an experimental weapons and equipment platform.
The ships hull has been designed to accommodate electromagnetic catapults (like the Ford), it has the capacity to be fitted with an angled landing deck if necessary, and its heavy use of automation and electronic power generation allows it to be fitted with experimental Dragon fire anti drone laser system
The UK carrier is pretty barren at the moment, but it has specifically been designed to last for decades with experimental equipment and weapon upgrades.
It doesn’t have the power to power future weapons, such as the incoming lasers or electromagnetic launch system.
Don’t forget you have to fill the stupid thing up with 3,000,000 gallons of fossil fuel!
Ford is obviously the better ship but a based on cost would you rather have 1 Ford class or 3 QE's?
We will never know unless there is a war. 3 cheaper QEs would be better than one Ford, war is often a numbers game. QE to me looks like yesterday’s technology. The Russians could take that out easy with a hypersonic. I suspect the future will be smaller carriers with more unmanned aircraft.
@@markac8 the QE is definitely not yesterday’s tech. The amount of automation is insane. It will also be fitted with laser weapons like the Ford.
For the UK, with their budget, they made the right decision. But the US can afford more than just one Supercarrier.
The US studied the option of smaller carriers and determined that larger was better. The UK made the same decision and built the largest carrier the UK has ever built.
If smaller was better -- that would be the trend -- but it is not.
-------------------
I would rather have 10 Ford-class carriers than 30 QEC-class carriers.
@@garthtomlinson2570 What advanced automation does the QEC have besides the weapons transport?
@@Courage2006 the right decisions for now. I foresee aircraft becoming smaller and remote operated without on board pilots. Supercarriers will become a massive target. My prediction is more carriers that are much smaller because in war it’s a numbers game and you will lose some ships in battle. More ships but smaller with remote aircraft is what I think will happen in the long term.
Healthy competition among allies. They are different ships, both would be useful if needed.
Complement, not compete
@@331SVTCobra I like that 👍
If you are solely comparing capability then the Ford wins hand down. However, you have to look at the bigger picture. The Ford is astronomically more expensive than the QE and not just in construction. When the ship eventually gets retired it's decommission costs will far out way that of the QE. In fact the UK will likely sell the carrier on so will recoup some of the overall cost which wont be possible with the US carriers. Also, nuclear has it's drawbacks, some ports refuse nuclear powered vessels so the QE can dock where the US carrier cannot. The US carrier also has enormous refit times of literally years while the QE does not.
While range is clearly a key factor for the US carrier she still needs food, muntions, new crew, supplies so basically you could just refuel at the same time so it isn't as huge an advantage as people think. Especially if your navy has a large solid support fleet.
In reality the QE was never designed to compete with the US Ford carrier. If it was than the UK would have probably gone for just one carrier and spent the money making it nuclear and use the UK variant of EMALs and be closer to that of the Ford. Or non-nuclear and matched or even exceeded the combat capability of the Ford. The design was to give the UK a blue water navy capability and an independent strike force unmatched outside the US. It has done that and considering you could get 3 QE for the cost of 1 Ford (Meaning at surge capacity the three carriers could have over 200 aircraft) than I think the comparison is a lot closer than people think.
If there was war than it would be a different story. This is just the UK stepping up to it's NATO commitments for it's size and economy something which very few other nations are doing.
Good read Welshy 👍
The only country that denies its ports to Nuclear Powered vessels is New Zealand.
There are some individual cities that pass *symbolic* motions declaring themselves nuclear-free zones. But cities don't have the power to ban foreign ships from ports that share their name.
For one, often the ports are run by entities separate from the city.
Also, federal governments control what foriegn ships can visit their country. This is not a decision that cities can overrule.
=========================
The QEC is a great ship. And perfect for the UK's budget. And the US probably shouldn't have implemented 23 bleeding-edge technologies into the Ford. As that is causing the ship to be behind schedule and over budget.
But is a fantasy that three QEC could surge over 200 aircraft.
The most each QEC class is designed to handle is 36 F-35s and 14 helicopters. The QEC will usually just sail with 24 F-35s. While 36 F-35s is the surge capacity.
===============
It is also a fantasy to claim that the UK could have built a carrier that "even exceeded the combat capability of the Ford."
Over the past 40 years the US has built and operated more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. And it spends far, far more on R&D than does the UK. And the US also has a far larger industrial base, and is the leader in technology.
@@Courage2006
Smaller crew = smaller running costs
@@johngraves6378 Yes, a smaller crew means a lower running costs.
It also usually means the ship has less capabilties.
And it certainly means there are fewer crew members available to fight a fire, stop a flood, and repair the ship while in a war situation.
@@Courage2006 QE has almost full automation, something Ford is close to by the way, so can deliver a higher sortie rate than previous UK carriers. I don't think any navy would put extra souls on board to stamp out flames. If a ship does get put out of action the less souls on board the better.
There is no competition. They are both superb ships.
The Ford Class is the best (and most expensive) Carrier made by man to date, but the Brits may have gotten more for their money. As an American we are so glad to be in NATO and have partner ships like the Queen Elizabeth. It is the combined assets of NATO that make it the greatest fighting force on Earth. You can't pick the most important part of a system, as it falls apart without all components working together. It would be like picking the best part of your car, the break pedal or the steering wheel! You need both to have a safe car. The strength of the Naval Carrier group is just that, the Group, and the capabilities each ship brings to the fight.
Both carriers are amazing. Often the best ship boils down to the best crew during engagement. Good video, I love these ships.
Yes they are!
Damn, your Statement is Gospel.
As a Brit, One is a Carrier, the other is a Super-Carrier, the only downside of the Gerald R Ford is its a bigger target.......
It also have Laser Beam Weapons.
No problem
Also is has disastrous reactors onboard
Both carriers are incredibly powerful, and I would be very scared going up against one, but I think that the Supperior Range and speed makes the Ford my pick for best aircraft carrier.
