Was the Angled Flight Deck Missed on HMS Queen Elizabeth?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 07. 2021
- Consider supporting us on Patreon: / nwyt
Why does HMS Queen Elizabeth have a straight deck design? At one point, an angled flight deck was planned to be implemented but it didn't happen. But why? It's #NotWhatYouThink, or is it?
Music:
Habitual - Ava Low
Asteroid One - Czar Donic
1AM OMW - Ballpoint
Rockstar (Instrumental Version) - Basixx
Tomorrow Island - DEX 1200
Footage:
Russian Ministry of Defence
Indian Navy
Lockheed Martin
US Department of Defense
PropBroChill17
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
You missed the main reason why STOVL was favoured. They are able to take off and land at higher sea states than traditional aircraft. This is critical for the UK, as the Atlantic has these often during the spring and fall. North Atlantic more than the South, but South Atlantic also has demanding weather and Royal Navy needs to operate there as well.
You can fly STOVL aircraft of a carrier with catabar. But you can't fly eg E2 Hawkeye from a carrier without it. So leaving cats & traps out is highly limiting for operations.
*Sweats in Falklands War*
This is why the ships are equipped with the possibility to install catobar equipment, when it is reliable enough.
@@jeromedavies2408 I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't have or use the E2 Hawkeye, so not really an issue here. Also the launch rate using Catobar is slower than the setup on the Queen Elizabeth as it doesn't have the issue of waiting for steam production to catch up, it also causes less damage to airframes due to stress.
@@Skullet That's sort of the point. The E2 Hawkeye cant fly off QE so airborne radar range is severely limited.
I had the pleasure of seeing HMS Prince of Wales of my local coast line during the G7 summit. Love these long videos, keep up the good work chap!
Wow I guess it was amazing
Did u see it in liverpool docked up before it set sail??
I did
@@the_unknown7645 No I saw it in Cornwall near Godrevy Lighthouse.
@@imben77 do you want a booh o WOOAH?
Even if their engines can't produce enough steam for the steam catapults, surely all of their kettles can.
The US DOD, wanted us to put the magnetic catapult system, but we didn't.
their engines produce no steam at all., they are electric motors
Oh I like that, nobody got it I think I did, making tea us Brits do make a lot of tea we could run a carrier with our left over steam from tea making lol. Us Brits have got a good sense of humour even about ourselves.
good one good sir!
You had to be racist to us Brits didn't you
You left out the Japanese carriers, errr... helicopter destroyers.
well, they are *technically* not 'aircraft carriers'.
@@kmmediafactory The HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes (aka Invisible and Herpes) technically weren't aircraft carriers either, they were "through-deck cruisers". Technically.
@@robertsneddon731 huh. I actually though they were carrier classified. I guess it was *not what I think*
Those "destroyers" are now being retrofitted into being true carriers to accommodate F-35s if I recall correctly
After the refit, the Izumo class will be reclassified from Helicopter Destroyers to Multipurpose Destroyers. So still not carriers, lol.
I'd imagine that a not-insignificant factor in the choice was also that all of the Royal Navy's recent experience with carrier operations has used the STOVL system. Indeed, the RN pioneered such operations with the _Invincible_ class (whether they wanted to or not), so it makes sense that they'd stick with what they've used so successfully.
@Bob Wattersif we go back to 1945 and the 20 years after that the US would be guilty of the same thing.
@Bob Watters Nuclear would have been more expensive and would have caused a bunch of other issues, like not being able to dock in certain countries or indeed any of our own ports besides Faslane and Devonport. Its a lot of hassle for no real advantage, even the US carriers need to take on aviation fuel while at sea, the UK carriers simply refuel at the same time as taking on aviation fuel so a nuclear reactor doesn't offer much advantage here.
@Bob Watters In what way are they significantly more capable?
@Bob Watters how exactly are they "more capable" then?
I'm wondering if a combination of ramp and angled deck would be feasible. It would have to be big enough to have two "runways", one with the ramp and the front and another angled one behind it. The frontal one would only be used for launch and the angled could do both. You get the benefit of parallel start capability and are able to launch heavier planes. And if the stern is wide enough it could even allow for parallel landing there.
My Granny developed health problems so I had to have her put down. But, it's not what you think.
Bruh
i wont like its at 69
“Instead of normal methods, they will be using a fucking gun”
@@chrizonlozanotventure7466 you can now :)
Put down to the ground floor flat
You can launch even airplanes with weaker thrust to weight ratio from STOBAR ramp, just attach rocket boosters for take-off.
Realy?
yeah c130 takeoff on a US supercarrier was done in this way
@@Tenohekabanzai but isnt kinda dumb use rocket booster in fighters?
@@Karedu. Not for fighters, for cargo planes
@@gregc9344 use the same boosters they used for the c-130 and make them so they can drop straight after TO for the carrier to pick up and reuse then Voila
I watch alot of random videos from crappy military channels, but this was actually great. I really learned something about carrier design and this was really well explained. Great job c:
landing a aircraft looks easier in real life then in games
edit: i didnt know this would blow up
First rule of show business, Make it look easy.
Famous last words?
@@woodonfire7406 pull up ! pull up !
@@woodonfire7406 terrain ahead, terrain terrain pull up, pull up, pull up
That says a lot about the people involved and their training.
You are incorrect with regards to making history with the first rolling landing. It may have been the first rolling landing with the F35, but the RN had been completing rolling landings for years with the Harrier.
Nice. The reason the landing profile he mentioned is used is because of the Harrier. They don't do well hovering slowly over one chunk of deck, because they can potentially ingest their own exhaust gases and flame out... so they do all the complicated hovering next to the landing spot, matching velocities and altitude, etc, with a lot of empty air beneath them, and then slip over the deck and shut it down. And for that landing profile, a straight deck is probably preferred, since you don't have to worry as much about where the edge of the flight deck is, since it's pretty much a constant instead of tapering.
