UK's New 3rd Aircraft carrier: Does the Royal Navy need more Supercarrier?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 08. 2023
- Will the UK build a new 3rd aircraft carrier to augment the Royal Navy's might?
The Royal Navy currently operates 69 ships in active service as of 2023. There are 10 nuclear-powered submarines (4 ballistic missile submarines and 6 fleet submarines) and 21 large surface combatants (2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers, 11 frigates, and 2 amphibious transport docks). There are also 26 patrol ships, 2 survey ships, an icebreaker, and the historic battleship Victory in the Navy's arsenal.
It is important to note that the United Kingdom has a long history of utilizing aircraft carriers as essential components of its naval forces. The development and deployment of these carriers have played a crucial role in enhancing the UK's maritime capabilities and projecting its power globally. - Věda a technologie
PPS; The HMS Hermes that fought in the Falklands War of 1982 was NOT the same ship as the HMS Hermes commissioned in 1924.
Yes - no credibility left after they made that ridiculous claim. Totally different eras and planes.
HMS Argus should get a mention...
Was just about to say the same!! Couldnt believe they could be so wrong , A 1924 ship in a 1982 conflict !?😂😂😂😂
If they can’t get something as straight forward as that, a mistake that is so obvious, how can we take their other assertions that would be new knowledge to us seriously?
Yes the Hermes of 1923 was sunk in the Indian Ocean in 1942. The Hermes that served in the Falklands was a Centaur Class Aircraft Carrier launched in 1953, it was to be decommissioned prior to the Falklands but was kept on until after the Falklands due to the war. The first aircraft carrier was the Furious, which along with its two sisters were converted from battle cruisers to aircraft carriers. The Hermes was the first purpose built aircraft carrier in the world. Argus was similarly a conversion.
They not only need more carriers but they also need more support ships, subs, fighter and bomber aircraft and of course many more service men and women.
We should ask our French Allies for more help eh? 😂
They especially need more women.... and blacks
Why?
@@michealrcnicholson9342 search me! Diversity replacement.
@@DaveSCameron The French looks to be in better shape :)
First complete the support vessels for the two current carriers, then start a third
There is no money .....
@@grahamthebaronhesketh.if there is not enough money to build Logistic & Repair ships for the first two carriers then they should NOT build a third.
@@williampaz2092 The third might be to keep the other 2 ready. 1 on service , 1 on stand by and one in refit/repairs.
There should be any. otherwise the Third carrier needs to be 'Battlecarrier'. with offensive weapon battery like a big VLS that fitted onto Destroyers and Frigates and few medium calibre naval guns.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh....and no crew.
They need a third carrier, the Air Force needs more euro fighters, the army needs more tanks and all branches of service need a minimum of 50,000 personnel each.
Nope
the RAF, needs a carrier capable air superiority fighter, and needs to learn to operate from carriers when needed,
Falklands , Libya, Syria all proved that
@@farmerned6 I agree that is a necessary but you also need to increase the manpower in all branches of the service, the army needs to stay at 250,000 because it’s the army that wins the nations wars. I’m a retired army sergeant.
Who's the enemy I would say the real enemy is the people running our country. We have nuclear Submarines we can't afford now people want to spend more money on defense. We can't even protect our shores the Royal Navy is now nothing but a ferry service and another branch off the USN.
@@farmerned6 F-35 C can perform air superiority role, but it will need arrest wires or EMALS to land.
More then that Homes: if the UK wants to survive the upcoming global war...
I think you'll find HMS Argus was the first aircraft carrier although it wasn't the first purpose built aircraft carrier from the ground up.
HMS Hermes was 1st purpose built carrier in world ( not Falklands war version) she was only commissioned 1959 .
Your punctuation leaves something to be desired.
Interesting subject you raise, but we should define what really constitutes “firsts” regarding aircraft carriers. The first recorded landing of an aircraft on a (moving) ship was achieved in August 1917 by Edwin Dunning on HMS Furious. It was over a year later that HMS Argus enjoyed this experience. Hermes was indeed the first purpose built AC, commissioned February 19th 1924, but only after lessons were learned from the aforementioned ships. HMS Eagle followed Hermes a week later.
@@dreadnought5518iirc that was before her full conversion so it was a flight deck fore and aft with a sort of track thing to get round the superstructer. She'd possibly still have at least one of her 18" mounts. Furious was an odd ball. She was a test bed hull for a lot of things going on. Arguably more of what was learned from her went into Ark Royal and the Illustrious class than Hermes and Argus too.