And let's not forget only one has a bar ;)
Which one?
The Gerald Ford is a better ship in absolute terms, but in term of cost effectiveness, the QE is better, since you can get 2 of them and 4 type 45s to protect them for the price of the Gerald Ford.
The other thing not mentioned is the aircraft and munitions handling on the British carriers (HMWHS), which enables planes to sortie with a much shorter turn around.
QEC also has space for electric catapults to be even more efficient when the bugs are worked out and they want to install. I look at it as 3 QEC's or 1 ford class, both are top tech just different docterine.
But we will just build 3 more Ford class carriers. Cost isn't a thing fir our military industrial complex lol.
Nuclear powered carriers haven’t seen warfare yet & I don’t think they’ll be great during a ballistic missile attack as no vessel will so them reactors won’t be protected as nothing on earth can protect them ! Over crewed as well so they’re great in peacetime but not warfare
@@mattalford3932 sure. But when looking at the ships in isolation of the actual economies of the country, lower cost is a huge plus
This is like asking what is better? A Bugatti Veyron or a Mclaren F1.
They're both superb ships but have slightly different roles/philosophy on how they're to be used.
The US Navy said at the outset it envisaged the RN carriers to operate within their own carrier fleets during combined operations. Plus the QE carriers are able to port in countries that the US carriers cannot.
Being able to steam unlimited at flank speed all day long, all week long without using a drop of fuel, and at the same time having loads of excess energy is worth everything.
Why is the film the wrong way round? All islands are on the right hand side, not the left.
Yea, it really messes with your mind. Really weird.
They're still allowed to get pissed in the mess aboard Big Lizzie.
Lets be honest one is a super premium car, the best of everything, the other is a budget car.
As a Brit I would be tripping if I suggested our carrier even gets near the us carriers, but once you include decommissioning costs the question becomes
Does 1 us carrier beat 3 british carriers?
We’ve had only got two fool. And 100 years of carrier business, and we’ve also got a 500 year old navy , Uk are masters. Plus we use our brains and utilise cost.🇬🇧🤣🤣
Ours ain’t a budget carrier fool, hms ocean was a budget carrier based on civilian, like invincible class 3 dork, do you know anything other than talking bollox ffs learn before you talk crap Walter Mitty man🤣😡🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@markdavid9056 I know how many we have, learn to read before posting.
I posed a question, does 1 us carrier beat 3 British carriers as that is the equivalent in Cost.
@@markdavid9056 omg ofcourse it is a budget carrier.
it doesn't even have a cat system, why not? To save money because it is a budget carrier.
Only the USA operates money no object carriers.
Hence premium and budget
Rather than crude remarks come at me with a sound argument or move along.
I appreciate your balanced analysis and your very reasonable question.
For the UK, having three QECs (or even two) is better than having just one Ford because of the Rule of Thirds. Generally, a country needs three warships to keep one always deployed.
Also, the first ship of a class will usually have a number of problems that get worked out when building the subsequent ships of that class. Just look at all the problems France has had with its one aircraft carrier.
And the US is trying to implement twenty-three bleeding-edge technologies into the Ford. That is why they are running into so many problems and is one reason the ship is so expensive.
Therefore, I think the UK definitely made the right choice given its budget constraints.
-----
As for a never-going-to-happen hypothetical of which would win in a battle between one Ford and three QECs:
Likely the Ford would win since they could attack the QECs without the QECs even knowing where the Fords are located. Plus, the Ford could attack the QEC while staying out of range of a counter attack by the QEC.
* With CATOBAR the Ford can launch F-35Cs that have a greater combat radius than the F-35Bs carried by the QEC
* US Supercarrier all have refueling tankers which means that all aircraft launched from Nimitz/Ford carriers have a much larger combat and patrol radius than anything deployed from the QEC.
* The fixed-wing AEW&C Hawkeye E-2D can fly higher, farther, and stay on station longer -- while also having a much more powerful radar system than the QEC's rotary AEW Merlin Crowsnest.
Basically, the Ford's E-2D can spot the QEC while the Ford is still too far away to be spotted by the QEC's Crowsnest.
COMPARING THE QUEEN ELIZABETH TO FORD, IS LIKE COMPARING JAMES BOND TO SUPERMAN🦸♂️🕴
Definitely whit ford costing 3x as much but it's no slouch it's better than the nimitz and has cutting edge weaponry and let's not forget 2 squadrens of f 35s on board will make it a massive threat to any nation
@HMS King George Vyh don't get me started on Chinese anti ship missiles
1 Ford or 3 fully kitted out QE's? I suspect the latter would be more useful. Imagine 33 QE's replacing the current US fleet.
More like comparing Superman too Robin.
@HMS King George V agreed. Smaller but more keeps all the eggs out of one basket.
Noticed that a lot, if not most, of the footage presented was reverse-imaged. Maybe not a show-stopper, but very distracting and indicative of questionable production values.
I thought I was going crazy. Had to keep looking up the ships myself to make sure my memory was working correctly. Glad its not just me.
They are both very good ships, the scale is different however suitably deployed, they can both be formidable.
I would happily trade my push bike for either tbh.
The US has 11 supercarriers right now, 10 Nimitz Class and 1 Ford Class, the cost comparison doesn’t make much sense since they obviously chose to build the best carrier regardless of budget. It´s the only country that can have a presence in every ocean at the same time.
@Ben999❤️ except we’re not.
*Build the most expensive carrier regardless of budget. Glad you have all the money you'll ever need.
@@exec2968 but we are. No other nation has the extensive ability to exert influence or project military power on a global scale. Thats what defines a superpower
@@exec2968 We absolutely are and its not even close. Our military is so far and beyond every other countries its almost a joke.
Money might be no object.... but if the us had built qe style ships... they could of literally had 3 times as many....