@@Tomyironmane 👍
@@Tomyironmane the main reason for Harrier Rolling Landings was so weaponry didn't have to be dropped in the sea when returning with any
@@Tomyironmane the Americans don’t land like the brits. They may start though.
👍harrier the greatest advancement in fighter plane ever imo
I really love your “CZcams shorts” videos. But the longer ones are even better. Please keep um coming!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Excellent summary. Really thorough. I like that you included the future retrofit options for the QE class, which are absolutely the case and were built into the design with this in mind.
if they retro fit though they will have to replace the air wing for each carrier no small cost there.
@@mawdeeps7691 true, but if the refit happens in 20-25 years (given a 50 year life span for the carrier that doesn't seem unreasonable) then it is entirely possible that new aircraft will be required regardless, for example 6th generation fighter, or a move to combat UAV's, at which point the cost doesn't matter.
@@matthewshedlock70carrier based tempest, maybe? Pretty please, BAE lol
@@mawdeeps7691 it's not like we have fully committed to F-35B. We have 32 currently out of 80 planned. We could easily make the B models air force only. Besides, who said that a design couldn't be made that would integrate both types, since a CATOBAR carrier operates helos anyway, so the VTOL jets could follow the same landing procedures as them
6:58 skipping stones at the next level
Lmao
4:26 make that 8 Amphibious Assault Ships seeing as the Bonhomme Richard was decommissioned due to a fire that gutted it. Sad to see old #6(pictured at this time stamp) go. I spent 11 months on her as a Marine in support of OEF 2002 on her second deployment ever. Bye bye.
I hope one of the new America class gets named BHR as well.
Love your videos man. They're really well done
Long live The King!
There is a fourth carrier type, TBAT, which is unique to the Russian navy. Towed By A Tug is an innovative system that doesn't require a working engine.
Thanks for a balanced review of this issue, so many go straight to power issues whilst not understanding them.
There was nothing balanced about this so many things missing and mistakes
@@dazuk2630 Missing, yep. Mistakes? Name them.
Very interesting. Answered several of my own, nagging, questions. Many thanks.
Giving an 10 s Answer in not less than 10 min. Succeeded.
It's not what you think
Oh! I didn't know that about The Queen Elizabeth Class...
Thanks! It's nice to see that they provisioned for future upgrades.
I mean it was the british who practically invented all the stuff on on carriers
The British invented aircraft carriers full stop…
And now in the present their navy is weaker than the JMSDF.
@@toiletpapermasksociety3588 And the UK has less coastal waters than Japan…
@@toiletpapermasksociety3588 Ironic
@@allangibson2408 UK also has a weaker air force, at least on paper.
EDIT: I was wrong about EMALS conversion being the contractor's fault by deception, so this probably looks nothing like the original post. So, instead, here's a thought: The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales may never see STOBAR.
While the ability for the class to be able to easily (relatively speaking) convert to STOBAR was an initial requirement back in 1999, that ability fell through the cracks. The Royal Navy picked the QE class design (from two designs, one from a consortia led by BAE and another from a consortia led by Thales) that was too expensive to start with, and the scaled back design adjustments likely didn't take the possibility of conversion into account. This is the biggest reason why CATOBAR conversion went from around a billion pounds to over 2 billion back in 2010; and was dropped in 2012.
It would have looked like the french variant sadly it didn’t came to life
Emals still isn't reliable enough to be useful, it nearly there but not quite, still projected to hold up the Gerald R Ford by a couple more years..
@@Markus117d True, but my point is that its usefulness isn't the main reason they never converted the QE.
The reason why EMALs weren’t used on the HMS QE II carriers are rather simple….. Power plant capacity. A nuclear vessel can do that easy, a Diesel Turbine, not so much.
@@smoketinytom that's true, but the QE class was designed with spare generating capacity, how much i don't know, but as they were thinking of installing an emals style system at some point during the ships service life, it's reasonable to expect enough capacity to run at least a small system 🤔
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
Excellent video by someone who was greatly informed.
'Rolling vertical landing' was standard practice with the BAE Sea Harrier FRS, where it was known as diagonal landing. The Sea Barrier was of course lighter with a stronger relative undercarriage so could take the bump of a less than perfect landing.
Makes sense. I assume it would require a lot of skill to do it, probably more skill than a regular vertical landing, but Harrier pilots could probably do it without problem.
There are many STOVL carriers in active service that you missed, and their numbers is Not What You Think...
The US has 9 (Wasp and America-class)
While the UK, Australia, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have 2
While Spain, Thailand, Brazil, and China all have 1
And China have 2 under construction (Type 075)
While Turkey, South Korea, and the US all have 1 under contruction
And South Korea have 1 under development (CVX program)
And Turkey have 1 planned (Anadolu-class)
While the US have 8 more planned (America-class)
While China have 3 more planned (Type 075)
And China also has unknown numbers under development (Type 076)...
So you see, there are a lot... And its Not What You Think 😏...
Japans carriers are still under going conversion and South Korea has not laid down any stool carriers yet also Australia is just using there’s for heli’s and just left the ramp because it would have cost more to remove.
India has two
@@qwill8254 India's carriers are STOBAR, not STOVL I believe.