Hermes was the first Purpose-built Aircraft carrier to be laid down(to start being built). But she was not the Purpose-built aircraft carrier. That was the IJN Hōshō(Japan) HMS Hermies spent years on hold while testing was done on existing converted CVs Like Argus and Furious on design features like the Ships Island to name just one. Hermies was not commissioned till 1924 Hōshō was commissioned in 1922. incidentally My Grandfather served as a Air mechanic and Swordfish Gunner on both HMS Hermies and HMS Furious
If you don't have a minimum of 3 you could effectively have none when you need them, as they need to be rotated through deployment, overhaul and training.
Actually 4. Think the nuclear deterrent submarines.
@@brianwillson9567 In was going to post that. You beat me to it. 👍👍
yeah they are expensive and we don't work alone typically anyway
@@DarkShroom Are you in the Navy? Good for you.
@@Demun1649no he isn't.
Rule of thumb says you need three to keep one on station--one on station, one working up, one in dockyard hands.. With three, you can also surge two for a limited time, but you will pay the price for deferred maintenance downstream.
The Royal Navy is the Royal Navy. As an island nation, it is both the sword and the shield of the UK. Regardless of its size, it will always be a power player.
The Royal Navy is very small and wouldn’t take long to destroy. You can apply this to the army and RAF as well.
@@Dingdangdoo compared to who, our ally America? The EU? Our only enemies right now would be Russia or China and neither of them would stand a chance.
Oh god, another badly researched video! HMS Argus was the first aircraft carrier in any fleet, of any navy. Not just, have the U.K. been ‘using carriers’ for a long time, they actually invented them, along with steam catapults, and pretty much everything that was associated with aircraft carriers, certainly during the early years and even up to after WW2.
HMS Hermes may have been the first ‘purpose’ built, from scratch carrier, but it was a fair few years beforehand, that aircraft we re being launched from a ship in the manner we are accustomed to today. History is so fascinating, especially the factual bits of it..
03:06 Absolutely zero credibility for this video. What a waste. Turning it off now.
The Royal Navy invented the aircraft carrier seems only fitting they should have 3 or 4.
I believe we need a third carrier. Also 18 major surface combatants is woeful. I'd like to see a continuation of the type 26 build to 12 hulls and together with the 6 type 45s , we technically have 18 destroyers with a dozen designated sub hunters. Also I'd like to see 12 type 31 built with the bare necessities and to be upgunned in a short amount of time. That would give us 30 major surface combatants in addition to the 8 opv on constabulary duties. We also need at least 9 attack subs in addition to the 4 nuclear subs.
Would rather build 10 Type 32 that only require 50 people to crew.
Being a 100% vulnerable Island nation it Most certainly needs another Carrier or 3. Honestly they should have 4 minimum. Japan is another vulnerable island and should have a 4-5 strong Super Carrier force.
Yep UK and Japan needs 2-3 super carriers and about 4-5 wasp or america style amphibious assault ships!!
Why don't they buy an American Nimitz class carrier from America and do it up@@Legion-xq8eo
Vulnerable Island ? Not any more ! The Islamic Navy strengthens its position daily ! The Islands were lost years ago !
Britanistan LOL. Yes won't be long now. France will go first but there will be a lot of blood involved
Stan is a persian Word meaning “land” so when you say Britainstan you are bascially saying “land of the brits”
It was a different HMS Hermes in the falklands war. The one you pictured was sunk in ww2.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good sound clip
They don’t have enough aircraft for the two carriers they already have.
Aren’t we a green eyed jealous wee Australian monster, and don’t worry you’ll get your submarine’s, but your going to pay us tens of billions, and that’s £’s not Australian Monopoly money.😅😂🤣🇬🇧🇺🇸🤝🇦🇺
The point is that if you only have 2 and one is in refit you then only have one. If you then have an accident on that ONE what aircraft are in the air......
My feeling is a third SMALLER carrier mainly for helicopter ops. Would be useful, particularly when one of the QE carriers is in refit.
Remember the UK only ever have 50 or so sea harriers. But we still had 4 carriers: invincible , illustrious, arc Royal and ocean.
Do remember they don't just carry fast jets, they also carry helicopters for airborne early warning , anti submarine warfare, transport , search and rescue maybe even Apache for ground attack
I believe the main problem we have is lack of escort ships we need more frigates and maybe some destroys before thinking of getting another carrier, and even so I doubt we could even afford to operate three carriers.
@@bluestorm3628 well be operated 4 carriers (all be it smaller ones ) when we had 50 or so sea harriers. But yes I think that 2 more type 45s would help, and maybe 2 more astute subs.
But it's a bit like the new wedge tail AWACs we canceled the last 2 thus only having 3, and when one of those is out of service you don't have enough. And by canceling 40% of the fleet did we save 40% of the cost? No less than 20%. When you buy more the unit cost goes down.
