USS Gerald R. Ford vs HMS Queen Elizabeth – Which Carrier Would You Want? | First Time Reaction

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Gerald R. Ford versus Queen Elizabeth.

[00:00:04]No, that's not what we're talking about from a political arena. We're talking about that from the naval carriers on this one, guys. We're going to check this out. This is a comparison of these two ships that were both built in 2000 2017. They were both commissioned. And uh be interesting to see some of the nuance between the naval capabilities on this. Yeah, for sure. I think seeing the size of these ships has been absolutely mind-blowing to me. Like you see it in like movies and stuff, right? But you don't really like actually pay attention to it. But seeing some of these breakdowns in these videos, I'm like, that is a big ship. And then you think how much it carries and how heavy it is.

[00:00:38]Like it's wild to me.

[00:00:39]>> How much power it requires as well. And we'll probably get into that some of those dynamics on this, I would imagine.

[00:00:44]My expectation is the the Ford is going to be much much bigger. Um I I think we did a video previously on that a while back. And it was you know, it didn't dive into everything. But I just remember it being like a behemoth of a ship. And like you said, that falls in exactly with what you were saying. But we don't need to speculate any longer.

[00:01:04]Let's see how it compares. The Queen Elizabeth versus the Ford.

[00:01:15]When discussing the modern behemoths of naval engineering, few ships capture as much global attention as the USS Gerald R. Ford of the US Navy and the HMS Queen Elizabeth of the Royal Navy.

[00:01:29]Each represents the pinnacle of their respective nations' naval capabilities and symbolizes power projection on the world stage. Those are people. Yet, with technological advancements and unique strategic philosophies embedded in their design, the question remains, which carrier is better?

[00:01:47]This comprehensive analysis will dive into the key details, comparing their specifications, power, [music] weaponry, cost, and overall capabilities, with a particular emphasis on the USS Gerald R.

[00:01:58]Ford, which often stands out due to its state-of-the-art innovations.

[00:02:02]The USS Gerald R. Ford is the lead ship of a new class of US Navy supercarriers.

[00:02:08]Named after the 38th president of the United States, it was commissioned in 2017 [music] and marked a significant leap in carrier technology.

[00:02:18]The Gerald R. Ford class is intended to replace the aging Nimitz-class carriers, which have served as the backbone of US naval [music] power for decades.

[00:02:28]The Ford's construction incorporated years of research and development aimed at making it the most formidable and technologically advanced carrier ever built.

[00:02:37]>> I think it's nuclear powered.

[00:02:38]>> On the other side, the HMS Queen Elizabeth represents a new era for the Royal Navy.

[00:02:44]Launched in 2014 and commissioned in 2017, it is one of two ships in its class, along with its sister ship, the HMS Prince of Wales.

[00:02:55]The Queen Elizabeth class was designed as part of the UK's [music] efforts to maintain a strong, versatile naval presence and support joint military operations with allied forces. Catch [music] that ramp.

[00:03:07]>> reflects British ingenuity and showcases a blend of traditional design and modern technology.

[00:03:15]The cost of the USS Gerald [music] R.

[00:03:17]Ford >> Expensive.

[00:03:18]>> an estimated $13 billion, uh That's it. excluding the significant investment in research and development that was necessary to bring this groundbreaking project to fruition.

[00:03:29]Damn.

[00:03:30]>> This colossal sum underscores the complex nature of the ship's design, which includes a host of new technologies, from the electromagnetic aircraft launch system, EMALS, to advanced radar systems and dual-band radar capabilities.

[00:03:46]In contrast, the HMS Queen Elizabeth was built at a significantly lower cost of approximately [music] 3 billion pounds, around 4 billion dollars USD. Mhm. This disparity highlights the different budgetary approaches between the [music] US and the UK.

[00:04:03]While the Gerald R. Ford emphasizes cutting-edge, often untested technology that pushes boundaries, the Queen Elizabeth adopts a more balanced, cost-effective strategy.

[00:04:14]This choice allows for powerful capabilities without the associated financial burden of highly experimental systems. Mhm. Makes sense. The USS Gerald R. So right away we see a huge difference and discrepancy in the amount, the cost, right? Uh we know that's got to come from >> as much. Pardon me? It's almost triple as triple the price. Yeah. Yeah. And uh so you would imagine there would be some more capabilities, you would hope. The extra uh $8 billion had some value somewhere.