@@Peterincan But it can still perform that role
@@skylerlopez8383 Helicopters are also considered as “aircraft”... Particularly ROTARY WING aircraft... Any aerial vehicle, manned or unmanned, are considered as “aircraft”... Which means that ALL helicopter carriers are also considered as aircraft carriers... Whether they’re dedicated helicopter carriers or amphibous assault ships, they can be considered as “aircraft carriers” because they’re carrying helicopters, which is a type of rotary wing AIRCRAFT... But using my logic, even a cruiser or a destroyer or a frigate equipped wirh helicopter decks can also be considered as “aircraft carriers” because they can carry helicopters, which are again, a type of aircraft, but they’re an exception... They’re not classified as aircraft carriers because they’re not really designed or specialized for carrying helicopters, they just have the ability to do so... So what I’m trying to say is not all ships with the capability to carry aircraft can be considered as aircraft carriers, only ships that are designed and specialized for aircraft carrying operations can be considered as aircraft carriers... And that includes dedicated helicopter carriers and amphibous assault ships... Its not really a requirement for them to have the ability to carry fixed wing aircraft to be considered as aircraft carriers, as long as they can carry aircraft and they are designed to carry aircraft, may it be rotary wing or fix wing or whatever type of aircraft, they are aircraft carriers... Period...
Although you can question the decision-making in retiring the existing Sea Harriers too early before the F-35B's were ready, I really like the design choices of the new QE carriers. Loads of future proofing built in and they will perform a specific role for a decent amount of time. There's a really nice efficiency to that.
British can also do "rolling landing "over the stern , without use of wires . F35 B , that is . Interesting article , yes they would be great with angled deck as well !
@@thekraken4548 The Hawker Siddeley Harrier does it too.
F-35s are overpriced
@@ramal5708 False, F-35A Block 3F Lot 14's per unit cost is under $79 million USD.
@@valenrn8657 but they're using F-35Bs and costs 36 grand per hour
@@ramal5708
The cost per hour to fly the F35 is less than a f15.
how is the F35 expensive?
F15-Ex 88 million
F35 - 77 million
Cost per hour to fly:
Air Force Numbers:
F-15C $22,489
F15D $21,745
F15e $17,408
F22 $40,385
F35A $16,952
So the F35 is cheaper to buy, and cost less per hour to fly.
Link and source for above per hour numbers:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2020
From comptroller_defense_gov/Financial-Management/Reports/rates2020/
Replace _ characters into . character for the web link.
one more positive of STOVL: its cheaper and easier to qualify pilots on the F-35B (which has a lot of the landing process automated compared to the harrier) than on a CATOBAR. its landing is also less stressful on the airframe than arrested landing.
One positive of CATOBAR not mentioned: It can launch AEW and cargo aircraft that the other two cant.
Its probably already been mentioned, but Australia has 2 STOVL carriers as well, based on the Spanish design.
Yeah I was missing a mention to the Canberra class based on the Spanish design. Didn't Norway also procure one of the same type?
Yeah but Australian has no plane that can take off from it, only Helicopters.
No, it wasn’t mentioned because they don’t have have any.
For STOVL aircrafts, when more ammo or weight is needed just use catapults to take off, the aircraft should get rid of that ammo before landing vertically.
F-35B is not catapult compatible
@@kellywu4061 *The F-35B does not need catapults to perform short takeoffs as it uses downwards thrust to performs such measures.
You can also land a STOVL aircraft by a rolling landing as seen in the video, so no need to ditch ordnance.
Getting rid of ammo before landing was one of the many reasons they retired the F-14.
He forgot to mention one thing. In a raging war, you could imagine the enemy's initial targets would include airports and long strips of land to prevent conventional enemy aircraft from taking-off and joining the fight. Having combat aircraft that can take-off and land vertically and still be capable of mach flight would be a very big asset in such a scenario. They wouldn't need the conventional, long airstrips to be combat-ready and thus be more usable in protecting the airspace. What exactly is the use of a faster and longer-range aircraft if it is stuck on land, unable to take-off? VSTOL aircraft can practically join the fight from everywhere and that is the reason why I think it is the most ideal of the three F-35s.
Vought F-8 crusader
Description: severe man eater
Face: : 0
Specialty: A North Vietnamese Mig's big opponent
Cool? Yes
Favorite: *Flexy thicc barrier hug method*
What’s face and what’s flexy barrier hug method?
Pieter-Bas Hoogsteen I think Face is how the intake looks. The barrier hug being the carrier emergency landing barrier, when they can’t use the hook.
@@yolkiandeji7649 thanks
I am a vietnamese and are you offense our country?
@@builuuquanghuy4144 I don’t think he meant it in a way to insult you. It’s better if you not take it personally even if you don’t find the joke funny.
I like these longer videos
The QE Class Carriers, are capable of launching and recovering aircraft in worse weather than the US ships are capable of. Second, if you lose the cat system, you lose your ability to launch.
The US has both kinds. A catapult is way simpler than VTOL. If you lose the catapult you don't lose the ability to launch you lose payload and/or range.
@@yizeverienametaken The F35Bs aren't used for vertical take off though, they use a rolling take off using the ski ramp that never breaks down or needs constant maintenance. Yeah, a clean F/A18 could take off without a catapult give the right exacting conditions but what would be the point apart from maybe flying to an airbase for an overhaul or something?
@randomguy9777 It will, but not for F-35s. More likely for large drones, which is something that the Royal Navy is currently looking into.
The likely plans for the Royal Navy will be to operate 12-24 F35s on a carrier and make up the numbers with a loyal-wingman type drone. They're also looking at drones for AEW to replace Crowsnest and also for air to air refuelling.
@randomguy9777 They are, yes.
The RN seems very keen to go down the drone route, however, so likely looking at unmanned solutions for the QE class carriers.
I'm interested to see what they come up with.
@randomguy9777 Maybe, but EMAL is both unreliable at the moment, and too expensive. The only Navy with enough Carriers that can afford to experiment with EMAL is the USN. The QE's cannot use steam operated CATOBAR, so EMAL is literally the only option. The RN cannot afford to experiment, it has 2 Carriers, the US has what, 10 Fleet Carriers? Using one as a test platform for EMAL is no big deal for the USN, but for the RN if it is unreliable it takes one of their most powerful ships out of service....
So yes, while I agree, Its not going to happen until EMAL comes of age.
