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