Building the infrastructure for a carrier fleet. If they smart they'd have put catapults on them that way when required they could operate the F35C or the F18 Superhornet.
No, we do not need another carrier. We NEED to ensure finally that the two we already have are optimally configured, fully armed, and...
1) WILL be equipped routinely with the large, well-balanced airwings comprising ALL relevant types of fixed and rotary winged aircraft that they should already be operating
2) WILL be accompanied routinely by FULL UK battlegroups comprised of ALL RELEVANT TYPES OF fully armed, top-end combat-capable escort vessels (AA/MW; ASW, ASuW optimised AND real, top end tier-1 GPFs too!!)
Actually, you do simply to provide reasonable maintenance and deployment schedules. Three is the minimum number to generally assure you have ONE available: 1 on active deployment. 1 in port giving crew rest and undergoing basic upkeep. And 1 ship in major overhaul. Anything less places excessive wear on the ships and their crews and the ships are less serviceable.
OK< fine, but where is the money coming from?
@@edmundbell-king9756 I'm not sure it is. For eg, how do you rate the chance of stopping our repugnant haute bourgeois metro-establishment garbage from worthless virtue signalling on still over-bloated overseas aid payments to umpteen 3rd world cesspits that we shouldn't waste a penny on?
Reasonable question and I don't know your economy and politics to say but I DO understand that it's either find the money for a 3rd ship now or find the money to REPLACE BOTH QE and PoW much earlier than otherwise necessary down the line.
@@marcharkness6101 In truth, I'm virtually certain that two ships is all we're getting. Thus the aim must be to maximise availability in full knowledge that the situation is not ideal and lack of a third hull does mean that in case of even modest unplanned outages, another carrier may not always be immediately available.
Alas, it's a problem that all countries except the US, have faced routinely.
Hms Argus, the first true aircraft carrier. Construction of the Argus began in 1914, and initially it was an Italian liner; it was purchased in 1916 by the British Royal Navy and converted, work being completed in September 1918.
The Victory is not just some museum piece, She is the flagship of the home fleet. You also have to remember that in the late '70's the British government decided there was no need for aircraft carriers in the fleet. The ships including Ark Royal & Hermes would be the last. However the R.N. (Royal Navy) are nothing if not adaptable and resubmitted the Invincible class (the projected replacements for the Ark Royal & Hermes) to the government. Instead of calling them 'Aircraft carriers' the R.N. re designated them 'Through deck cruisers' and told the mandarins in Whitehall it was a revolutionary new concept. Et-voila! The designs were green lighted without anyone actually looking at the plans. It was only after the launch of Invincible the government had realized they'd been had. The remaining ships were saved by the Falklands war, where the value of aircraft carriers was proven.
How long would the Victory last against the Gerald R Ford? 60 seconds? Thirty?
@@bernardedwards8461 Thinking like that cost you the Vietnam war.
The UK is living beyond its means. Struggling to cope even with the 2 already commissioned.
Royal Navy's main problem is recruiting and retaining people. No point building more ships of any kind if they have to rotate them in harbour for lack of crew.
The Hermes shown was not the Hermes that was in the Falklands war, and the Ark Royal was an Invincible class carrier, not a modified ship.
There has been at least two HMS Ark Royals. Reusing ships names is a common practice, going back to pre Nelson days, as with HMS Prince of Wales, the first a Battle Cruiser that fought in WWII . They must be sunk or scrapped before reused. No new HMS Victory any time soon or ever.
@@tonys1636Actually I can think of 3 Ark Royal aircraft carriers
One sunk in WW2,
One that was the subject of a TV series (decommissioned in 1978?)
The last Invincible class "Through deck Cruiser"
@@tonys1636 there have been 5 ships named HMS Ark Royal ! No 1 was flagship of fleet which saw off the spanish Armada in 1588 . Thats why the name is so famous . Probably only flew seagulls then (+flags) . Ark no2 converted merchant ship 1914 . Ark 3 new when ww2 started . Ark4 1955to1979 famous for "sailor" documentary filmed 1976 . Ark 5 was upgraded version of Falklands war Invincible . Fascinating history . Google Ark Royal _ the legend & history .
@@tonys1636 Reusing ships names is from WAAAAYYYY before Nelson. The first Ark Royal was Launched in 1587(Nelson was born in 1758). and there have been 5 Ark Royals. This is a VERY lazy video.
There was indeed a Converted Aircraft carrier called Ark Royal served in WW1. A SEA PLANE carrier. A ship that launched its planes by craning them onto the water.
This is a VERY lazy video.