I think 3 x qe carriers are better then 1 Ford carrier
The QE class could have been nuclear but many countries which Britain still has interests particularly in the Gulf and East Asia refuse to have nuclear powered ships in their territorial waters
Hmmm! As if us Brits give a damn about respecting anyone. They couldn't have nuclear because it's costly. No shame in that, we are not as rich as the Yanks and that's okay.
Our aircraft carrier is made to be very versatile and cooperate with the other NATO members and support the US carriers together instead of making the US send 2 carriers in the same strike group. It was made so that it can be used in any weather condition and be allowed into more international waters then a nuclear carrier.(Though I will admit it's mainly because we don't have enough facilities to handle a nuclear powered vessel)
Yall gotta rationalize why your once great navy is now an afterthought and the USA blows yall europoors out the water now. Hell it's been that way for what almost 90 years now. Basically since ww2 we have DOMINATED the LAND, the SKY, and the OCEANS. AMERICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!
@@jonredcorn862 Of course we fell off, we don't own a quarter of the world anymore.
Plus it's a third of the price... So they should have compared the Ford to two or three Elizabeth's...
Of course the British don't have three Queen Elizabeth's... But it's a hypothetical comparison anyway...you see what I mean.
I'm also fairly sure the British don't waste money on expensive onboard gyms and friggin tennis courts.
The actual reason we did not go nuclear is because you lose space in the interior with nuclear power, it was at least in part for flexibility hence a patrol capacity of 40 planes and combat capacity of 70 from a ship more compact than the GR. It was also supposed to have catapults but the funding to fit them was cut due to "austerity". We have plenty of capacity for nuclear wessels as we already carry out service work for US Navy nuclear wessels as part of their European operations along with our (few) submarines.
@@gremlinsaregold8890
They have gyms on board but I doubt the QE class have tennis courts, spas, a selection of burger restaurants or an on-board strip club.
NO comparison., The United States Super carriers are Superior, Nimitz or Ford Class. 🇯🇵 🇺🇸
Ford is probably the better ship but lets not forget it costs significantly more than the QE Class.
good point, for the same money of 1 Ford you would get 3 QE which sounds more reasonable, I mean in battle 3 QE battlegroups would probably win against single more powerful and more advanced. again if you loose 1 of 3 in battle you still have 2 more to go. on the other hand if you lose 1 of 1 you are doomed. British carrier is a match to Russian and Chinese (probably better than them) so why spent money on a such a scale? I mean I don't care, I don't like America so just keep spending your money and destroying your economy! As soon as America collapse the rest of the planet will be happy :)
@@СербскийСледопыт Russia doesn't have a functional carrier. The QE should perform well against Chinese carriers tho
@@СербскийСледопыт You've forgotten to factor in the cost the extra ships required for the additional battlegroups.
You're also assuming the Ford-class carriers could be as easily hit as a QEC-class -- which isn't true. Since the Ford-class can fight the battle from a farther range than the QEC thereby being out of range of the enemy.
Plus, the Ford-class carriers can launch E-2D Hawkeye for airborne early warning (AEW). Thus they can find the enemy before the enemy finds them.
Plus, while the QEC has just one layer of organic self-defense, the US supercarriers have three.
Plus, the US supercarriers are much more heavily armored with both thicker steel and Kevlar protecting the vital areas.
Also, the larger crew of the US Supercarriers means that they are better able to fight fires, deal with floods, and repair the ship while in combat.
Plus, US carriers have intermediate repair facilities aboard ship while the UK carriers do not.
Probably?
You cant really compare the two aircraft carriers, they are designed for two very different roles but both of them are at the top of each of there respective fields of operations.
Why is the island of GRF on the port side of the ship in some of the clips?
Definitely, the Gerald Ford is the best.
The video doesn’t quite capture how close these two carriers are to each other. It gathers information based on what each countries ministry of defence publishes, which is fine, but it first know about the cultural differences.
The Royal Navy likes to be conservative and plays down is capabilities - discretion being the better part of valor for them. For example, if you ask them what is the aircraft capacity of the QE, it will say “45”, but if you ask what the maximum capacity is, they will say “72”. Ask the same question of the US navy and the answer is “75” for the first question and “75” for the second. You can see this culture play out in the top speed too - The Royal Navy claims 25 knots yet the ship’s been clocked at a sustained 32.
If you compare the two carriers holistically as well as statistically, this is what you get:
Performance: 30 knots vs 32 knots - nothing in it, but the QE is slightly faster.
Range: When talking about range one should consider “practical useable” range. Sure, the Ford can run forever, but it’s going to need fresh supplies of food, ammunition, aircraft fuel and other materials just as regularly as the QE, at which point, if you’re gonna restock and refuel your aircraft, you might as well refuel your carrier.
Capacity: 75 aircraft vs 72 - not much in it but, but the Ford is slightly higher. However, it’s not all about carrying capacity, it’s also about the number of sorties per day. Ford can run 160 sorties per day, whereas QE can run 110, so Ford wins.
Weapons: I’d say the QE edges the Ford on Electronics. The Artisan 3D system can track 800 objects, the size of a tennis ball, coming at it from as far as 200km away. The Ford however out guns the QE with its laser cannon. But which of the two systems would be more useful, the most advanced electronic tracking in the world or the laser cannon? Let’s give this to the Ford.
Ultimately, the Ford class is only just better as a stand alone single proposition but pound for pound, the British carrier is better conceptually for two reasons.
The first being that you can get 3 of them for the price of 1 Ford. What is better, a carrier which can carry 75 aircraft and handle 160 sorties or 3 carriers which can carry 216 and handle 330 sorties? Given that the whole point of an aircraft carrier is to project air power, I would say the latter.
The second reason is operational cost. The biggest operational cost is personnel: salaries, pensions, food, training, medical, holidays. The incredible degree of automation in the Elizabeth class means it only needs 22 crew per aircraft whereas the Ford class needs 65.