List of british naval inventions
The angled flight deck
The steam catapult
Landing assistance (cant remember what it is actually called)
The aircarft carrier itself
Also: Pykrete
@@Baconsandwich47 you take some wood, you take some ice, you get Pykrete
List of things no one asked.
Who made the angled flight deck
who made the steam catapult
who made landing assistance
who came up with the Aircraft carrier
@@G-Lew american fat
none of those technologies were invented by the UK, it was german and american designs
Nice! The Spinaker tower in all its glory?! ... Built in Portsmouth and now ironically named after their biggest rivals longtime sponsor 😆
I was there the day that carrier came in, what a sight!
its amazing to see how huge the ships are as they leave Portsmouth next to the old buildings at the mouth of the port
Who is the biggest rival?
@@jaybanks6815 Southampton. Their sponsor was Emirates and the tower was supposed to have been painted in their team colours
Lol. I think it is just our good ol' 🇬🇧 humour!
I would live to see HMS QE in the metal. Its must look so majestic.
"STOVL jets are less maneuverable than conventional fighter jets"
Sounds like you haven't heard about VIFFing. It's like a vertical takeoff, but it's not what you think.
From wikipedia:
Rotating the vectored thrust nozzles into a forward-facing position during normal flight is called vectoring in forward flight, or "VIFFing". This is a dog-fighting tactic, allowing for more sudden braking and higher turn rates. Braking could cause a chasing aircraft to overshoot and present itself as a target for the Harrier it was chasing, a combat technique formally developed by the USMC for the Harrier in the early 1970s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier#Controls_and_handling
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe purpose built dogfighters will be a good deal more maneuverable than any standard aircraft that employs VIFFing. In fact I believe the Harrier jump jet actually has relatively poor maneuverability
@@DonutHolestien still spanked the argies tho 🤣
@@DonutHolestien Yes, that's true, however newer fighters are built for beyond-visual-range engagements with missiles, not pure maneuverability, so the Harrier would be more on an even footing in a dogfight without employing VIFFing.
The Sea Harrier FRS.1 and Harrier GR.3 were extremely successful in the Falklands War, against Skyhawks, Daggers, Mirages, Pucaras, armed T-34Cs, and helicopters. Their biggest weaknesses were their small numbers, and inadequate airborne early warning. Neither of these is really the fault of the Harrier itself.
@@sebsjunkyard Alright, good to know!
The Harrier is one of those truly unique planes that will forever be iconic, like the Spitfire, Fokker Triplane, or F4 Phantom. They're obsolete now but they occupied a unique place in the history of aviation and it's awesome to see the spirit of the Harrier live on in the F-35B and the Queen Elizabeth carriers.
Fantastic
Rolling Vertical Landings have been done on ships plenty of times by Harriers. Not as part of standard operations, but plenty of times in various different circumstances.
Awesome videos
Keep it up
I think one thing that has to be kept in mind is although it limits takeoff capacity, it is very rare for aircraft to go even close to their takeoff limit. Just look how much armaments weigh and you'll see the theoretical top vs a standard load out is very different. So that is less of a disadvantage.
Hell yeah, i love that word "they need mad skill pilot" lol
That was/is the entry-level requirement for the old Harriers anyway so the RN just needs to maintain its selection process.
i live in portsmouth and see this ship almost everyday. always impressive to look at
LOL they then showed my other aircraft carrier like 20 seconds later. The USS John C Stennis CVN 76 lol.. I love this channel!
Apparently you can launch aircraft much much faster if you don't have to wait for a catapult to reset after each launch which is why the Royal Navy is no particularly bothered with the Bravo variant. The range isn't as far but the RN probably won't be using their aircraft at such long range but really like the idea of getting "more bang for their buck" so to speak getting a higher launch capability for each ship.
Well, see, it was more important to include a secondary island for tea making.
wow, you truly are a comedian
😆😆😆
@Evan Nicholson a lot further than 7 miles.
Absolutely old chap, you can’t expect a navy to operate without tea 😜🇬🇧
And scones or hot buttered crumpets After all we are English and can't be seen to let the niceties of life go to one side just because there's a war on
Just not done chaps 😉
An amazing presentation. Thank you.
Good video, first one I've seen that makes any sense whatsoever 👍
Nice information right there, now I know why the ship Queen Elizabeth II never had a angled flight deck.
Its actually named after queen elizabeth battleships, named after queen elizabeth the 1st.
QE II is a cruise liner, not a warship.
I never knew passenger liners got f35s in them lmao
Can you talk about the aircraft carriers of many navies?
Really interesting!
I miss the good old days with enterprise and hellcats and zeros.....
There are several advantages to STOVL Carriers that are rarely mentioned and are hardly even known.
During the Falklands War, the British pilots of the Harriers, the other successful STOVL fighters, found that because landing vertically on a STOVL carrier was so reliable, they didn't need to reserve any fuel for go arounds.
Once practiced and continent, this extended their operational range by 100nm (I've lost the source for that number, so that's from memory, it was an operationally useful distance though)
Further to that, RAF harriers operated from the carriers. You won't see USAF aircraft operating from a Nimitz, not outside of experimentation.
Finally, STOVL Carriers operate in any sea state the carrier can handle and any headwind (although headwinds obviously will extend the harriers range)
The Argentinian carrier veunticinco de mayo could not operate in the winter seas of the South Atlantic, which was very lucky for us and very lucky for them (it would have been torpedoed, the British tried _very_ hard to sink it, luckily for them their Captain and their ASW teams knew their stuff)
CATOBAR aircraft still out range and out carry ramp launched aircraft by a significant amount so that isn't an "advantage".
The USN operates the largest naval airforce on the planet so they don't need help from the USAF (the largest airforce on the planet) The UK isn't even in the top ten in number of aircraft the USN dwarfs the UK's entire air arm both RAF and Fleet. Once again, not an advantage.