There was indeed a Converted Aircraft carrier called Ark Royal served in WW1. A SEA PLANE carrier. A ship that launched its planes by craning them onto the water.
It doesn't need a 3rd carrier, in fact 2 carriers is already pushing things pretty far.
2 carriers ensures that at least 1 will always be available at any given time and 2 carriers in a fleet will give the UK plenty of punch against most of the worlds militaries, that's probably 100+ strike fighters able to go anywhere on the planet.
The UK itself is it's own aircraft carrier for projecting force around Europe.
3 carriers would be sexy though
I'd say yes, on the basis of Donitz' old U-Boat readiness equation, which seems to work as a rough measure for all kinds of ships.
1/3 U-Boats on Station for Duty.
1/3 U-Boats in Port for repairs and overhaul.
1/3 U-Boats trying to travel to or from Duty Areas.
Figuring on a Carrier in overhaul every now and then, that gives much better coverage for the RN if they have three.
Even though everyone puts the boot into the Royal Navy its still the 2nd most powerful navy in the world (china just has a load of small support ships that never leave their own waters)- not bad for a small country.
The US's 7th fleet is bigger than the whole of the RN. Its definitely not in the No.2 spot . We're behind France and many other countries.
Not sure that is right. I think UK rank 9. Probably less if you exclude the Nuke Deterrent.
@peteroliver536 how do you come to that conclusion?
2nd best carriers in the world, Nuclear hunter killer subs - only France and the US have anything on par + the Nuclear deterrent fleet, best Air defence destroyers in the world in the type 45...New frigates coming on line etc etc
On the air defence the Arleigh Burke is better although China new 052D is on par. both ships also have excellent anti ship abilities. Until recently the only anti ship ability the Type 45 had was its gun. India Kolkata class of which India has 3 is also better as part of its 11 strong fleet. Japan has 36 modern destroyers many of which are modern with some the best. Having new ships coming down the line does not make something best. The type 45 was meant to be a fleet of 12 and soon became 6. Who knows how many type 26 will end up being bult. whilst the carriers maybe good for helicopters but are useless for air operations as the F35B is short range. Uk has very few,. The carrier would need to operate within range of powerful anti ship weapons fired from land unlike those of India, France and the US who can operate far from land. Now if we were just talking about subs, then fair play the Astute is the best and a shame we will only have 7 and not the needed 12 to 18. @@mrfrisky6501
6 destroyers, 8 frigates, and 5 hunter killer submarines. That’s all we have. How do you make that the second most powerful. 14 surface ships to protect the U.K. to defend the nuclear deterrent. To provide two carrier strike groups and to police the med, the Indian Ocean, the Black Sea, the South China Sea and chase the Russians around the North Atlantic and sabre rattle in the south Atlantic.
Japan alone as an example has a naval fleet of 42 destroyers. The U.K. has 6 and only 3 of those are available. No we are not the second most powerful anything. We are a laughing stock. We couldn’t defend the Thames, let alone the channel, much less the worlds oceans. This is a sad fact. And base reality my friend
Needs to go back up to 14 destroyers not build another bloody aircraft carrier.
No, we need more sailors and more escorts. You cant have 3 super carriers when there is nobody to man them, fix recruitment and retention first.
The recruitment it part of the problem! University graduates and completely literate people, instead of moulding and training people to be who they really need. Some of the best navigators technicians metal workers, simply can’t spell or work out mathematical formulas! However the recruiters want you to be able to do these…
@michaelcoles6140 recruitment numbers isn't the problem it's Capita the private recruitment agency that does the recruitment is the problem ever since they got the contract after the government stopped the military from doing their own recruitment they have extended the process by months and that puts people off. Another thing is due cuts the MOD is getting rid of more military personnel and set the recruiting on a set number due too budget. If the military was allowed to continue it's own recruitment process which speeds up time and our government puts at least 4% GDP into defence we will have a good sizable and professional volunteer military personally I think we should boost it up to at least 5.5 - 6% GDP to bring back the home service style of reservists we had back in the Cold War they probably trained once a month lightly armed and older equipment but it will be handy to have to boost defence and be useful for national emergencies at home to free up regular and actual reservists. All in all numbers isn't an issue it's boils down to government creating flaws. I can speak on experience I joined the army reserves in 2020 it taken nearly 3-4 months just to jus get into my physical and get sworn in before phase 1 training I had to leave due to work but since I got a new job with less hours I'd love to rejoin but after going through the mess of a recruitment process before I'm put off from going back
All that time I served in HMSI Illustrious and it didn’t get a mention. This is a great video ..thank you.
Sounds cool for UK to have 3 carriers. Although that would be pretty much one for each plane.