What the US wishes it had done was to go with the British concept and philosophy, because for the price of the 10 Ford class carriers they are planning to build, they could have had 30 QE class carriers, which are almost as good. In other words, the QE costs over 3 x less than the Ford, but the Ford is not 3 x better than the QE.
The QE was made for the country it serves, smaller than the US so its capabilities are different to what the Nimitz and Ford class carriers can do. US carries are made for power projection while the British carriers are for more support roles. You can add the QE to the US carrier task force with the Ford and it would fit in nicely.
Didn’t the QE just go on a year long force projection?
@@adamatch9624 Where did it go and did it go with any other carriers?
@@joshuajgrillot The operation was CSG21. It lasted eight months and took QE all over the world, including the Pacific to piss of China. It was the only aircraft carrier in the group but it did conduct training exercises with other carriers along the way including Charles de Gaule and Cavour.
@@joshuajgrillot it’s role is indeed power projection.
Your EGO is too big and you need to realise that most carrier technology is actually British and the British once had the largest navy but went through two World Wars when bombs landed on the nations homes & industry for many years
"Alright, we'll call it a draw", both are great ships, it''s just a matter of how much you are will to spend.
Not really, the US have America class carriers that are similar in cost and mission profile as the QEC.
American Carriers as a group enjoy a significant economy of scale advantage. Construction is continuous in dedicated facilities as is the mid-life maintence to produce a constantly revolving fleet with no idle or wasted capacity. Upgrades are amortized over multiple ships which makes the cost quoted here for Ford misleading, future members of the class will be cheaper. The Carriers of all other nations are singles or pairs which means they incure all overhead costs and then have few ships to ammortize over. Also we should remember that operating coss far outweight build costs in the long run, this is why crew size reductions are so desirable because crew is the main driver of operating costs.
This makes the American Carriers more cost effective, aka more power per unit cost. But when you don't need such high performance a smaller cheaper ship is the right choice. The real question is do the British have the right power level for what they expect to do? NATO members might be better off buying Ford type Carriers from the US rather then each designing and building their own small production run carriers. Meanwhile the US lacks good production capacity for smaller ships and should buy more from Europe to reach the ship number targets that have been a strugle.
It's comparing apples to oranges, just glad they're on our side.
I would like to point out that the design of these ships denotes completely different intended operation and doctrine of the 2 navies.
The QEC intended use is similar to the America Class Amphibious assault ship in that it's primary focus is fast deployment of landing forces and supporting aircraft to further assist the assault.
The Ford on the other hand is power projection tasked with securing air supremacy anywhere on the planet. Basically continuing the role of "the great white fleet" of Theodore Roosevelt (which one of the Nimitz is named after)
NOW YOUR'RE TALKING SHIT BRO there is no naval fleet that has or ever will match the might of the british navy NOT EVEN THE SPANISH ARMADA STOOD A CHANCE!! nuff said..
DON'T ASSUME JUST BECAUSE YOUR GUNS ARE BIGGER THEY ARE BETTER LOL this is the BRITISH we are talking about here not some rag tag band of noobs 'when all else fails we sit and sip tea while bombs drop' with no fear in our hearts we march unto dawn with the sun at our backs and victory in hand! US you may be our brothers/sisters from across the pond but when we BRITS say JUMP you americans would be wise to say 'HOW HIGH!! :) XD
PS, from UK TO US 'brothers in arms' forever together may we fight the good fight, fuck our wives/husbands sensless and party till we drop XD
@@jamiemarsden3823 My statement was not to disparity the British navy. It was to point out the different doctrines behind the designs of the warships. The QEC was not designed to dominate the skies. It serves the same purpose as the Jeep carriers from WW2 or the amphibious assault ships the current marine fleet. Aiding landing forces establish a beachhead. It performs that task very well. In terms of aircraft turn over (dispatching, receiving, rearm, and refueling), total takeoff weight capacity of aircraft, and number of aircraft available all are important if you are going to attack another carrier battle group. Even the Nmitz class carrier wins in those metrics before factoring in their numbers as well. You can claim you have the edge in training but as far as equipment goes please keep it realistic.
@@chemislife equipment doesn't mean squat if your the men/women lack the training/tactics to get a job done! A gun is only useful when manned! That said bigger weapons, ships, jets etc etc don't succeed that of training which is what the US lack on a drastic level vs British. Was my main point.
Also, ya got a stop swinging ya cocks about if you don't have the grit to hold em up! Take note my friend. :)
@@jamiemarsden3823 I remember it was the rifle that allowed us to kick you out of our land and establishing this country you seem to hate. It was also American manufacturing that saved you in the battle of Britain. We are also the only nation to win a 2 front war. The wars we have lost was due to politicians controlling the generals not the lack of proper training of our soldiers. Constantly calling our military incompetent makes your claims of respect ring hollow. You think you are still the global power you where before the world wars and that just is not true. Your navy is similar in size to Russia's with warships similar to the US but smaller. In a head to head contest there is no question that the USN would win. We built your aircraft and have more of them. If we are talking ground war then there is evidence that our forces are in need of a reality check but our pilots have shown they can hold their own and the navies on both sides have never fought an actual naval battle against first nation navies and have no data to back your claims.
Both are excellent ships👍👌
Very fair summary. Hate to say it (as a Brit) but the Gerald R Ford has the best stats - BUT - because it's nuclear, it isn't allowed through the Suez canal - hugely important to the RN, not so much to the USN. Also, Britain gets two QE-class carriers for two-thirds the price of the GRF.
Most important to the RN now isn't the size of the carriers, but getting the support ships (particularly GM Destroyers and anti-submarine frigates) it needs for two independent carrier battle groups - no carrier wants to be on it's own in a peer-adversary fight, not even the GRF...
Of course the Ford is much more potent. But the Queen Elizabeth is still good.
Agreed!