CATOBAR carriers can operate with a deck pitching 30' look up "PBS:Carrier-Landing On A Pitching Deck PT 1". Show us some video of a ramp carrier operating in a worse sea state or once again not really an advantage.
There is no need for USAF aircraft to operate fro USN carriers; the USAF is the world's largest Air Force, and the 3rd largest is the US Navy; we have enough air wings in the Navy such that there would never be any need to operate Air Force assets from Carriers.
@@JoeBLOWFHB
Yes it is, 1,100 miles over 800 and that's with peace time fuel reserves and no SRVL landings for the C over the B.
And you're completely missing the point with USAF. Why would we care about how many aircraft a foreign military has?
STOVL Carriers and aircraft are better suited to operating at sea, the aircraft are more flexible, cheaper to maintain due to lighter landings. There's all sorts of advantages.
Better sortie rates for instance, they wipe the floor with the Ford class, they barely function. As for cost comparison, no contest, you could have 3 or 4 instead of a 4, quadrupling sortie rate while still reducing crew numbers.
I was just talking STOVL advantages, the ships themselves compared to other navies?
No contest.
@@devobronc
Completely missing the point.
I don't care how many planes USAF has.
Only STOVL Carriers came do this.
The Americans and the French are stuck with two separate air fleets, expensive and redundant.
@@MostlyPennyCat The Harrier has been retired for over a decade in the UK and the UK has vacillated on the pitiful number of F-35B'S they plan to inventory so it doesn't matter that in the good old days the RAF and Fleet air arms could share planes because they won't be doing that in the future. NOT AN ADVANTAGE!
You were the one saying we'd never see the USN and USAF sharing planes ...well neither will the RAF and Fleet that ship has sailed. My point is our Navy isn't so under inventoried that we would ever need to share aircraft with the Air Force if the Navy wanted to share planes they'd do it with the Marines who still operate the Harrier along with the F 35B but they don't because it's NOT AN ADVANTAGE.
If STOVL carriers and planes were "better suited" the USN wouldn't be wasting their time and money on an inferior product they'd just put ramps on our LHA's, triple their number and spend the savings on hookers and alcohol. The Ford class is a totally new carrier operating a totally new aircraft STOVL sortie rates are total shit compared to the Nimitz class which is still the vast majority of the USN fleet. Between 1966-1967 the USS Enterprise launched 14,000 sorties (look up "Command and Control of Air Operations in the Vietnam War") give me a citation where a STOVL carrier exceeded that number... I'lll wait...actually no I won't because no STOVL carrier ever launched an average of 38 sorties a day for one year. Hell their sortie rates are total shit compared to a 66 year old Forrestal class.
Counting pennies is for nations that can't afford to keep their nuclear triad in service and need to buy their sole nuclear delivery system from another country. The UK's military across the board has been in steady decline for a decade so all those cost savings are a necessity NOT AN ADVANTAGE!
There are 14 STOVL aircraft : USA, Britain, Spain , Italy
Japan and Thailand : Are We Joke To You???
Aircraft carriers, not aircraft.
you are right Japan has 2 STOVL aircraft destroyes, not carriers (they are basiclly carriers but re classified as destroyes). But in 2006 Thailand removed is Harrivers from its carrier, which makes it just a helicopter carrier.
@@rancor4690 yes definitely NOT carriers.. if anyone asks.
@@TheWebstaff aircraft carriers? Pffft you blind m8 this is a multirole Destroyer
@@rancor4690 bro the thai carrier is just an overpriced excursion boat for the royal family
There was a big cost cutting exercise before final version of the QE's were built although the idea was they could be fitted with CATS and traps, I dont think likely the speed, power and structural elements were skimmed keep costs under control.
You probably should have also mentioned the UK MOD's recent RFI regarding EMALS, along with their plan to "by 2030", add FWUAS to the carriers' airgroups. We will likely see emals trialed on land in the next 2-3 years in the UK, hopefully with some progress on "project vixen", which is providing the drones this system will launch, follwed by sea trials (Hopefully on HMS PoW, as she seems to be the "guinea pig" for UAS' for the RN currently), in maybe around 5 years. Not bad, if it comes to fruition.
Qna video for 1M subs: I am not who you think.
But no one has any questions, except for
WHEN IS THE FACE REVEAL?!
@@NotWhatYouThink Well I have questions: 1. What lead you to this ?
2. How do you have sthis much knowledge ?
3. Do you like this job ?
@@NotWhatYouThink that is quite sad, well I think people do have questions but no-one sees they're comment so you don't see them.
I mean this in the nicest possible way
We can’t read all the comments, but we do read a lot of them. Maybe I’ll send a community post at some point, asking people for their questions for a Q&A video
Basically the Queen kept to her diet to look good, meanwhile everyone else kinda ditched the diet
Diet to look good? US carriers using their catapult system and many different aircrafts. Meaning they'll be able to use their large varity for many uses. The Queen didn't maintain a healthy diet, so she's more thin rather then looking good. The only aircraft carriers that look good is the angled ones.
@@daisukekazumi2399 plenty of places will welcome her.
Us carriers being nuclear are banned from many many ports.
@@TheWebstaff Not a problem, with three million gallons of fuel for its planes and escorts. The Supply ships, C-2s, and CV-22s, the US Navy has logistics down to a science.
@@daisukekazumi2399 the angled shape comes mostly from the top runway that sticks out from the sides. You could easily refit extra platforms on the sides for point-defense systems and ofc fit a new runway itself.
@CHRISTIAN KNIGHT You talk about soon to be out of service. But they've been in service and been in effective service for a good while, providing increased effectivity. Taxes? The US economy is much stronger than the UK's. We don't worry about that.
I worked on QE2 for the last few days until she sailed from rosyth. What a machine!!
The F 35C lighting take off is amazing
What about the Canberra-class?
