Nothing that P-700 Granit missile can not deal with.
Elizabeth Class will make good fish crib. NOW for the British who say give us Americans more money, The reason USA can have 800 Billion(probably more) military budget is cause they have PRINTING PRESS of Worlds reserve currency DOLLAR. 200.000 billion $ in circulation in the world. Paper worth nothing only USA benefits. But New financial system is on the horizon YUAN.
@SuperAncientmariner It isn't so much a problem, although it's cheaper it costs more in the long run because of refueling, reduces the time it can spend on sustained operations and increases logistical problems because you have to supply a carrier as well as your destroyers. And we rely on the arabs for a lot (not all though) of our petroleum products.
@VonPete105 Fair comment but a nuclear carrier still needs replenishment (aviation fuel etc) and It's support group are still dependant on replenishment. To be nuclear we would have to construct a facility to handle maintenance of nuclear plant of the size required (we will have to expant existing berths to handle them anyway). There would also need a training programme for crews to operate such plant.....cont
@MrXray2011 I can't argue with that. How things like food and other supplies would last I don't know. A Nimitz needs full replenishment every 90 days. The De Gaulle evey 45 days (when its not in dock). Now there is an example of the argument that although nuclear solves some problems, it can also create problems. Then you have maintenece and refit costs. Nuclear is very expensive in comparison to conventional.
@SuperAncientmariner Oh yeah there are problems with it but it would allow the RN to be more interchangable with the USN. I assume that the QE Class would be between the Nimitz Class and the Charles de Gaulle about 80 days? The RN are also looking at vacuum packing their food to allow them to store more food. And the RN will only keep 6 F-35's on the QE Class during peace time unless they're going on a training op with allies so the aviation fuel would last a long time.
@MrXray2011 LOL, we've got to get the 35s yet. The way that particular aircraft is shaping, I'm not holding my breath for it. They say if it looks right , it is right.. Well, i'm no aviation expert but theres something about that plane that, to me, just doesn't look right.
@SuperAncientmariner We'll get the F-35C eventually after they fix the arrestor hook which can't reach the arrestor wire at the moment becuase the American's out it in the wrong place. The best looking plane in the world is the F-22 Raptor followed, closely by the EuroFighter! We'll get it and it will dominate the air!
@MrXray2011 Yeah. I read aboutthe hook location. as oe of the other regulars said, "how the hell did that get overlooked". Best looking jet? I'm of the old school. Give me a Lightning or a Hunter. :o)
@SuperAncientmariner Nahhh they may look cool but the EF and the F-22 look amazing!!! It was a stupid mistake but it'll be fixed and they'll fly in the RAF and FAA by 2019 :)
@MrXray2011 , the QE wont be 80 days auto sufficient and he wont be mutch more than the Charle de Gaulle because he is a conventional propulsion carrier that mean a part of the ship will be used for fuel storage tankers to make run the ship meanwhile the among of kerosene for the jets will be diminished you don't have that dilemma with nuclear propulsion, that the advantage.
I know that nuclear power is better and I think that the QE Class should be nuclear powered but France is looking to buy a QE Class (that we will build.) And the Royal Navy has announced that she will have 80 days endurance.
@MrXray2011 , sorry but France dont whant to buy the second QE because the hull's modifications are to heavy and will cost more then just make a new one with the Tales design.
@XBotticelli The French government will make a decision about whether to buy a QE Class later this month. This was on a French news website last December (2011). Whether you will I don't know... and I don't really care but the fact the the French Navy looked at it means that they think that it is good.
@SuperAncientmariner Well seeing as you seem to know a lot about ships etc and I'm just a general military enthusiast who concentrates more on ground forces I'll have to adopt your opinion. Nice to have a real discussion on youtube rather than the general retarded rant, thanks for improving my knowledge.
@SuperAncientmariner Although, on the other hand I cant see any problem with training professionals in nuclear plant operation who will then go on to work in the private sector and improve the country's skill base as a whole. We'd then have less reliance on the french.
@VonPete105 As I see it, it's a matter of manpower.Given the cutbacks in personnel, the engineering branch are pushed to cover conventional requirements. to then cover nuclear would require many more ratings and officers. These would need to be trained in this highly specialist field.. By staying with conventional, these ships can be manned within existing manpower levels.
Unfortunately those inpower seem to like the thought of Anglo-French co-operation. :o(
UK aid to argentina = £450 million over 12 years, Argentina has untold reserves of their own, UK citizens face cut back after cut back across the board and our government havent finished.
why is the UK giving so much financial aid to Argentina who are so against UK interests?
If like me you are sickened by this news, you would be glad to know the UK government website has an e-petition.
google: Overseas Aid Assessment
Do your bit, spread this message, this cannot be allowed to continue.
Question and I mean question. What is the advantage of such big ships in an age of drones? One of Al Quedas topmen in the Yemen was taken out by a drone that took off from East Africa but was flown by someone in the US. Drone missions in Afghanistan are flown by pilots sitting in control rooms in Europe. Would a much smaller ship or a lot of smaller cheaper ships loaded with drones not do the job better and cheaper?
