Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Why Queen Elizabeth Carriers Have Twin Islands?" video.

@maxkennedy8075 Non nuclear design is cheaper. No catapult == more planes == defensive in nature. Also if you do not want to harass people 10,000 miles away from home no need to have nuclear power. Hence Soviet design with a smaller ship / hybrid in the 1970/80s. If you are only extending the range against enemy bombers off your shore there is little need to have nukes to power you. If you don't need to load planes for heavy strike missions there is little need for catapults (at least powerful ones).
2
It feels a bit wasteful of space - single small island would maximize deck space and decrease return signature. I understand two engine rooms separation but wonder how this is done on US carriers - I assume its advantage of having nuclear propulsion. I also understand why UK went with "defensive" carriers same as Russia / India.
1
@steve-iw2bg If it was for power projection it would be nuclear based. I am unsure UK has that capability but given that France does I am sure UK could as well (for ships larger then a sub). Also it would have catapults and no ski jump. Ski jump is to save on internal machinery and on cost at the expense of less load per aircraft. For strike missions you want maximum load but for defensive missions lower load is OK. The F-35B does help somewhat with the load aspect but is more expensive per aircraft and more suitable to assault ships. All new US carriers are all catapult based flat tops same as new Chinese designs (Ford class for US and type 004 for Chinese - type 003 is conventional power CATOBAR). Nuclear power also means a lot of electricity for future weapon expansion.
1
@steve-iw2bg if nuclear did not give you any benefits US and China would not get it. It not only gives you unlimited range at top speed but also huge amounts of available energy. Cats allow fighters to start loaded for bombing missions not just with few missiles. There are advantages to both, US is clearly aggressive while UK is defensive.
1
@steve-iw2bg If that were true US would be rather unwise to do so. Given US navy is #1 in the world for like around 100 years now I do not think decisions they make are unwise. Also Chinese are doing the same. US considers type 004 carrier equal to about their Kitty Hawk class - pre Nimitz. So that would put UK at maybe 1 Nimitz == both QE ships for defense or at most 1 Ford class = 2 QE.
1
@steve-iw2bg The carriers make sense for UK but do not for US. UK carriers may have 1/2 or less capability then a Ford but UK cannot afford 2x Ford. 2 carriers can be in two places. Since US has at least 10 operational carriers it makes little sense for it to have 20 to be in 20 places - 10 is already plenty - it means at least 3 or 4 are available even at worst of times. Also UK will have a carrier even if one is in refit. This is why UK has budget carrier. Chinese for their 4th carrier are also picking one that is more capable and there is supposed plan for 4 of them. One has to also note that US has a large number of rather capable marine assault ships (Wasp class) - China is also adding these - 3 40k ships are in sea trails. So US already can be said has smaller carriers (America class is 45k) in large numbers and large carriers in ... large numbers. Thus it makes little sense to add... mid sized carriers. Note US smaller carriers can utilize F-35B.
1
@steve-iw2bg when acting as a carrier America class has about half the capacity of a QE of F-35B. It can carry about 20 vs 36 for QE.
1