They were bought as is from Spain and already had the jump, it would’ve cost a lot of money to remove the jumps so the government left them on even though they have no intention of carrying any aircraft other than helis on them. They could be modified to allow for F35Bs to land and take off from them (we don’t have F35Bs, we have F35s but the ones we have are all going to be F35As) but that would require strengthening the jump and coating the flight deck in a stronger coating, which would be pretty expensive. So it’s possible for them to launch and receive F35Bs but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it happen, for now it’s only choppers on the Canberra class.
The canberaa class is a landing helicopter dock
@@yookk7143 bugger off
@@yookk7143 Gulag
Its a bit too small to operate F35B effectively. Since its only around 20000ton. The U.S Wasp and America class LHD are both around 40000ton.
You missed a lot of other reasons for using STOVL there. Weather minima, system reliability (thus sortie rate) etc.
Several mother bungee's for the catapult.stern to bow then back to plane on stern.
It's confinded to tube/track in deck. And each can be pulled back into place by which while other one in use.
Good video
There are advantages of a STOVL air craft. The Sea Harriers showed this in the 80s. Two QEC carriers were announced on order in 2007, but years earlier on 30 September 2002 MoD had announced the RN and RAF would operate the STOVL F-35B variant. So although in 2010 they announced they would fit CATOBAR as was cheaper and didn't because it became more expensive, the original plan was the B variant and this must have had some advantages other than just cost. Or maybe it's just Royal Navy tradition after the success in the Falklands war.
The advantages are a smaller, cheaper ship with less maintenance. But then you have a more expensive aircraft with more maintenance and/or less capability. You also limit the range of the ship because it can only use helicopters for resupply and airborne early warning.
That said, now every amphibious assault ship can be its own carrier. That is the biggest advantage in my opinion. You might even be able to revive the carrier submarine concept, as unlikely as that is.
@@dude6935 The Royal Navy showed big advantages of the Harrier over the Mirage jet in the Falklands war. After witch the UK overtook France in arms sales.
@@dude6935 The QEC carriers ant small and were built for the F35 witch requires a bigger ship than the previous Invincible class ships.
@@MrRichymil The QE class carriers are not small. They are among the largest non-nuclear carriers in the world, if not *the* largest. The US amphibious assault carriers will operate the F35b at only 60% of the displacement.
Not knocking the QEC. Just saying is all.
It wasn't a war it was a conflict
The F-35B is actually cheaper than the carrier variant F-35C, due to the low production numbers for the US Navy only model, and the recent announcement that each US Navy Air Wing will now have only one squadron of F-35C Strike Fighters, instead of the planned two.
But wait till you see the hourly flying operating costs right now it's still 36 grand per hour.
@Alenas Kvasninas But the Royal Navy made a bad, knee jerk decision, to give up on EMALS, and go back to the ski-jump carrier style they had used with Harriers. This "cost saving" measure means that the Royal Navy's very costly pair of new aircraft carriers will be of limited utility in future conflicts. The F-35B's more limited range will force the ships to operate in closer proximity to the enemy's defenses.
Dave Morgan had to do a rolling landing during the Falklands after taking a 20mm round to the tail of his Sea Harrier FRS.1 during the first strike on Port Stanley airport. He wasn't confident that he was going to be able to get a stable hover for a vertical landing.
What a 🇬🇧 hero!
UK had the Harrier while nobody else could figure out how to do vertical take off and landing.
But you're entirely right that it cost a lot of fuel.
F35b wasn’t the first to do a SRVL.
Royal Navy tested it using Harrier on French carrier back in 2007.
The video czcams.com/video/aU0P0pQQ6vI/video.html
I think HMS Queen Elizabeth should remain STOVL and the HMS Prince of Wales should be attempted retrofit and both should be tested to see which on is more effective overall.
And what happens when they decide which one is the most effective? Or rather, what happens if they decide that the STOVL configuration is more effective? Just convert the one they changed to CATOBAR back to STOVL & waste all that money?
And they would need a whole carrier's worth of F-35Cs too... So just to perform that test, they would need a £2 bn conversion to CATOBAR and £2.5 bn worth of new aircraft just for the test.
Or make one with catapults for heavier aircraft to run ground suppression and cas while the other stay the same a focuses on air dominance and CAP
@@needanewname141 the reason the UK wanted 2 carriers, not just one like France is that the availability of ships means that most of the time only 1 will be ready to go.
And if they did get to operate together, you would have planes that could only work from 1 of the carriers.
Plus operating & maintaining multiple types of aircraft is more expensive (even if they're quite similar) than a uniform fleet.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 They are still basically useless tools in the modern era, given the constant refueling, limited number of aircraft, and inferior planes. Basically, the QE & PoW are equivalent to Air-Wing-Loaded US Assault Deck ships. Similar numbers of aircraft; same aircraft complement.
For what was spent, the UK didn't do any better than a US Marine Assault Ship, configured for aircraft-fleet-support.
PS, our Assault Ships are a hella lot cheaper.
@@devobronc As in the carriers or the aircraft are useless?
If you mean the STOVL aircraft, consider that while the F-35B has 25% less range (combat radius) than the F-35C, it still has 30% more range than the Super Hornet. The B version only has 0.5 lower G-tolerance (0.6 less than the Super Hornet), but a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. And the main drawback with regards to payload is that the 2,000 lb bunker buster bombs have to be carried externally, but since the Royal Navy has never carried such a weapon, and the trend is towards smaller, but more numerous and more precise stand-off weapons anyway, this isn't a big loss. So while slightly worse than the F-35C (which if you care to think of it that way, is just an inferior version of the F-35A), it's still better than every other carrier-based aircraft in the world.
If you meant the carriers themselves, the Queen Elizabeth class is far better as an aircraft carrier than an America class, which is already about 1.5 to 2x the size of most Assault ships. And they're not a "hella lot cheaper", they're just 35% cheaper than the QEs (AND the development is split between more ships). And for that they can carry up to 20 F-35Bs, and even then it's quite the squeeze. The QEs can take around double that with plenty of room to spare so they can turn the aircraft around far quicker and generate far more sorties per day (110, which is not far off a Nimitz class).
