Gerald R. Ford vs Queen Elizabeth vs Fujian Carrier Comparison
The Gerald R. Ford, Queen Elizabeth and Fujian represent three different answers to carrier design: a roughly 100,000-ton nuclear supercarrier, a 65,000-ton ski-jump ship and a catapult carrier estimated near 80,000 tons. Comparing them shows how each navy’s mission shapes its ship, and it also shows how much of the Chinese picture still rests on estimates.
Gerald R. Ford vs Queen Elizabeth vs Fujian specs
The three ships entered service within a few years of each other, yet they differ in size, propulsion and launch method. The US and British figures below come from their navies; the Fujian numbers are estimates based on satellite imagery, analysts’ assessments and Chinese state media, since China publishes few official specifications.
| Item | USS Gerald R. Ford | HMS Queen Elizabeth | Fujian (estimates) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nation | United States | United Kingdom | China |
| Full-load displacement | About 100,000 t | About 65,000 t | About 80,000 t, estimated |
| Length | About 337 m | About 280 m | About 316 m, estimated |
| Propulsion | Two nuclear reactors | Gas turbines and diesels, integrated electric drive | Conventional, reported steam turbines |
| Launch system | EMALS electromagnetic catapults | Ski-jump, no catapult | Three electromagnetic catapults, per state media |
| Typical fixed-wing types | F/A-18E/F, F-35C | F-35B | J-15T, J-35, KJ-600 per Chinese media |
| Air wing size | Roughly 75 or more aircraft | Design for up to about 40, typically fewer | About 50 or more, estimated |
| Cost | About $13 billion for the lead ship | About 3 billion pounds per ship | Not officially disclosed |
| Commissioned | 2017 | 2017 | Reported 2025, per Chinese state media |
Catapults vs ski-jump carrier launch
The Ford uses electromagnetic catapults and advanced arresting gear, which launch heavier aircraft at a higher sortie rate than steam catapults. The Queen Elizabeth relies on a ski-jump ramp, which saves weight and cost but limits aircraft to short-takeoff jets and leaves out early-warning fixed-wing aircraft. Fujian, according to Chinese state media, pairs an electromagnetic catapult system with a flat deck, placing it closer to the US model.
That matters most for airborne early warning and tankers. A catapult-launched E-2 type or a Chinese KJ-600 extends the carrier’s sensor reach, which the Queen Elizabeth currently replaces with helicopters. The F-35 in its carrier variant is explored in our F-35 guide.
Nuclear vs conventional carrier propulsion
Nuclear power gives the Ford almost unlimited range and ample electrical capacity, at the price of expensive reactors and specialized crews. The British ship burns fuel but its electric drive is efficient and its crew small, at roughly 700 before the air wing. Fujian’s conventional plant limits endurance, which suggests Chinese carriers will operate closer to a network of supply ships and bases.
The yard story matters too. The British ships were built by a consortium that included Babcock, while the Ford class is the work of Newport News, a story told in our coverage of USS John F. Kennedy.
Which aircraft carrier is best
| Mission | Best fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Sustained global strike | Gerald R. Ford | Size, nuclear endurance and high sortie generation |
| Expeditionary and allied operations | Queen Elizabeth | Lower cost and crew, strong F-35B integration, works with partner ships |
| Regional power projection near China | Fujian | Catapults extend air wing capability within reach of shore-based support |
| Survivability against missiles | Ford | Bigger hull, more escorts, deeper defensive network |
On sheer capability, the Ford stands alone. The Fujian is nonetheless the first non-US carrier with catapults and a full fixed-wing air wing, a significant step for China. The threat to all three is analyzed in our DF-21D carrier killer guide, where range claims are Chinese manufacturer or state media assertions.
What the numbers do not show
Displacement and aircraft count are only part of carrier power. What matters is how many sorties a ship can generate day after day, how well the escorts defend it and how much logistics support it has. The US Navy has decades of experience operating carriers globally, while the Royal Navy gets most of its strength from allied integration and the PLA Navy is still learning fixed-wing carrier operations at scale.
Another unknown is reliability. The Ford has suffered well-documented problems with elevators and weapons handling, the British ships have had propulsion and leak issues, and the real endurance of Fujian will be tested only after long deployments.
Carrier comparison frequently asked questions
Which is bigger, Gerald R. Ford or Fujian?
The Ford, at about 100,000 tons against an estimated 80,000 tons for Fujian.
Does Fujian have catapults?
Yes, according to Chinese state media it has three electromagnetic catapults, though performance figures are unverified.
Is HMS Queen Elizabeth nuclear powered?
No, it uses gas turbines and diesel generators to drive electric motors.
How much did the Gerald R. Ford cost?
The lead ship cost about $13 billion, including first-of-class costs.
Which navy has more carriers?
The US Navy operates far more, including roughly ten or eleven nuclear-powered carriers, while Britain has two and China several.
- US Navy and Royal Navy fact files
- Open-source analysis of Chinese carrier imagery and Chinese state media reports (estimates)
- Wikipedia – Gerald R. Ford-class, Queen Elizabeth-class and Type 003 carriers (accessed October 2026)
- Defence & Tech reporting