I'm English & totally love our American friends. I'm a patriot but unfortunately the Gearald Ford would kick our butt.
Cost is a big factor with the Ford costing 3x as much as the QE, but it does not seem to have 3x the punch. That said, the purposes for each carrier differ, so the Ford forms part of a larger navy and so the US could equally also produce QE equivalent carriers to complement its fleets.
It does have 3x the punch though in terms of sustained sortie rate. More than that actually. A Nimitz can conduct 150 sorties per day for a month straight (Ford even more) while a QE can manage around 75 sorties/day for maybe a week. Sustained operation is what that 5,000 crew and far bigger ship gets you. QE is a beast compared to any non-US carrier though, that's for sure the American carriers are just monstrosities
Why would the U.S. want to produce a baby carrier like the QE? It's a nice little support ship, but you wouldn't want to create a task force around it.
Let’s put a couple of scenario’s down, if both carriers defences failed to intercept a missile off the tower, which one could still operate? The QE has two separate towers; which can take full control of operations if required.
If both carriers failed to intercept a missile to the engine bay, which carrier could carry on under a separate propulsion system under the secondary tower?
Would you rather x4 HMS Queen Elizabeth class carriers at 3.2 billion each with 200k change or x1 Ford class carrier?
Problem is, this assumes that the queen Elizabeth and Nimitz find each at about the same time. Problem is, the Nimitz will likely find the qe first. It has awacs planes with more range, and much more planes. It will launch a much bigger strike, and from further away.
Also, the general r ford is going to be cheaper in the long run since it's nuclear, and it also carries about as many aircraft as 4 QE'S.
The answer to which is better depends primarily on which has the best defensive systems to remain combat ready in time of war. That includes the escort vessels protecting the aircraft carrier. Otherwise they have similar technical capabilities while the Ford can carry more aircraft and maintain a higher sortie rate.
you forgot to mention one small detail.... after the success of strapping Royal Marines to apache helicopters in Afghanistan .. the Royal Navy now have a small hook on the Bow of all ships where they have two royal marine commandos constantly hanging there
Sounds like a hard job.
Pity they haven't a noose on hook with liar Blair on the end
The correct way to look at this is, one Ford costs more than three QEs. So the question should be: "What is better? One Ford or three QEs?"
Don't forget the cost of decommissioning a nuclear carrier costs just as much as it does to build it.
The UK Minister of Defence announced a few months ago that the maximum purchase limit for F35s will be 138. That's across all UK armed services. The F35B will be the only type operating from these two QE Class carriers. With full compliment, that would be 80 F35s between them. No way the UK would risk such a massive investment in aircraft and pack the carriers to capacity in a combat situation in which if a carrier was hit or even sunk, the whole caboodle would be up in smoke. The latest exercise had 8 F35s on board with 10 more from the the US Marines to make the carrier look more impressive. Also, given Brexit and the pandemic and the maximum 138 statement, the inference is that the target of 138 will not be achieved.
Yeah, and it's impossible to get 100% mission capability rate on any type of equipment and that goes double for advanced fighter jets.
The UK would do great to achieve a 70% mission capability rate for the F-35.
The announced plan by the MoD is to eventually be able to patrol with 24 F-35s -- and be able to surge to 36 F-35s in an emergency.
The QEC is designed to handle a maximum of 36 F-35s.
You seem to be subscribing to the wokist view that carriers are for show and too valuable to risk with actual fighting. I beg to differ. Barmy Boris squandered £2 trillion on controlling the pandemic, only half of which was unavoidable. The rest was caused by incompetence and corruption. Boris must go. How many carriers could you buy with £1 trillion? Quite a few, complete with aircraft.
Nice logic - except that's exactly what Britain had to do in 1982. And we did it.
Both great ships, but not comparable, unless you think bigger is better.
your mom said i'm better than your dad
Yes our US cousins seem intent on this comparison not to the technical
I would hope the one that cost 3 times the price of the other would be better. Although both serve their respective purposes.
Hi just one point the British Government didn't choose Non-nuclear propulsion of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers because of cost it was because of ports across the world that do not allow Nuclear Powered Vessels into their ports, Don't forget we also operate Nuclear powered vessels and in some countries, they cannot dock because some countries won't allow them too.
Let's be fair now, you can have 3 queen elizabeth class carriers for the price of a Ford. And crewing the two different carriers is also another massive difference, 600 vs 2000 or there abouts. I'm in favour of the queen elizabeth for its price,crew,it's 30 plus knots of speed, 70 aircraft,survivability with having a 2nd island as a backup and it's design to allow modifications for cats at a later date. 75000 tonne is a very good size and it's certainly not small
That figure of 70 aircraft for the QEC is a fantasy. The QEC was designed to handle a max of 36 F-35s. The plan is to have it carry just 24.
Currently, the most UK jets the QEC has carried is eight.
Also, the QEC has two islands to house the two smokestacks for the diesel engines -- not for survivability. Plus, the diesel engines are housed in the sponsons making them very vunerable to a missile attack.
But either way, it is the Ford which is much more survivable.
The US Supercarries are CATOBAR and so can fight the battle from a farther range than the QEC thereby being out of range of the enemy.
Plus, while the QEC has just one layer of organic self-defense, the US supercarriers have three.
Plus, the US supercarriers are much more heavily armored with both thicker steel and Kevlar protecting the vital areas.
Plus, the US Supercarriers have a control room below deck that can perform all the functions normally done in the tower.
Also, the larger crew of the US Supercarriers means that they are better able to fight fires, deal with floods, and repair the ship while in combat.
Plus, US carriers have intermediate repair facilities aboard ship while the UK carriers do not.
------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong, I think the QEC is a great ship and the right purchase considering the UK's budget.
But the US has way more experience designing, building, and operating carriers. Plus, it spends way more on R&D. Plus, it spent nearly three times as much building each carrier.