We need to make two more carriers...with catapults
Our main problem is lack of personnel: Navy, Marines, Air Force and Army. The U.S. is also facing a rapidly declining force, both in quality and numbers. The use of a drag queen in a recent recruitment drive may explain a large part of the problem.
Pretty sure the Brits heard about France’s PANG project and said “BLOODY HELL! OUR NAVY IS NOT ABOUT TO BE OUTDONE BY FRANCE OF ALL COUNTRIES!”
Wrong Hermes!!!!! Go away and do PROPER Research.
It all comes down to money and manpower! Ideally we would have three QE's fitted with Electro magnetic launch systems, and a full airwing for each! Currently not achievable unfortunately!
Our grandmother served tea to HRH Queen Elizabeth @ Cammell Lairds shipyard in 1950 during the launch of the last HMS Ark Royal. 🙏⚓
HMS Argus and HMS Pegasus were active aircraft carriers during WW1
Does the UK need one? No but NATO needs the UK to meet its commitments so if Poland and other countries are providing the burgers then the UK can bring the buns to the bbq
Yup Poland Gona be a huge land based military.
UK should take its place as a true maritime power again at least doubling what we have right now
A third carrier would possibly enable us to always have at least one at sea.
And the cost comes from???
1 at sea, 1/2 defending our water, if not 2 then 1, and the 3rd can do other things
If you want more than one carrier at see at a time. You need a minimum of 3 carriers. For a chance at more than 1 at sea.
The carriers we’ve got needed catapults, they’ve made a big mistake for shortsighted savings.
Before you hypothesise the need for a third carrier you need to ask the question are there enough assets to man/arm a carrier. Unless there is a huge drive in Drones like the "Loyal Wingman" and a larger V22 type heavy lift VTOL this is al pie in the sky thinking.
What The UK need is a strong Air Force and/or air defense, it’s Air Force rank about 8th or 9th in the world,…Carriers are for Power projection, protect your homeland first.
Oh dear, the HMS Hermes that was used in the Falkland War was a different ship to the 1930s ship.
the UK needs a new nuclear powered aircraft carrier for future conflicts if war breaks out, we need the programme to start tomorrow.
You people need not one, but two new aircraft carriers. But bigger than the current ones; 310 meters in length, at least.
P.D.
And twice the current number of the other combatants.
The uk has a nuclear policy the prohibits that i think so only astutes and dreadnaught class subs are it
@@jorgeestrada5713the uk carriers are big enough they can carry 72 aircraft at max load
@@rogueshadow4960 . France is making a bigger Aircraft Carrier, 300 meters in length.
Therefore, the Union Jack must be flown on aircraft carriers of at least 310 meters in length.
Why don't they buy an American Nimitz class carrier from America and do it up
Watched this again, I don't think we need more carriers, maybe a small helicopter amphibious carrier for the fleet. But we need to invest in the 2 carriers, bring them fully inline with the US and France carriers. which will mean fitting catapults, arrestor wires, mirror landing and angled decks, this will provide more flexibility and compatibility with other navel aircraft and most needed an ability to support an AWAC's aircraft.
By the way, Aircraft carriers won't need to turn into the wind (near future) to launch/land. Air jets, directional,... will provide the required lift (up/down/side, supplimented wind). The speeds for the A/C will be sufficient to counter normal winds outside those boundries, like normal flight paramiters. You could (theoretically) land backwards. Note: I said "near future", and will be followed by...What they are not telling us/you. Fun times :)
Wouldn't it be easier just to turn into the wind?
@@barrymiller3385not only easier but also less fuel waste.
No. What we will need are replacements for 2 LPD, 1 LPH & an avaiation training ship.
We should buy 2 (maybe 3) LHD to replace these 4 platforms.
Na only use two, the money they’d use for a carrier divert either to modernising the airforce with f35 a’s or spend it on the army with challenger III’s and other nessessary vehicles and army equipment or by the type 26 and 32 frigates and the type 83 destroyers but keep the type 45 operational as well
Not only the fact that they don’t have the airframes to be able to have a full complement of aircraft on one carrier they can’t afford to put aircraft on on both.😂
There are 2 HMS hermes as one was sank in world war 2 and the other as built after and serviced iv the Falkland war and the serviced with the Indian navy till 2017. Its not hard to check this
PS; and to HELL with "humanitarian missions"! These are warships and by far their most important role is, if needed, to kill our nation's enemies while retaining a good chance of bringing back their own crews still alive! Same applies to ALL main classes of naval combat vessel; frigates and destroyers even moreso than carriers.
When disaster relief ops are required, by far the best naval ships to send are large, amphibious vessels equipped with the most useful heavy air and sea platforms for the job.
