Comments by "Simon Hool" (@simonhool3073) on "Matsimus" channel.

  1. Larry Roberts They have been installed, you also have the compliment of the aircraft aboard along with escorts if needed wether that’s above or below the surface. As part of NATO, escorts can be shared as the US do.
    5
  2. Michael Pielorz 48 jets ordered, not two. The F35B has passed its tests as proven by British pilots in the UK and US.
    4
  3. Dorian de Groot To Australia Sydney and a bit left.
    2
  4. Taffy Explain
    2
  5. Darren Hudson The Royal Navy has enough escort ships, you’d know this if you keep up with defence news.
    1
  6. Darren Hudson We do have enough as pointed out by the First Sea Lord. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-now-has-enough-crew-for-both-carriers-and-their-escorts/
    1
  7. Darren Hudson Daring class problems have been fixed and that problem has affected nearly every ship in the world as most ships use the same cooling system.
    1
  8. Darren Hudson You haven’t heard because of tabloid papers in this country and because our ship spent too long in that patch of water. When operating at the time it wasn’t taken into account the cooling system. Happens to other nations all the time.
    1
  9. Darren Hudson https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-a-symbol-of-british-military-power/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-needs-aircraft-carriers/ You cannot gain the same benefits that carriers have, as set out above, from destroyers and frigates.
    1
  10. shane walsh Jog on, it’s a great looking ship.
    1
  11. WATSON DOVE Oh dear
    1
  12. Cristina Vuscan Less than 5% of the population is Muslim and the majority of them are fine like all other religions in the UK.
    1
  13. Joni Ha! What a load of bollocks
    1
  14. Marvin Cooper On trials so doesn’t require them. No nation puts their jets on straight away, even the Americans.
    1
  15. Vishnu Gadhavi nope, because Labour didn’t order it with any.
    1
  16. multi truth Because that sort of conflict is unlikely to happen in today’s day and age, not just because you think differently about our carrier.
    1
  17. Sean Shi Not the Royal Navy but Labour.
    1
  18. christopher tucker That’s not terrifying at all. She had no systems on board to detect the drone as she was still owned by the builders at that point. Even the police turned around and said this is not the navy to deal with. Do you really think that with all of her equipment a drone will slip by?? How gullible are you?!
    1
  19. AH6man QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run. Your opinion is wrong.
    1
  20. huurux In the sense that every warship is a good target, even the US with their larger targets...
    1
  21. Dustin Shadle Money and space for four?
    1
  22. Philip Mcintyre British Army has new tanks and new service rifle. Educate yourself.
    1
  23. Philip Mcintyre SA80 A3 is just over a year old and is very capable. The Ajax is coming into service very soon.
    1
  24. Mental Melonhead Are you high?
    1
  25. William J Greklek III You are aware that the RN is trailing laser systems very soon
    1
  26. PotassiumShard Explain then
    1
  27. PotassiumShard No one has or will fire a nuclear weapon at a warship. No warship has been hit by one before so can be proven not to be a waste of money. Under your theory any large vessel or building is a waste of money if it has the slightest chance of being hit by one. The ICBM is used a deterrent not an attack missile wouldn’t be used against a ship.
    1
  28. henry hurst yes
    1
  29. Turlough M 70k tons*
    1
  30. sidharth cs QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run.
    1
  31. Wouter ter Berg Or NATO.
    1
  32. OZYMANDIAS It would have cost more money to convert Typhoon’s to work at sea with little left for the RAF to use.
    1
  33. blurglide Cats and traps are good if you have a bottomless budget, you have to maintain the cats and traps as well as repair them over time and repair the small bits of damage they do to aircraft as well. The ski jump works and is effective so what's the problem? The F35B also uses vertical landing and take off. If one brakes the others cannot be used, suspending all flights, how efficient is that.
    1
  34. Daniel Bright It’s not stupid at all, do your research on the history of the ski jump and its uses.
    1
  35. 1935rmb Jog on
    1
  36. Comic Book Guy Bollocks, prove it.
    1
  37. Halflifer Are you stupid? There is trillions of pounds left in the budget for those, it wasn’t a carrier or homes. By building up defences you need more crew reducing the amount of people on the street or potentially on the street.