Experience, R&D, and money all matter.
@@Courage2006 your wrong in many aspects there my friend there are two islands for what you said but either island can do what the other one does if a missile etc strikes the island of the Ford carrier it's obsolete in a fight yet the hms queen Elizabeth can stay in the game in terms of crew size loosing nearly 5000 lives is a much bigger loss than 1800 so another benefit to the UK and in terms of experience building aircraft carriers us Brits have been building them since they were created another invention you can thank us Brits for but ultimately speaking the Ford class are better protected with better weapon systems but is it worth 3 times the cost? Also 72 aircraft can be put on a uk carrier fair enough we haven't got the planes at the moment but that's more than likely because they'll be a varient of the tempest being used in the future and more automated aircraft if you look on hms prince of Wales news feed you will see some of these. Either way USA and the UK are allies we should be thankful that we are both pioneers in democracy and rule of law
@@callumflowers5720 My friend, much of what you've written is either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant.
But, before I address your other points ... If you can't even acknowledge that the US has far, far, far more experience designing, building, and operating aircraft carriers than any country in the world -- then this conversation isn't even worth engaging in.
Yes, the Royal Navy has a long and proud history -- but the UK did not "invent" the aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier is a composite of inventions from many nations.
But more importantly, It is silly to go far back in history and cherry-pick who invented what. If it wasn't done by people *currently* involved in the military -- then it isn't very relevant to what we are discussing. And cherry-picking things from the past is always a silly game.
For example: Yes, the UK invented the steam catapult and carrier ramps .... But the US was the first to fly an airplane off a ship and also the first to land an airplane on a ship. The US also invented the first airplane catapult and invented barrier arrested landing equipment. See? Both sides can go back and forth like without addressing anything relevant.
-----------------
As for things that are relevant to our discussion:
The US has built and operated far more aircraft carriers than the UK -- and this is *especially* true over the past 30 years -- the time frame that matters.
The UK has so far spent nearly half the 21st Century without *any* fully operational aircraft carriers. In fact, the US Navy has been teaching the Royal Navy how to operate their new carriers.
And while the UK is still working on getting just two aircraft carriers operational. The US has 20 fully operational aircraft carriers -- and has had around that many for the last 30 years -- the time period that matters.
----------------------------------------------
www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13368/royal-navys-new-supercarrier-trains-alongside-us-navy-counterpart-for-first-time
Below are quotes from the above article:
“We stand shoulder-to-shoulder here today to help them [the Royal Navy] refine and enhance their carrier strike group capabilities,” U.S. Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, head of U.S. European Command and NATO’s top officer, said ahead of the exercise.…
But training for carrier operations is especially important for the Royal Navy, which hasn’t had a carrier with fixed wing aircraft since it retired HMS Ark Royal in 2011.“The U.S. Navy, out of huge generosity, has given us the whole of their carrier strike group so that we can practice the command and control of a carrier doing these operations in British waters,” Royal Navy Captain Ken Houlberg, Chief of Staff to the Commander of the U.K. Carrier Strike Group, said.
“We are extremely fortunate,” Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander James Capps, who is the service’s Fixed Wing Operations Officer for Saxon Warrior 2017 and is situated aboard George H.W. Bush, said. “Being here on the George H.W. Bush has given us the opportunity to see where we are and what we need to achieve for our own U.K. carrier strike capability and to be here to see how the U.S. does it has been fantastic preparation.”
@@callumflowers5720 The tempest is not designed to be a STVOL aircraft.
@@Courage2006
It's designed to carry 40 planes in patrol mode and up to 70 in combat mode. The QE actually has comparable hangar space to the GF because the combustion engines don't intrude the bow and stern like the nuclear plants do. The twin islands are a byproduct of the dual fuel systems, the exhausts are routed through them from the engine rooms in the depths of the ship. The low plane count is due to 12 years of cuts to our armed forces by our "patriotic" Conservative "government".
which is best, the one that hasten got a broken drive shaft ?
How about everyone stops trying to compare the two. A Ford costs more than 3 times to amount to build as a Lizzie and you're obviously going to get a bigger vessel and more bang for your buck if you can afford to splash 3 times the price. They are both amazing pieces of engineering and fill the roles required of them by their respective nations.
They are both great and show how you must cut your cloth according to your means. But in terms of bang for bucks I think the QE class is (surprisingly) doing rather well. The US is spending an incredible amount of money on the Ford class for not much more relative capability. They'd be better off having many more smaller carriers and subs for the same money.
As one who personally works on aircraft carriers and seen both the ford and QE there both good ships and would beat any Russian or Chinese aircraft carrier any day
I understand that QE carrier can function with a crew of 750 that of course doesn’t include air and marines. I can’t post photos but when QE carrier was commissioned by her late majesty Elizabeth ll the onboard Chefs made a cake with a miniature Queen Elizabeth holding a sign saying HMS Me, there was also an enormous cake of the new carrier with aircraft etc
It was actually named after Queen Elizabeth 1st. It should have had catapults and arrester gear. Penny pinching short sighted MOD.
@@bennymule3226
It was the national government that cut the navy to the bone, y'know the flag waving and patriotic Conservative government. They cut the planes, the catapults, half the order for the type-45s and other vessels such as frigates and submarines meaning we now only have 19 F-35s after we crashed one into the Med and even if we borrowed some planes we can't form a full battle group to protect a carrier. They even cut the expenditure on the missile defences aboard so it is incapable in practical terms of defending itself in operations.
Well if we go by cost I'll take 3 QE class over 1 Ford class... also the QE class has a Bar 🍻 so no contest then
Both great ships but the Ford (& all Nimitz class carriers) have a major advantage in its air wing. The E2-C Hawkeye early warning aircraft. It's a force multiplier in terms of early detection of enemy aircraft & command and control.
And nuclear engins
The F-35C with its stealth, new generation sensors and onboard computing power is supposed to replace a lot of AWACS functionality.