[00:04:43]Um but uh you know, I think that blow it also is uh you know, probably overlooked to a degree. I mean, nobody's probably going through that with a fine-tooth comb to you know, see if we can re-reign in the costs of the these.

[00:04:58]But what I wanted to mention I saw right away was the ramp for the Elizabeth. And obviously, that's not the case for the Ford. Um that's a huge architec- architectural difference in the design.

[00:05:11]And I'm curious to know why the Elizabeth went with that. I think we saw that I don't I can't remember what video we did, but China also Ski jump.

[00:05:20]Yeah. The ski jump ramp.

[00:05:21]>> Yeah. So um I think I don't know. I think that the uh Ford is probably using the catapult still, but maybe we'll find But that was something I immediately noticed when the planes were going off on that ramp.

[00:05:35]>> Uh versus straight.

[00:05:36]>> Yeah. Yeah, another thing that I find very interesting, too, is them talking about the difference between the US taking more of an approach of newer but more experimental approaches versus the UK taking more of like what's tried and true type thing. And you can obviously there's pros and cons to both of those, right? Like if you're trying to chase advancement and get ahead, the experimental route is going to make sense, but there's more room for things to go wrong in your budget to essentially, you know, be I don't want to say wasted, but be expended and then have it backfire. Whereas with the UK, tried and true, it's like you might be behind, like eventually get behind in the race, but at least you're work- you're working with what's been tested.

[00:06:13]>> It's reliability that you're you're looking at. But one of the things they did say was that there was a lot of research and development that was required for the US. And that would lead into what you were saying. Maybe that cost was the testing and the research to develop these newer technologies.

[00:06:33]Whereas the uh the the British were, you know, just looking at it from what had already been tested. We don't need to worry about that. We just got to build it, right? For sure.

[00:06:43]This choice allows for powerful capabilities without the associated financial burden of highly experimental systems.

[00:06:52]The USS Gerald R. Ford spans approximately 1,106 feet in length and has a full load displacement exceeding 100,000 tons.

[00:07:03]Wow.

[00:07:03]>> it one of the largest ships ever constructed and gives it the operational flexibility [music] required for long-term, high-tempo missions. Crazy.

[00:07:12]The Gerald R. Ford is built with a higher, more expansive flight deck [music] that enables efficient aircraft operations.

[00:07:20]The ship's deck configuration is optimized to increase sortie rates, aiming for a 33% improvement over its predecessor, [music] the Nimitz class.

[00:07:31]The HMS Queen Elizabeth, while impressive in its own right, measures around 920 feet in length and has a displacement of approximately 65,000 tons. Mhm. Though smaller than the Gerald R. Ford, it is still among the largest ships in the Royal Navy's history.

[00:07:48]Its ski jump ramp is one of its defining features, [music] facilitating short takeoff and vertical landing operations for its F-35B fighter jets. Mhm. While it doesn't match the deck size of the USS Gerald R. Ford, >> [music] >> the HMS Queen Elizabeth's design focuses on multirole capability and interoperability with NATO allies.

[00:08:09][music] One of the defining aspects of the USS Gerald R. Ford is its nuclear propulsion system. Powered by two A1B reactors, these reactors provide nearly three times more power than those in the Nimitz class, Wow.

[00:08:25]>> enabling the ship to operate at speeds exceeding 30 knots, around 35 miles per hour.

[00:08:32]This high speed is crucial for rapid global deployment and evasive maneuvers in potential combat scenarios.

[00:08:39]Additionally, the Ford's reactors can power future advanced weapon systems, such as directed energy weapons and railguns, positioning it to remain relevant for decades.

[00:08:49]The HMS Queen Elizabeth employs a different approach with its integrated full electric propulsion system, driven by two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines and four diesel generators. Mhm. This hybrid propulsion system allows the carrier to reach a top speed of around 25 knots, 29 miles per hour.

[00:09:08]While this speed is lower than that of the Gerald R. Ford, the integrated full electric propulsion system is reliable and efficient for the strategic purposes of the Royal Navy, which often emphasizes joint operations and extended [music] deployments.

[00:09:24]The flight deck of the USS Gerald R.

[00:09:26]Ford is a marvel of modern engineering, designed to handle a larger air wing than previous [music] US carriers.

[00:09:34]It can typically carry up to 75 aircraft, >> Wow. including a mix of FA-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers, E-2D Hawkeyes, and the cutting-edge F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. This allows the Gerald R. Ford to maintain air superiority, conduct electronic warfare, and perform early warning and reconnaissance missions.