Sorry, but "Constant refuelling", seriously?
Do you say that your Arleigh Burke class is "useless" because it has to refuel "constantly" (in fact it has less than half the range of a QE class)? Or are the Nimitz class "useless" because they have to refuel frequently with aviation fuel? The QEs hold more jet fuel per aircraft than do the Nimitz class, so both will have to refuel every few days during combat, nuclear-powered or not.
And this dreaded refuelling, which is done while underway (or during stopovers at friendly ports during peacetime) only takes about 2 hrs to fully fill up on bunker fuel for the ship. But they're topped off every few days so the ship never has less than 75% fuel on board, just in case, so about 1/2 hr every few days. Considering the entire escort fleet also has to be refuelled every few days anyway, 1 more ship isn't a massive deal. And again, as it can all be done while underway, so mostly not losing any time.
Compare that to nuclear refuelling which only has to be done every 20-25 years or so, but can take 2 or 3 years of the ship being in drydock and completely unavailable for service. Given that a carrier is typically deployed just 30% of the time, over the 25 year refuelling cycle of a nuclear-powered carrier, a Queen Elizabeth class could expect to be refuelling for just over 900 hrs (about 38 days worth)... compared to a few YEARS for a nuclear carrier, PLUS the time taken to refuel the aviation fuel tanks.
When you have 10 carriers, you can afford to wait that long, but not if you only have 2 or 3.
0:16 perfect timing for that take off the ship was going up on the wave.
2:52 I like how you can tell the cameraman was either laughing really hard or going "YOOOOOOOO"
Hope everyone has a good day
Thanks bro, you too!
Seems pretty likely both will end up with catapults in 20 years. They literally nailed on the first angled deck extension to HMS Ark Royal when it was 15 years old to accommodate much heavier new aircraft, specifically the Phantom and Buccaneer. My old man was on that Ark post refit and frequently says there is no way these carriers can be relevant for 50 years without catapults for future aircraft.
Well, our 6th gen won't have vertical take off and landing so having an Emals is inevitable. It just might come a lot earlier since our F 35Bs have been falling out of the sky a bit too much so we might have to get 4.5 gen aircrafts to replace them.
Britain is developing its own aircraft for the next generation, so it will depend on that.
@@olsenfernandes3634 We lost one.
@@mandowarrior123 It is ridiculous for us (Britain) to think we can go back to developing an aircraft on our own, whether military or civilian. It's too expensive these days.
The nice thign about EMALS is that its way less demanding in space them steam catapults, which need a complex boiler/tank/etc system, even under nuclear power. So it might be feasable to upgrade.
Us Brits didn't only invent the ramp, catapult, angled deck, lift/elevator. We also invented all of the other new tech that made carriers possible.
These ships are really impressive because I see them everyday I kinda forget how impressive and expensive they are.
The sad thing is that the Harrier is retired in 2020 which was my favorite VTOL jet.
It's still in service with the USMC, Spain and Italy.
The Harrier and its successor, the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B has a long and storied history of crashes and dead pilots. It was an aircraft compromised in many ways by its STOL engineering and the limits of 1960s technology. It could the one thing other aircraft couldn't do and that was enough to make it useful despite the cost in aircraft and lives.
On the bright side, civilians can now legally purchase the Harrier.
The design of the Queen Elizabeth class were forward fitted with the mountings for EMALS. the length was the minimum for arrestor landings of a refitted angle deck. This was a consideration of using both F35c and and UAV jets. The ships would take a 2 years to be refitted. So I suspect only one of the ships would be done
Or the second would go in after the first is done. The same way the Nimitz carriers got retrofittet.
I'm sure if needs be they'll refit both at separate times just to keep them operational in some capacity
@@mrcaboosevg6089 Yes that is a big possibility. They would also have to fit jet blast deflectors and either the on board landing sights or have some sort of helmet based landing assist thing. A lot of work.
@@nottmfunguy Luckily we have two so it's not a serious problem. If we need both carriers to fight at the same time we'd probably be in some serious shit anyway
@@mrcaboosevg6089 The likelihood of that happening is very small. However as I remember the RN nearly got caught out with carrier numbers before when the Falklands kicked off. Before then we only had one strike carrier operating and that was the old Ark Royal, but it was a more capable ship, even by todays carriers standards.
@8:15 is that some sort of a royal navy priest on the left?
Are the onboard munitions blessed for +10 holy dmg??
awesome
Wasn’t Britain developing their own electronic launching system, EMCAT was being tested at the time.
They use EMCAT for drones but that as well as ICCALS (chemical fuel powered catapult, burn fuel, makes steam, all inside the cylinder system) were forced out to guarantee a contract win for EMALS because 'murica I guess?
@@MostlyPennyCat Tories don't like building things if they can just buy stuff from America and get their 5% slice of the pie. No doubt the contractor tasked with purchasing and fitting the new system is owned by the cousin of the defence secretary, who both went to Eton and then business school.
I don't understand why EMALS would be hard to build to be reliable. They are just linear motors, something we have used for e.g. trains like the German Transrapid since the 1980s and in some other cases even longer.
But you don't accelerate trains from zero to 160 mph in two seconds, over a distance of 250 feet, then release them from the track so they can fly away cleanly without getting hung up. I think it's a bit more complicated than you're suggesting 😉
@@lukedogwalker so basically it's not what you think
Another very important thing to consider, if we'd gone for CATOBAR then only the Royal Navy F-35Cs could have operated off of them and only Fleet Air Arm pilots could have flown them. By going STOVL and buying the B for both the RAF and RN then literally every F-35 we have in service can operate from them, as could any RAF pilot. Realistically speaking our government would never have bought more than a tiny amount of F-35Cs, probably only enough for the 2 squadrons which would have meant we could never have surged them past 24 F-35Cs across both carriers. Those limited airframes would also have left us vulnerable to maintenance issues and the airframes only being able to handle so many arrested landings. STOVL was the best option.