@@tonysu8860 Not even close. The E-2 is a dedicated EW platform and gives the Ford Class a huge advantage.
Both very different carriers, but to the fact it has 2 nuclear reactors, 100 ft long and 7-10 knots faster, its a 9/10 for HMS, but a 10 for USS.
Both vessels are incredibly powerful and suited for their primary missions. With her limited endurance, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is design more for North Atlantic operations. Closer to her home port, shorter strike missions and submarine hunting and defense. But true blue water action. The USS Ford is a traditional heavy carrier the U.S. Navy is known for. Able to be deployed for long periods in hostile seas with a huge air wings. The speed and numbers of aircraft carried are slightly off. The speed of course is classified but rumour has it that’s she’s faster than even the Enterprise, indicating 35-37 knots. I believe during wartime conditions, she can accommodate upwards of 100 aircraft, but that might include next generation fighter and strike drones. Both are very modern vessels and both have been and will continue going through some teething problems. Both send very strong messages of deterance to potential adversaries.
Skimming the posted comments, it looks like most are judging only by the raw numbers of personnel and aircraft.
The Ford is so much more than simple numbers. There are qualitative upgrades and bleeding edge technology everywhere, and the individual aircraft are much, much more capable (F-35C vs F-35B means longer range, heavier payloads, more capabilities). Because of the Ford's totality of quantitative and qualitative capabilities that are beyond any other ship now afloat, the ship is far more versatile and capable than any other ship. That justifies the Ford's cost and ambitious design... The ability to do things that no other ship can do, even if for the same money you can buy more copies of any alternative.
That's my tax money I'd better love it
The purpose of comparison is unfair, USA's ship is infinitly more expensive. 100 million vs 200 million is huge but $5Billion vs $15Billion is gargantuan for a fair comparison. Like the $Trillions of tax payers money wasted over 20 years in Afghanistan by USA, they have more money than sense.
Good job we are on the same side 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
🇺🇸 and 🇬🇧 are brothers
Both excellent carriers but deal in different ways.
These 2 ships have very different design and operation strategies.
I feel both ships are equal when considering design, operational capabilities and defense spending.
France and England wanted to jointly build nuclear powered carries.
England didn't have the capacity to dispose of extra nuclear waste on top of disposing of nuclear submarine waste.
The partnership was broken:
France operates 1 nuclear powered carrier.
The UK operates 2 conventionally powered carriers.
2 is better than 1, especially if you build a support fleet to protect a carrier.
Honestly no offense to the Brits, they are valuable allies to Americans. The Ford is the biggest most fearsome warship in the world today
These vessels serve very different rolls. The US carriers are global vessels, while the British carrier is regional (in an around England & the Mediterranean). Also the British navy didn’t have the infrastructure to support a nuclear powered aircraft carrier or support the cost of the system.
just England? Not sail round Scotland too? /rolls eyes
i can sleep easy at night knowing both are on my side
The Ford and previous classes of US carriers are designed for conventional aircraft while the QE is designed for STOL and VTOL aircraft only, hence the need for a larger and longer flight deck.. If the US moves further toward the same STOL and VTOL aircraft then I would expect their carriers to be designed very differently in the future. Mind you, this is probably 50 years away.
Looking at all the comments and replies it looks to me you lot are having a pissing contest to see who is the best. I can’t see why you don’t accept that the two ships are different and built for different reasons and budgets. At least the two navies can get along.
At 3 times the cost, the Ford had better be better.
@swdwe21 trash ramp? lmao okay
Very true. Which makes it all the more suprising when some Brits insist the QEC is just as good or better.
@@carwyngriffiths At least ramps don't break down.
Us Ford for me. The nuclear element is the future and in my opinion gives the Ford more capabilities.
Don't forget how expensive and difficult it is to manage and maintain nuclear powered vehicles and a aircraft carrier can only be active for as long as it's food lasts and the real question is 1 ford or 3 queen Elizabeth carriers but apart from the engines and radar the ford is better but at the end of the day they'll be fighting together
Nuclear being the future? id argue the opposite personally.
The one with the most fighter jets is the most powerful.
I would not be surprised if the Ford is also equipped with laser weapons. It has the energy for it.
They do but the US doesn't advertise them. Same goes for the Zumwalt class of destroyers.
The Ford Class is clearly a winner but when it costs 3x the price a better comparison would be 1x Ford Class vs 3x HMS Queen Elizabeths lol
I would argue numbers is becoming largely more important with the uprising of Chinas naval missile threat too, might be worth America downsizing a section of their aircraft carrier fleet in exchange for more of them
The fact that the Gerald Ford actually has an airwing and the Elizabeth doesn't makes this pretty obvious
in my opinion both carries are sitting ducks spotted by a space satellite and for a smart guided missile that arrives almost vertically from a high space trajectory.
Yeah it's no comparison. It's no different than comparing an apple to an orange. Ford is a fixed wing carrier. Elizabeth is a VTAL/STOVAL carrier.
Not from choice, but because it has to. Our empty headed, penny pinching politicians couldn't spare a few bob to put catapults on board. Yet they can squander £1trillion on their incompetent management of the pandemic, half of it unavoidable and the other half, £1 trillion, due to their incompetence and corruption. Watch out at the next election, Boris, the British people will be after their revenge! But when the Tories give him the bum's rush, Boris will be laughing all the way to the bank. It's not fair!
Obviously the one you are crewed on. But brothers will always have their own opinion.
Always a massive debate about nuclear reactor or diesel power, they both have advantage's and disadvantage's. There are many ports around the world that will not allow nuclear ships any where near them. Downside to diesel is refuelling, But if you need food every week then refuelling at the same time is no big deal. Sick of hearing "we don't have to refuel for 30 years" , are your planes also nuclear powered? your refuelling aviation fuel every week just like the rest of us :P. I would much prefer the diesel bill than the bill of the R&D and maintenance cost of a reactor and the salary's of the staff that have to work on them. The US have reduce them cost's massively with constant development and well trained staff that can teach others. UK would pretty much have to start from scratch, which was why our Astute class subs where so over budget.