[00:10:00]The EMALS system enhances the efficiency of aircraft launches, reducing the physical strain on airframes, and providing quicker turnarounds.

[00:10:10]The HMS Queen Elizabeth, with its focus on the F-35B variant, supports around 40 to 50 aircraft, including helicopters for anti-submarine warfare and troop transport. [music] The F-35B's short takeoff and vertical landing capability is perfectly suited to the Queen Elizabeth's ski jump [music] deck, enabling quick launches and landings in a variety of operational environments.

[00:10:39]While the Queen Elizabeth may not carry as many aircraft as the Gerald R. Ford, >> [music] >> it remains a versatile platform capable of projecting air power and [music] supporting amphibious assaults and humanitarian missions.

[00:10:54]The USS Gerald >> Weapons and defense systems are next.

[00:10:58]Um, I think they already mentioned, and I thought I when we were getting into this, I thought I remembered hearing something about the um laser weapons, and the rail guns that we're about to probably get into on the Ford, but uh interesting to hear, you know, the real stark differences there in that section being the F-35B is what the uh Royal Navy was focused on, and I assume that must cater to the air operations that they generally take part in or use, and what their fleet uh contains. So, uh the US obviously is trying to mix in way more different kinds of aircraft, meaning that they need to have more of a day diverse capability on the carrier versus the Royal Navy is like, "Okay, this is what we're using. We're going to make the carrier really efficient for these aircraft." Yeah, and I have to wonder, like, I mean, don't get me wrong, in like, worst-case scenario where you need like all of these aircraft going out in the same time or for the same situation, of course being able to to be able to house that, if that's ever needed, is a benefit, but it's kind of like why would you even need that much space or that many planes at the same time on this ship, right? Right.

[00:12:15]>> Like, it just kind of seems like a lot to have like ever have a situation where they're all going to be landed there on the deck at the same time. Well, I think there's a scenario going on >> and that's going to happen. right now in the uh Strait of Hormuz, and Iran.

[00:12:30]>> 78 planes?

[00:12:31]>> I'm pretty sure the Ford is over there right now. So, um or was at least there at some point. So, um that >> 78 planes is a lot of planes. Yeah, but there you got to remember like they're probably going to be coming and going, right? So, like when one is coming back for I don't know what they would do for you guys, you're the experts, for refueling and stuff like that, like maybe some are coming in, you know, some are going, right? And >> that's kind of what I'm saying, right?

[00:12:54]Like, it's one thing to be able to accommodate like the landing and the takeoff of all these different types of planes, but to have enough space to need to house all of them at the same time seems like to be like a little overkill, but what do I know? Sam the general over here.

[00:13:10]and humanitarian missions.

[00:13:14]The USS Gerald R. Ford boasts an array of defensive weapons and systems to protect against aerial, surface, and subsurface threats.

[00:13:24]These include the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missile for close-in air defense, the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile System, and the Phalanx Close-in Weapon System for last-resort anti-missile defense.

[00:13:42]Additionally, the Ford features an advanced radar system that improves threat detection [music] and target acquisition, providing a robust shield against modern threats.

[00:13:54]The HMS Queen Elizabeth is equipped with [music] a defensive arsenal that includes Phalanx Close-in Weapon System and 30 mm automated small-caliber guns.

[00:14:05]While it lacks the extensive missile systems found on the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Queen Elizabeth is designed with a layered approach to defense, integrating its armaments with escorting ships and allied support for comprehensive protection.

[00:14:21]One of the most striking innovations aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford is the use of EMALS, >> [music] >> which replaces the traditional steam-powered catapults.

[00:14:31]This system is lighter, more reliable, and capable of launching a wider range of aircraft types.

[00:14:38]>> Okay. The Ford also features the advanced arresting gear, which enhances the safety and efficiency of aircraft recovery.

[00:14:46]These technologies collectively enable faster and more flexible flight operations. Mhm. Interesting.

[00:14:53]>> In contrast, the HMS Queen Elizabeth focuses on proven technologies that maximize reliability. It doesn't have catapults or arresting gear, as its air wing primarily consists of short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft. This simplifies flight operations [music] and reduces maintenance needs, which can be advantageous during extended deployments.

[00:15:17]The Queen Elizabeth's design philosophy emphasizes a balance between innovation and operational reliability, [music] aligning with the Royal Navy's global commitments.

[00:15:28]While the HMS Queen Elizabeth is an impressive testament to British naval engineering and plays a critical role in coalition operations, the USS Gerald R.