    1
  38. n T Any evidence to prove that it was illegal then?
    1
  39. Night of thunder Good names, do you even know which monarch she is named after.
    1
  40. Trusteft No it’s not, research the range and position of them and you’ll see the coverage for your self.
    1
  41. Trusteft The aircraft on board are also defence. If you research it, you’ll find that three have been installed too. How do you know that there won’t be a submarine or other NATO vessels around.
    1
  42. TommyTwobats you mean F35B
    1
  43. mtrboater1 No
    1
  44. Scott Wheeler Harrier is obsolete.
    1
  45. Allen Bird No it couldn’t, do you know how aircraft carriers are designed not to sink. Go and research the topic before you comment bullshit. Under your principle every ship can go to the bottom from one missile.
    1
  46. Comic Book Guy Ah the hypersonic missile, a missile which is t used by any country at an operational level. Great argument there...
    1
  47. Allen Bird No they aren’t, every warship has defences and protocols in place.
    1
  48. JJ Thomas Don’t need an angled deck, we did design the angled deck by the way. QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along.
    1
  49. kevin Williams I guess you aren’t aware of it’s defence systems on board.
    1
  50. Jerold Productions It won’t though.
    1
  51. learnmore kaseke How many carriers does Russia own that currently work?
    1
  52. Hayden Philbert Google it.
    1
  53. Graham Strouse You’re saying that the T23’s and T45’s are not serviceable, you must be joking. The carrier is a ship not a boat and isn’t expensive in context with the national budget. The F35B is the right aircraft for the carrier and is hugely capable.
    1
  54. Dennis Hough ‘Working on’, name a country which you can prove isn’t doing this. Nuclear is old and outdated now.
    1
  55. John Wroath Stupid argument saying if it’s a big or small target.
    1
  56. Matthew Blom No aircraft carrier is being sold, you really believe bullshit like that in the tabloid papers?
    1
  57. Rene Hinojosa Doesn’t make it look stupid at all and not dated at all.
    1
  58. Lewis Taylor The RN has enough ships to support the carrier and other operations. The navy will have enough F35B’s for when she is ready.
    1
  59. Lewis Taylor Only one at sea at once on operations yes
    1
  60. michael mooney A retro approach??? How are these carriers doomed then?
    1
  61. Christopher Priester A carrier or warship would have no affect.
    1
  62. Blue Rainbow All ships leak all the time, it’s normal. Even submarines leak and stay dived. If the type 45 engines don’t work please explain why 5 out of 6 were operational at once this year.
    1
  63. Tony Ronald You are aware of the other defence systems on board apart from the aircraft? Clearly not.
    1
  64. falanglao01 Explain why 5 out of 6 we’re out on operations this year.
    1
  65. PointyTailofSatan The carrier isn’t named after a living family member. QE is named after the first Queen Elizabeth.
    1
  66. Ricardo Agila Thanks for your expert advice for a country that doesn’t have the logistics to support a war.
    1
  67. Timothy Bean QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run.
    1
  68. Roddison Cruz A carrier that doesn’t operate at the moment, good one.
    1
  69. Matthew Baynham Tempest isn’t design to work at sea at present. You think we still have Harriers????
    1
  70. Happy Highway QE does more than 30 knots in trials.
    1
  71. Systemofthehounds Queen Elizabeth 1st isn’t a pedophile or a “pedofile”.
    1
  72. van castro QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run.
    1
  73. Bennett Stephenson For defence.
    1
  74. InvaderNat QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along.
    1
  75. Vegarot Fusion Name a ship which can stop the hypersonic missile which no country has a fully operational version of. You live in a fantasy land.
    1
  76. Roy Meadows Are you stupid? You do realise the UK owns 17 F35B’s with 138 ordered.
    1
  77. Robert Richardson Wow
    1
  78. Matthew Waddington Bullshit. 5 our 6 destroyers were on operations at once this year. We have never had a problem with our frigates. We have two carriers not one.