It’s common naval doctirine that any navy that operates a carrier fleet will require 3 carriers. One that is in active service, 1 that is undergoing light refit (but which can be quickly brought back to operational status if required) and 1 that is undergoing major refit (and so will be out of action for potentially several years). Having a 2 carrier fleet was insane as it left the RN without a carrier for potentially months or years as the Elizabeth carriers undergo minor and major refits.
How about 0 carriers, 0 amphibious transport docks, 0 destroyers and 0 frigates
The helicopter deck on HMS Victory was removed to allow for increased storage of milk for the sea cat underneath the snooker table on which Nelson used to play Uckers with Drake apparently too.
Ideally the U.K. would have four carriers. The two additional carriers would be a lighter CAOBAR carrier over a U.S. CVN. The Royal Navy would be showing the world how to do it with a "Lightning Carrier" and a CVL in the AOR on the High Seas.
After stating that a ship built in 1924 was used in 1982 , that was it I’m off!!
Yes I would say build two more aircraft carriers smaller probably around 45,000 tons to add to the fleet.
That was me taking off in Portsmouth.
Make the next a nuclear engine class. Would mean 2 in service at a time, allowing for better maintenance time.
Dont make any
They are a waste
We should possibly go for 2x small carriers. Designed for Helicopters and Drones. Equip they with a smaller Electromagnetic Catapult system suitable for up to 10tonnes or so. And the ability to have 2 Helicopter's land at the same time . They could be the similar length as a Destroyer and possibly have about a third more on the beam for stability.
If we in a way copied the Russian carrier system, then it would also be armed with a VLS for self defense and direct attack
Yes and we need a carrier varient of tempest once its ready
For a "continuous at sea..." you really need 4 of something...
The question is why a mid sized European nation needs carriers at all. The old Admirals reasoning was " keeping maritime trade moving" of coarse now the UK is not such a big trade player that old saw will not work. Perhaps it's the empire dreamers wanting the 'old days'. Funny how Germany/Japan much bigger trade machines don't seem to patrol the Red Sea, maybe the UK could take a hint. Veteran of Hermes 1982.
The irony is that the Royal Navy would be a naval superpower if they didn't have any Aircraft Carriers, Amphibious transport docks, Destroyers and Frigates
If the funds put into those ships intead went into A2-AD Naval Assets, the UK would have one of the most powerful Naval forces in the world, capable of defending any Navy.
A third carrier would be good, maybe not a full size one, but one similar to a US Marine Amphibious until, with a 5-10 F-35's, a Rotary Wing (Helicopter) element of Merlin's and maybe some Apache's and a complement of Royal Marines, with their landing craft, etc for a beach landing and the immediate added air support. Such a unit can be deployed worldwide, for warfare or humanitarian aid even in a hostile area.
They had one but sold it to the Brazilians HMS Ocean I think was its name .
If we do build a third carrier then it needs to be as automated as possible as manning them is a serious problem. Better still upgrade our existing carriers so that they can carry the F-35C, enabling bigger weapons and fuel payloads.
probably cheaper to build a cat carrier from the ground up, they looked at this while the carriers were being built and it was going to cost more to convert them than build the ship so F35B's it was. what is needed is more aircraft so that the carriers can deploy without taking RAF airframes out of the country, (F35 is good but no aircraft can be in 2 places at once) and more escorts, fixing the carriers we've got so they can get out of port without breaking down would help too!!!!
sadly we can't afford to put aircraft on the two we have, we need the US to put them on, what we need is more, smaller ships. Destroyers, frigates and a lot more coastal defence ones. I would like to see 20 or so coastal defence craft dotted around the coast in places like Whitby, Grimsby, Falmouth, Dover, Liverpool, Aberdeen etc; they could move around each week so they could fly the flag in those ports. the real problem is, where do you get the crews. the military is sadly no longer the respected career it was when I served in the RN in the late 60s & 70s
The two British carrier's are starting a long process of going from vstol to full catobar the ships have the equipment but the navy don't have the money experience or planes straight away so soon they will be different. I do think we should build a couple of smaller carriers for the vstol aircraft and helicopters
I would love to see a proper angled deck aircraft carrier in the RN. They had the oppotunity to build this into the current QE class but no they said it was too expensive and it would require at least three ship for this role so bring it on.
The worse thing this country ever did was get rid of our true aircraft carriers.
@stevechopping3021 I fully agree, unfortunately I doubt any future UK government will want to spend the vast sums converting the two ships to CATOBAR then buying a load of F35Cs not to mention the massive cost of training pilots and deck crew in CATOBAR operations and keeping those people's training up to date. We haven't had a proper carrier since 1978 so no-one has any experience anymore. I wish we hadn't cut corners with the two ships but we just don't have the money or manpower to have them any other way I think.