[00:15:38]Ford represents a leap [music] forward in carrier technology.

[00:15:43]With superior power generation, advanced launch and recovery systems, a larger air wing capacity, [music] and a robust array of defensive weapons, the Gerald R. Ford stands out as the more formidable warship.

[00:15:58]However, each carrier fulfills its strategic role effectively, with the Gerald R. Ford showcasing unmatched innovation and the Queen Elizabeth exemplifying versatility and joint force capabilities.

[00:16:10]>> [music] >> In the end, choosing which is better depends on the perspective and the strategic needs of their respective navies.

[00:16:16]The USS Gerald R. Ford undoubtedly sets a new standard in carrier design and capability, positioning the US Navy to maintain air and sea superiority for decades to come.

[00:16:28]What do you think? [music] Is the USS Gerald R. Ford better, or does the HMS Queen Elizabeth take the edge? What do you think, guys?

[00:16:39]My thoughts are that the efficiency and reliability is what the focus was for the Royal Navy, right?

[00:16:47]Yep. Uh efficiency and the cost, we already talked about that. They spent a bit of less money, not a bit less, a lot less money.

[00:16:53]>> And uh dedicated it to a specific um task-orientated idea that they were going to be using the equipment a specific way, and they had the equipment that was going to complement that. And so, they tried to build something that was really efficient to um you know, that had that workflow, that process.

[00:17:13]And when it comes to the Gerald R. Ford, it was, you know, the behemoth. It's massive, it's brute force, it's strength. Um it was more expensive, it's less maybe reliable as we talked about.

[00:17:26]You don't know what's going to go wrong with it. There's probably going to be some things that I I actually, now that I'm saying that, I think I remember something happening in the Iran situation that we're talking about with it with it that something went wrong.

[00:17:39]So, um maybe that's an example as to, you know, where you're experimenting and it's less reliable, and it can be a downside as well as being, you know, super powerful, and and obviously we saw saw on display the size and the capabilities, and you know, the weapons. I think for me that was the biggest one, the the difference in the weapons.

[00:17:57]>> Weapons. Um that the Gerald R. Ford had versus the Queen Elizabeth. I mean, the missile capabilities obviously alone as air defense it would be massive. So, um you know, I think you it's it's interesting, right? Cuz you you look at it, it's like, you know, how do you go about building this massive It's massive either way. It's going to take a lot of investment and time, and uh you got to be, you know, maybe and from the Royal Navy's perspective, because their budget and everything is a little bit smaller, um comparatively, military-wise we know the US spends a lot. So, um you know, uh maybe they were trying to do their best with a limited budget, and maybe a lot of people would argue that they did, and and they got exactly as you kind of were alluding to, what they needed from that development.

[00:18:40]>> two things that I was going to say to build on top of what you just said is that one, like, if you look at the entire budget that they have for their military, and then look at what percentage of that was spent on this carrier, and then you look at the US's budget, and what percentage was spent, who knows, it might be more equivalent than what we think it is, because like you said, the US spends more on their military to begin with, right? Their budget Exactly. And the other thing I was going to say is that, you know, when you're looking at the two ships is like comparing apples to apples side by side, it's noticeable to see that the American one is bigger, it has some newer technology, etc., but you also have to look at the military's a whole strategy, right? Cuz not every like their strategies aren't going to be completely aligned, so it's like if they're not if the UK, for example, isn't aligning their strategy with being mostly focused on naval or like needing a place for these aircrafts to land and refuel or whatever, it doesn't make as much It doesn't make sense to spend as much on that, and they may allocate those funds differently that's going to benefit them more, right? So.

[00:19:40]>> Yeah, for sure. So, let us know what your feelings are and insights are, and anything that you want to add, you can do so in the comments section. We always appreciate those. And uh if you got any other videos that you would recommend us doing, we uh definitely encourage you to drop it download in the comment section because uh you know, where we go on the military content is is kind of hit and miss sometimes. We are not experts in the field and uh we've learned a ton along the way. But uh >> learning from you guys. finding the right videos can be difficult and there are a few channels out there that make these clickbait like they're completely false and fake. They just make these things up.

[00:20:13]>> like this happened. No, it didn't.

[00:20:15]>> like, what? Like how do we know, right?

[00:20:16]Cuz it's a first time reaction. So anyways, guys, we hope you enjoyed hanging out with us. We hope you have a great day and we'll see you on our next video. Thanks for watching, guys.