No we'd just have bought all F35Cs
In fact it's now looking likely that the ships will get an 'attenuated' outfit of lower-weight-capable (apparently for aircraft of up to 25,000kg launch weight) EMALS type cats, plus traps, primarily to permit the operation of various UAVs, including combat capable fast jet "loyal wingman" drones. Something that will also necessitate an angled flight deck. As the combat drones will complement, and be controlled directly by the F35-B crews, it seems our carriers will then be neither purely STOVL nor CATOBAR ships but a mix of both.
And as an outside bet, it could eventually get even more complex if the 6th Gen Tempest project results in the development of a maritime variant, say the "Sea Tempest", that in view of the plane being a very powerful twin engined fighter, may then even be STOBAR operated.
UK stovall carriers have had the capacity of a rolling landing
Fun fact: the technology used for the catapult was also leveraged by Intamin for their Accelerator coasters (notable examples: Desert Race, Formula Rossa, Kanonen, Kingda Ka, Rita, Senzafiato, Skycar, Speed Monster, Stealth, Storm Runner, Superman Escape, Top Thrill Dragster, Zaturn).
The angled flight deck was not missed. It was built into the design of the ship early on as the decision had not been made as to weather to operate the ships in STOVL or CATOBAR fashion but at some point the decision had to be made because of the installation of catapults & arrestor gear for CATOBAR operations. The angled flight deck was already designed into the ship. The deck markings only had to reflect STOVL or the angled approach for CATOBAR operations catching the arrestor cables.
5:55 that would be a good great and awesome concept
How do they get the planes on the ships for the first time? Do they have to land on them or do they use cranes?
In the navy, the aircraft fly out from their base at RAF Marham and join the carrier at sea. They land on the carrier and are then parked in the hangar or on the deck
Planes helicopters.... are always flew to the new location, very very very rarely transported mostly when damaged
More queen elizabeth content plz!!!
I miss being on this boat. Was on it this time last year with vmfa-211
Okay actually I seen myself multiple times in this video
Not only did the British invent the angled flightdeck, we also invented the aircraft carried HMS Argus launched in 1918
*To save you 8 minutes of watch time* :
Because they use and were designed for F-35B which can just use its VTOL to land like a helicopter, that's the main point which took 4-5 min into the video.
Extra note (the last 2 minute of the video): They're not using Steam engine so they can't use a steam catapult, and electromagnetic catapult is a developing technology which is unreliable currently. So because they're not equipped with any catapult system they can't use F-35C which would need said angled flight deck.
But some poeple cannot read so they watch videos 🤠🌞😁😁
if we spent as much on solving problems, as we spend on defending ourselves from each other! this could be a really great place to live!!!
You're not supposed to say that, that defense budget has to be wasted on something
What if they had a war and nobody turned up because it was a wet miserable Wednesday afternoon, or worse one of those long drawn out Sunday afternoons from the 70's when all of the shops used to be shut and the only thing you had to look forward to was bath night because it was school the next day
Too bad we live on Earth instead of a dreamlike paradise.
The rolling vertical landing is just a button on the auto pilot now. Sure the first one done manually was hard, but that was before the software to do it automatically was ready.
Makes landing less of an issue and risk, noted~
Soviet STOVL: I have been forgotten...
Not by environmentalists around the world they haven't. Did you see the amount of crap those old Soviet era carriers were belching out in the video? man those things are a floating health hazard 😂
You forgot to mention one thing. In a raging war, you could imagine the enemy's initial targets would include airports and long strips of land to prevent conventional enemy aircraft from taking-off and joining the fight. Having combat aircraft that can take-off and land vertically and still be capable of mach flight would be a very big asset in such a scenario. They wouldn't need the conventional, long airstrips to be combat-ready and thus be more usable in protecting the airspace. What exactly is the use of a faster and longer-range aircraft if it is stuck on land, unable to take-off? VSTOL aircraft can practically join the fight from everywhere and that is the reason why I think it is the most ideal of the three F-35s.
yes and no, if your VTOL is maintenance-intensive like F35 I don't see it operating from open fields in the middle of a forest or on motorways or any place where full maintenance infrastructure is not available.
fighter planes don't need long strips of land to take off and land
That was the idea they had back in the cold war, and many VTOL fighter jets were in development as a result: The Dassault BALZAC, the British Harrier, the soviet Yak-38, etc. But it's still easier to build a makeshift runway for conventional fighters than it is to maintain VTOL fighters, and close-in weapons systems (CIWS) make air bases reasonably secure against air threats.
Who would that imagined enemy be that could destroy all British air strips?
@@TorianTammas Well, given that majority of all british typhoons are kept in just 2 air bases, destroying those 2 won't be such a big task. And yes, russia is capable of destroying those bases lmao.
There is a nice simplicity to the STOVL design. If your plane can take off, it can take off and if it can land, it can land. You don't need to rely on the catapult working or the arrestor cables being in place. You also only have aircraft that can potentially land without an intact runway or one filled with extra aircraft. Very good if you need to fight another conflict like the Falklands and only have 2 carriers.
@Bob Watters Yes but if you have a CATOBAR ship you will take CATOBAR aircraft and then you have the problems I mentioned. Having a STOVL ship forces you to have STOVL aircraft.
@Bob Watters You are missing my point.
@Bob Watters I made it in my original post.
@Bob Watters Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but I tried my best. Sorry you can't understand it.
Why STOVL?
It can be used in more extreme weather conditions, the shortfalls are supported by auxiliary vessels.
When the refits occur new aircraft that are being developed will integrate with the ship.