@@richardprice7763the QE and POW have an expected 50 year service life if they do stay in service that long we could see them converted to CATOBAR at some point
@@stevechopping3021the Budget Tory Government said this as usual whilst they spend 8 million a day on migrants in Hotels
There was a time when the UK Royal Navy had carriers similar to American carriers, with steam catapults but smaller
The Brits invented carriers and just about all the tech the Yanks use on theirs
If we do build a third aircraft carrier we would need to increase the numbers of destroyers, frigates accordingly.
The rollcall on boats says they need more Destroyers.
I agree with everyone saying more support boats as well.
Each aircraft carrier needs to be supported and protected by a whole battlegoup. The UK could not afford or staff such a battle grouo.
The UK's operational policy was/is to work in tandem with a US carrier strike group. The UK could use one more carrier. That way they could always be sure to have at least two on duty and rotate one in and out of maintenance, much in the way we do our carriers and submarines.
I disagree... the UK cannot afford not to....
Is this picture actually 'Battlecarrier' ? with medium calibre naval artillery (10.5-15 cm) battery.
I'm not even half way through and just about to get concussion with the face palming! 🤦
Strictly speaking HMS Argus I49 in WW1 was the first aircraft carrier but she was a conversion. But if we're counting conversions then HMS Furious would like a word. HMS Hermes 95 was the first purpose built and she was sunk in 1942 by Japanese aircraft so how she pops back up again to fight in the Falkland's is quite something. HMS Hermes R12 was a Centaur-class and commissioned in 1954. She was flagship of the task force deployed to the Falkland islands in '82, decommissioned from RN in 1984 and sold to the Indian Navy renamed Viraat R22 and was decommissioned again in 2017, scrapped 2021.
And when did HMS Victory get a total rebuild and conversion to make her a Battleship? 😂
And a "wide variety do aircraft"? Huh? During construction in order to get costs down they removed cats and traps from the design of the QE's drastically limiting what aircraft they can handle. In typical British gov idiocy though there's actual plans for refit already...to install cats & traps so there goes the budget for a 3 or even 4th carrier 😂
The is factually inaccurate on a number of counts. HMS Hermes (R12), deployed during the Falklands War, was not the same ship as HMS Hermes (95) launched in 1919.
IF ... they were to build a third carrier, it needs to be nuclear powered like its American allies. It also needs to cater for fast carrier jets not just STOVL. To use the sensor fusion and digital information of both UK and US fifth generation aircraft it would need to accomodate F35C aircraft along with EMALS cats and traps. Then it could compete properly (in an allied sense) with US carriers ... and would not be limited to any combat range/theatre of operations circumstances. The UK carriers already have the edge over US super-carriers with elements of automation and lower levels of crewing, but not in sustainability for long operations, and the F35B variant has shorter range and payload compared with its carrier borne F35C variant.
HMS Hermes was sunk in the second world war and the falklands HMS hermes was a Centaur class carrier built with its sisters Bulwark and centaur not the same carriers
In my opinion I do not see the need for anymore than 2 carriers.
With two carriers, two battlegroups we could be deployed anywhere around the world with big ol' lizzy say off somewhere in the atlantic, and the POW out in the indian ocean...They can cover a vast area...If though the RNY were to build another carrier, it'd most likely be a dedicated helicopter carrier for support missions or deployments in conjunction with the marines. The way things used to be with the Royal Navy if memory serves me right, the last we had two carriers one of which were a dedicated helicopter pad whereas the other had the harriers.
Most likely before the Ark Royal were retired.
Dosen’t have enough destroyers/ASW Frigates to form an adequate screening battle group
If they do make the third carrier, hopefully they don’t make the mistake of the first two and have ramps and instead have catapults
Different Hermes in the Falklands. Sub info is also wrong. You need to do your research
The UK doesn't;t need a 3rd carrier, two is plenty for us. We have the abilities and expertise to build more if we wish but the need isn't there.
Yes , UK Needs more Aircrafts carriers
They need more support ships. More type 45's, more global combats. They also need more astutes. need at least 1/3rd more of each before even thinking about a 3rd carrier
And it's a GUARANTEE the defense force will NOT get the service people it needs.
They should buy 2 Landing helicopter docks instead and buy more f35 fighters to be able to deploy both aircraft carriers with full load out
I am astounded by most of the comments on here. I very much doubt that ANY senior RN officer is asking for another carrier. Maybe a helicopter carrier (or two) to replace Ocean. But, to be honest, there are many higher priorities. Top of the list is more subs. There certainly won't be a third full size carrier.