Didn't mention the C-2 Greyhound, a twin-engine turboprop airplane the Ford has. It's a flying bus or supply van, hauling people and cargo onto and off the carrier.
I understand the Greyhound has been replaced by the V-22 Osprey which is supposed to support transporting an F-35 engine (The Greyhound can't). Unless the F-35s aren't being deployed the Ford (very unlikely), there won't be any Greyhounds aboard unless to augment the Ospreys.
@@tonysu8860 The transition is underway but far from over. And the Ford is one of the carriers it hasn't happened at yet, which is odd considering it's brand new.
No need to compare; the Brits are allies of ours. We fight together.
Ford is better, but then having three QE’s for one Ford… that seems like QE is the better value.
The ford is better for one reason if nothing else. We use the angled approach landing area not to save space, but to save lives. When the landing and the takeoff reas are the same, bad things on one end of the ship spread to the other end quickly and quickly affect the planes in the air.
While both are great, lets put them into perspective, The Ford is a nuclear powered carrier that actually cost 13 billion dollars, has some of the most advanced current technology, the ford can go longer distances and can go for few decades without refueling, while the HMS QE, is a diesel carrier that cost around 8.4 billion USD, and would require maintenance a bit more often than the ford, and everything the HMS QE can do the ford can do, but with a strike group around the ford its almost unstoppable, while the hms does have a group, im not sure of its possible maximum performance, but a beautiful ship regardless, i do have to give this win to the ford based on sheer performance and (R&D) of the vessel
Just remember to have plans for it
As to which one is better would come down to which has the better crew!
Obviously the Ford is a superior vessel, but the Queen Elizabeth just looks so cool :)
It doesn't matter how she looks, what matters is her fighting capability, and that is about the same as one of Japan's mini-cariers which will carry about the same number of F35s. For a comparativly small extra cost she could have been so much better. Everything our empty headed, corrupt politicians touch turns to excrement, yet the greedy bastards have the cheek to demand higher salaries! They are a disgrace.
@@bernardedwards8461 at least we’re second to the us carriers, with better defences I’d say a neck and neck comp, but otherwise it’s a close second
@@splatoonistproductions5345 I have an awful suspicion that our crazy and corrupt politicians have skimped on the armour to save a few quid. Obviously the carriers should have been made as damage resistant as possible, but allowing our stupid politicians to have a hand in the design was the height of folly. You can see how competent they are by the mess they have made of the anti-covid campaign. Of the £2 trillion it cost us, half was unavoidable, but the other trillion was due to their corruption and lack of common sense. That £1 trillion could have bought us a fleet of carriers to rival the US fleet, yet I wouldn't put it past the bastards to skimp on the arour to save afew quid. That's why the carriers have no catapults.
@@splatoonistproductions5345 Fortunately the Ford is our ally and existing Chinese carriers are similar to ours. There i a rumour, however, that they are building one comparable with a Nimitz class.
Ford is 3x the cost of QE but is it 3x better ? I dont think so. Speed is almist at par, plane capacity as well at par during wartime, while defensive wrapons aboard the Ford is only necessary under very extreme circumstance if you have fighter planes and type 45 destroyers as escorts. So dollar for pound i think QE is better.
You've fallen for a common myth. Plane capacity is not "at par during wartime".
The US Supercarriers are more than fifty percent larger than the QEC. Plus, the American Supercarriers are nuclear powered leaving much more room for a larger hangar deck and more storage space for munitions and aviation fuel.
Also, it isn't safe or effective to just stuff a modern aircraft carrier full of planes during wartime if one hasn't appropriately outfitted the warship and practiced with that many planes before going to war.
Yes, the UK did that during the Falklands War. But those were much smaller carriers with much less sophisticated operations and technology. And the carriers weren't trying to fly a large, sustained number of attack sorties. Most of the planes were used for defense.
--------------------
The QEC was designed and outfited to carrier a maximum of 36 F-35s at surge capacity. Normally, it hopes to carry 24 F-35s. Right now, the maximum the UK has been able to deploy is eight F-35s.
--------------
Yes, Supercarriers are designed to handle "extreme situations". But the US Supercarriers also have far more capabilities and capacity that can be used in non-extreme situations.
--------
Yes, the QEC is a great carrier and more cost effective -- it wisely didn't try and implement anywhere near as much bleeding-edge technology as is on the Ford carriers. The UK should be proud of those carriers. There is no need to claim it is as capable as the much larger, much more advanced, much more expensive Supercarriers.
@@Courage2006 I think your worried the UK has designed and built a much cheaper more efficient carrier class
Guys the United states develops things with the future in mind. The ford class has been designed so that it can take on future threats and advancements. I dont know much about the Elizabeth and those carriers so i cant say which is better or not
Imagine if we could dump this money into science, education and social programs instead of weapons.
We'd get another Fauchi
The Ford is definitely more powerful but for a smaller nation like the UK the more cost effective QE is definitely the way forward. You could have 3 QEs for one Ford. It should be who would win 3 QEs against one Ford.
The fact you can have 3 QE for the price of one Ford says alot.
With both operating on the same team it creates the perfect storm for any enemy of NATO!
Even as an American, I was troubled by a Royal Navy without real world-wide reach.
Which is better is a silly question. Clearly the Ford is better in terms of raw combat capability and extensibility. However, it costs over 3 times as much. There are surely missions where the Elizabeth is the more cost effective solution. I’d might rather have 3 Elizabeth’s in the Mediterranean but 1 Ford in the Pacific. You need a mix.
Queen Elizebeth 2nd not first !!
Why in the video is the tower on opposite sides ?