One is the bridge for sea operations, the other is for air operations.
the idea was to cut down the width of deck covered by the tower(s) and to streamline operations.
The QE class carriers were designed to use a lot less people too, (compared to the Nimitz class you have), the basic crew for sea op's is only some 680, with a full complement of <1,700 including marines compared to a Nimitz complement of what? some 6,000, and the Ford class at some 2,600.
A lot of the handling system are automated, same with trash system etc etc.
that's not to say they are perfect, a lot of stupid decisions were taken, the lack of nuclear power means half the fuel storage is taken up with bunker fuel for propulsion, so it can't carry as much jet fuel, thus it needs more frequent oiler support. They also chose NOT to go cat&trap, so the only planes it can accomodate are the F35B or now retired Harrier.
this was super dumb, the F35B currently costs north of $110M a pop, vs. the F18 Super Hornet at <$30M, and you can argue as much as you want about capability, for 90% of the time, the F18 is a more appropriate plane (I can see the US hosting them for decades along side the F35 on their carriers).
then we get to the problem of without cat&trap, we can't cross-desk with US/etc carrier fleets.
There are a host of other stupid decisions that were made along the way, mostly politically based that pushed the costs up stupidly and pushed the timescales years behind.
All that said, they are certainly a massive improvement on the previous ones we scrapped years before.
Truth be told, the big supercarriers do not make as much sense, militarily and financially, as the 4 or 5 smaller carriers one could build using the same resources.
They DO look ABSOLUTELY outstanding, though. They are a prestige and intimidation weapon as much as a platform.
Yeah. Weak allies.
DOH!!!!
Bruh wtf happened to britains military, they were like the US back in the day
Three letters, and the state religion of the UK:
NHS
Debt....
That's not even a ship anymore, picture must be 20+ years old.
current ones we have are these:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/21/62/ad/2162ad34bbf938973ee635ee3b8b4c1a.jpg
sorry for that, try again...
I click that link and it says file not found with a 404. Maybe that's the joke.
sorry about that, usual web-fuckery
One is the bridge for sea operations, the other is for air operations.
the idea was to cut down the width of deck covered by the tower(s) and to streamline operations.
The QE class carriers were designed to use a lot less people too, (compared to the Nimitz class you have), the basic crew for sea op's is only some 680, with a full complement of <1,700 including marines compared to a Nimitz complement of what? some 6,000, and the Ford class at some 2,600.
A lot of the handling system are automated, same with trash system etc etc.
that's not to say they are perfect, a lot of stupid decisions were taken, the lack of nuclear power means half the fuel storage is taken up with bunker fuel for propulsion, so it can't carry as much jet fuel, thus it needs more frequent oiler support. They also chose NOT to go cat&trap, so the only planes it can accomodate are the F35B or now retired Harrier.
this was super dumb, the F35B currently costs north of $110M a pop, vs. the F18 Super Hornet at <$30M, and you can argue as much as you want about capability, for 90% of the time, the F18 is a more appropriate plane (I can see the US hosting them for decades along side the F35 on their carriers).
then we get to the problem of without cat&trap, we can't cross-desk with US/etc carrier fleets.
There are a host of other stupid decisions that were made along the way, mostly politically based that pushed the costs up stupidly and pushed the timescales years behind.
All that said, they are certainly a massive improvement on the previous ones we scrapped years before.
Somebody got spanked by the yank!
And thats not even the newest model. The ford class carriers are amazing.
Brits have 2 Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers now and are awesome
At least the Brits have carriers. Most countries do not. They could not have won the Faulklands war withour their carriers.
Truth be told, the big supercarriers do not make as much sense, militarily and financially, as the 4 or 5 smaller carriers one could build using the same resources.
They DO look ABSOLUTELY outstanding, though. They are a prestige and intimidation weapon as much as a platform.
Weak allies! OFS!
Lmfao. pussy ass Euro cucks