They definitely need about 10 more .
Fix recruitment and retention first
The whole navy needs expanding to about 200 ships
Impossible with current levels of manpower.
Yes we do , we also need lots of other equipment
Thank You!
The short answer is yes they need another carrier with additional support ships plus aircraft but it seems unlikely
The Royal Navy should have reevaluated their force design, reconsidering the construction of aircraft carriers, amphibious transport docks, destroyers, and frigates. Instead, they should have focused on anti-access/area denial capabilities, such as sea mines, anti-ship missiles, submerged threats, drones, light surface-attack vehicles, coastal defense submarines, and anti-naval aviation assets.
One example of an effective anti-ship missile system is the anti-ship missile equipped patrolling coastal combatant. These vessels, resembling scaled-up speed boats, would be equipped with large anti-ship missile launchers. The Iranian Peykaap class or the old Soviet Osa class are examples of such vessels.
To create a formidable defense, the country would stockpile a significant number of anti-ship guided missiles and deploy them in concealed locations along the coast or slightly inland. To protect these missiles from cruise missile attacks, decoys would be extensively used. By concealing launchers inside shipping containers, for instance, it would be possible to create multiple decoy launching sites in forested or mountainous areas for every legitimate launcher.
The range of the anti-ship missile systems could potentially extend several hundred kilometers from the coast, depending on the specific system used. Different systems with varying ranges could be intermixed to make invading particularly challenging. For instance, shorter-ranged and more affordable anti-ship missiles could be combined with longer-ranged and deadlier systems like the Russian Bastion coastal defense system.
I think not, just retrofit catapults to the ones they have.
Aircraft carriers are fast becoming a thing of the past, in this day and age with missiles that are almost unstoppable; they make a huge target, when destroyed it would be such a devestating loss that it could easily turn a war in the oppositions favor. In this new age of altra fast missiles and UAV's all these seagoing battle groups are vulnerable, they are more likely to be over whelmed by mass drone attacks and missile attacks.
I don't know if they will get a 3rd, though i feel thet should it a better way to keep 1 out n about, 1 for training a maybe 1 being maintained kinda like cycle
In a word, no. The RN is already top heavy with not enough escorts, submarines, support ships etc. and there is an on-going budgetary crisis likely to get worse before it gets better. It needs 25-30 destroyers and frigates (currently 16), SSNs in double figures (currently 6) and several thousand more sailors. The personnel, operating budget, support tail/infrastructure and aircraft for a third carrier do not exist and never will. Hopelessly overstretched resources are much better used elsewhere.
if our government stopped wasting money on illegals at £10 million per day we might have the money to do better, they are currently committing financial suicide, and stop all aid to Ukraine too
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the UK already has a helicopter carrier? Also at the moment international NATO cooperation has meant that we can have escort/support from them, we ourselves don’t have enough ships
Helicopters and f35 we can buy
Is this as accurate as you can get?
The Royal Navy is desperately short of escorts, it needs at least thirty before thinking about another carrier.
The Uk needs 5 Carriers. that should sort things out...
Isn't the RN reducing the number of F35-Bs to just 74 and making up the airwings with UAVs?
They likely won't make a decision on that until later, right now they're purchasing them in batches, the first batch is of 48 F-35, currently around 30-40 of those have been delivered, which is why they've more recently committed to a second batch.
Once that is closer to full delivery they'll likely make a decision on whether they purchase more.
Whether that happens or not they will be operating UAVs though, the ones they have been testing have largely been for airborne early warning and other various tasks alongside the F-35.
Yes. I'm no hawk, but war is a real possibility in the next ten years. That so many disbelieve this shows that peace has made us complacent. Three would allow two to be deployed at any one time.
A couple of things. The UK needs at least 6 URS, 6 Fleet Oilers, the 3rd Carrier would be great and along with it they need 12 Destroyers, and 18 Frigates, 8 Submarines, 3 LSD and 9 or so of a landing vessel type like the old Round Table Class LSL. Of course an increase in various support vessels and the personal to crew them. I do not understand with all the crap going on in the world why in the name of G_d hasn't the government shut down the coast and started doing all this 8 years ago. The people had better get real angry before there isn't a Great Britain left.
Could just have a few smaller ones thats capable of carrying smaller numbers of f35 or helicopters .
I was unaware it had any supercarriers let alone a potential third. 40,000 tons short of an American supercarrier. Limited range as a nonnuclear carrier. No catapults equate to limited weapons load on aircraft. Sparsely crewed carrier because of automation equates to limited damage control personnel preventing sinking of the ship. Logistics ships burdened with constant replenishment.