    1
  79. soxx soxx Like most ships or large buildings yes.
    1
  80. Norbiee Explain.
    1
  81. ERIK SAGER QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run.
    1
  82. ERIK SAGER A nuclear propulsion system with cats and traps takes up a lot of space too, it’s all swings and roundabouts.
    1
  83. ERIK SAGER The F35 doesn’t take off vertically hence the ramp.
    1
  84. ERIK SAGER B
    1
  85. True Gopnik nope
    1
  86. Jonathan Goff We aren’t buying the Osprey.
    1
  87. cornflake73 Maybe as an exchange officer.
    1
  88. Ser Garlan Tyrell The ski jump is not silly and one of the best pieces of engineering there ever has been in maritime history. Others use the jump to this day. US carriers do around the same speed as ours.
    1
  89. D0wnshift Looks dated to people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
    1
  90. Yay City You know nothing.
    1
  91. Trance State What are you talking about? That is all nonsense.
    1
  92. Del Lawrence David Cameron didn’t receive money for the harriers himself. The harriers are obsolete aircraft. Do you know anything about defence?
    1
  93. Archie Scriven Backup plan isn’t required and cats and traps are good if you have a bottomless budget, you have to maintain the cats and traps as well as repair them over time and repair the small bits of damage they do to aircraft as well. The ski jump works and is effective so what's the problem? The F35B also uses vertical landing and take off. If one brakes the others cannot be used, suspending all flights, how efficient is that.
    1
  94. Neil E.Anlin Are you stupid? QE can turn around without tugs, always best to have them though. QE isn’t ancient at all. You know nothing and provide no evidence.
    1
  95. Aaron Seet Three have been fitted. Only one carrier will be out at a time.
    1
  96. Don Cross We own 17 F35B's, all of which are fully operational with 6 in Cyprus at the moment on exercise. The others are in America flying under British pilots until those are ready. QE has embarked F35B’s for the first part of air trials being successful and are now on stage 2. No aircraft carrier in the world, even the Americans don’t start with aircraft. The UK have just ordered another 17 with the overall total to reach 138 or so.
    1
  97. benjamin mathon Because money.
    1
  98. Brokejoker QE is smaller by 16.9% than the US Ford Class, tiny difference in context. The aesthetics of the ship don’t make a difference at all, like it or not. Didn’t realise you one judge everything.
    1
  99. PhatKid68 No the ramp isn’t a waste at all.
    1
  100. The Official PC Master Race The carrier doesn't run on XP. It was rumoured that it does but it doesn't. While many on board systems used by contractors for various tasks use Windows XP, Windows 7 and various other operating systems, none of these are directly involved in running the vessel and will not be present when the ship enters operation service according to the Ministry of Defence. The new carriers are the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the rest of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next 10 years. Shared Infrastructure is a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. Replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, reduces the amount of spares required to be carried onboard and will significantly decrease through-life costs. "The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the ship becomes operational, this also applies to HMS Prince of Wales.” Source - UK Defence Journal
    1
  101. Lee Benson The designers and engineers have made her as streamlined as it possible. The skip ramp isn’t that tall in context either.
    1
  102. Russell Campbell Please enlighten us with which EU chains have prevented the UK from working with its commonwealth countries and relations with Anglo-American connections. Captain Kyd isn’t the Captain of QE and hasn’t been for a while now. The three phalanx covers all required areas of the ship, no need to have another.
    1
  103. oldgysgt QE won’t just be a large helicopter carrier but an aircraft carrier as the F35 isn’t a helicopter.
    1
  104. oldgysgt A helicopter carrier is a carrier than operates helicopters as its primary frame. The the primary asset is a jet for QE, therefore it’s not a helicopter carrier. If it was a helicopter carrier it wouldn’t have a ski jump, HMS Ocean was a helicopter carrier not QE.
    1
  105. oldgysgt Shares characteristics with a helicopter carrier but not a helicopter carrier. Before the angled flight deck every carrier was like QE and they weren’t helicopter carriers.
    1
  106. oldgysgt They aren’t but sure
    1
  107. Andrew Baumgartner Just because one area of government isn’t going well, doesn’t mean you should starve everything else of money. Do you not want to be defended?
    1
  108. Leroy Hovatter Like every ship and boat in the world yes but that was fixed.
    1
  109. Daniel Kunkle Three is enough and provides enough protection, it has been proven.
    1
  110. alex jervis You are aware of the UK’s annual budget? No where near bankrupt.
    1
  111. GameGuyScrub QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along.
    1
  112. OZYMANDIAS Not true, there have never been talks to sell POW. Only one carrier will be out at a time yes. Only 24 at the maximum will be used on deck. Merlins and other NATO aircraft may use the other space.
    1
  113. K The carrier isn’t operational yet.
    1
  114. kenrick johnson No we shouldn’t have. Their service life was over.
    1
  115. Arturas nesakysiu QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run. The situation where Sweden was un-detected isn’t related to building a carrier at all but to the systems used by a carrier group.
    1
  116. System Error Message If you think the crew drink tea and coffee at stations then you are deeply misinformed. Every ship has its own store, even the Americans. QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run. We own 17 F35B's, all of which are fully operational with 6 in Cyprus at the moment on exercise. The others are in America flying under British pilots until those are ready. QE has embarked F35B’s for the first part of air trials being successful and are now on stage 2. No aircraft carrier in the world, even the Americans don’t start with aircraft. The UK have just ordered another 17 with the overall total to reach 138 or so.
    1
  117. ARX 351 Not named after the monarch, google it.
    1
  118. Dick How is the carrier cute or a baby when it’s one of the largest in the world.
    1
  119. GH1618 Cats and traps are good if you have a bottomless budget, you have to maintain the cats and traps as well as repair them over time and repair the small bits of damage they do to aircraft as well. The ski jump works and is effective so what's the problem? The F35B also uses vertical landing and take off. If one brakes the others cannot be used, suspending all flights, how efficient is that.
    1
  120. GH1618 Argentina, the country whose airforce is over 80% un-useable.
    1
  121. Comic Book Guy Bullshit, can you prove any of this with evidence??
    1
  122. Bence Szilágyi Harpoon life has been extended until 2020
    1
  123. chrisbea49 Bullshit. QE will carry RN and RAF F35B’s along with rotary aircraft too.
    1
  124. John O Not named after the monarch.
    1
  125. Cool Guy You have no idea
    1
  126. Cool Guy Solid evidence there...
    1
  127. 888b-cool Think you’ll find that QE can hold up to 70 jets at maximum capacity. QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run.
    1
  128. Xeejii Why aren’t you misinformed. The RN isn’t small and it the most effective Navy in Europe. We aren’t going tot war with Russia or China and if we were Russia have little to nothing left of a Navy and no money to support the ancient ships that it still uses. China don’t have a full deep sea Navy or the logistics to fulfil a war. The U.A doesn’t carry the RN at all.
    1
  129. George Ivanov You have no idea do you. Come back with evidence and facts then argue.
    1
  130. Comic Book Guy The royal family pay tax you idiot.
    1
  131. Shad ow Do you have any idea of the coverage with the three which have been fitted? It’s been explained before hundreds of times. The protection on board is adequate.
    1
  132. Brandon Rashall not true.
    1
  133. Sir Prancealot You know nothing about defence do you.
    1
  134. RCN2820 No
    1
  135. John Blue The ship does more than 30 knots as proven so in trials.
    1
  136. John Blue QE shouldn’t be nuclear powered. We wouldn’t have been able to afford one carrier let alone two if nuclear powered. Her range is enough to get her from Portsmouth to Sydney with fuel left so not a problem especially when you have the worlds best replenishment service, the RFA. Being nuclear powered would prevent us from visiting over 40% of the worlds ports which happen to be mostly commonwealth too. It’s more expensive to maintain plus the mid life refuelling would take both carriers out of action for years with nothing else. Ask the French how their nuclear aircraft carrier is getting along in the long run.
    1