@freebeerfordworkers Drons need hue runways, and the Royal Navy need aircraft carriers for long range flights. Drones are extremely expensive to produce and moe slowly. Also only being able to carry a couple of missiles/ bombs. Our current fighters outclass drones hugely. Also, considering that the Royal navy only has 6-12 Reapers..
@freebeerfordworkers Smaller ships while being cheaper to acquire, are actually much more expensive to maintain & operate, they use more fuel to maintain speed & have less growth potential. bigger carriers are also able to continue flight ops in sea states that would stop flight operations on smaller ships. smaller ships also are easier damaged by wave action then the bigger ships. AskaRoyal Navy Vetern from the Faulkland Islands war if he wished the royal navy had had a large carrier then.
@kdrapertrucker Harriers as good as they are are fairly short legged aircraft to begin with, when you take off vertically or with the skijump & vectored thrust you use even more fuel just to get airborne making their effective range even shorter. not to mention that it's subsonic.
@freebeerfordworkers Because such a ship can easily take out a drone before it gets anywhere near effective range with CWIS systems and Sea Viper Air-Defense units, that are now on the new Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyers.
@wiganerrmc Yes, what I meant when I said 'take out' I mean it's no longer a threat. Drones normally carry Hellfire missiles and 2 miles is by far enough to take out a missile of any kind.
HMS Prince of Wales will be using F35C as their primary jet fighter. It's a single engine for goodness sake! When the engine of the F35C fails so as the pilot flying this aircraft.
I was walking down the street in London and a bloke asked me if I wanted a free cruise on the QE. I signed up for a free drawing, and I won! Now they tell me it's not a week-long cruise, but 6 bloody years! I don't get a private cabin, heck I don't even get a private bunk! And I have to work 12 hours a day. Bullocks!
@abc64pan Geography ring a bell mate were an island in that case what does any nation need an ACC for power projection at seas i dont see this as a waste at all unless the government decide to balls it up usually the way with parliament
@abc64pan *Britain, not England. And the bulk of the Empire may be gone but we still own many islands around the world and we are involved in most wars that the US... so we have to be on our toes becuase we're at war quite a lot.
It would be good if they are given more suitable names when commissioned, something with an aircraft carrier heritage. Ark Royal, Eagle,Invincible,Illustrious, or even Hermes.
@jci10 what are you on about ? One of the major turning points in the Falklands war was the sinking of the argentine war ship belgrano! 1 torpedo from hms Trafalgar (could be wrong on the sub) and the argentine navy didn't come in the perimeter we set after that!!!! Not to mention the ship we sank was of WW2 era! With type 45's protecting one of these you might aswell surrender
@galloway62042009 Men of peace dont lead bombing campaigns so calling him a man of peace is a liberal joke,Martin Luther King jr was a man of peace,besides it was just a joke so who cares.
this will be the two best aircraft carriers in the world,and what are we going to do,sell one and let the french have the other, yes the french because we no they like us, wtf why not make seven and give them away to iraq and iran and who ever eles wants one, uk make the best subs and carriers. idea but shouldent we just keep some
@Boro1Legend I think that China will always have a better military in numerical terms as we have 60 million people in the UK when 1 million+ people are born in China every week.
@michaelkeeble1 you guys are keeping both of them, its just one of them will not be outfitted for carrier operations until 2020, unless your government pulls a quick douche and sells one off.
@michaelkeeble1 We're not selling either of them. If the French decide to buy a QE Class then they will pay BAE Surface Ships and then a 'third' QE Class would be built (most likely in France.) The Royal Navy will get HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (or it might be HMS Ark Royal.)
Giant, floating coffins. That's what all air-craft carriers are. Let's face it, if France didn't give the British those codes for the anti-carrier missiles France sold to Argentina, Argentina would have *EASILY* won the Falkin War and there would have been 30,000 dead British sailers in steel, coffins.
@jci10 What complete bollocks, they only thing France did was agree not to sell any Exocet missiles to Argentina while the Falklands War was happening. Get your facts right before talking shit.
@jci10 We would have invaded Argentina if too many Royal Navy ships has been sunk. Argentina would not have easily won the Falkland's War becuase the Royal Navy was still huge at the time and the SAS, SBS and other special forces would have taken out the Argentine Air Force which had pretty much been wiped out pretty quick. And there weren't codes given to the UK from France... we simply sent more Type 42 Anti-Air Destroyers.
2020? what are you guys doing, building it from matchsticks?Argentina needs to see an english flat top in the water real soon or they are going to starting asking for the falklands .
yeah, you can use them, US carriers have I think at least 4 catapults, 2 at the front, 2 at the side. but, in the event of an attack, & you take damage, & have to shut down the generators, then the catapults will be useless or run out quickly.
@boffinboy100 There are more than 1 catapults on ACC's and that is why the QE Class will sail as part of a Carrier Task Group consisting of;
QE Class,
2x Type 45 Destroyers,
3x Type 23/26 Class Frigates,
1 or 2 Astute Class/ Trafalgar Class SSN's
The Type 45 protects the Task Group from air attack (the most advanced anti-air ship in the world). The Type 23/26's protect from enemy subs and the subs protect from ships and other subs.
Out of date now. They QE class is going to go with conventional wires and tailhook option.
The VTOL joint strike fighters have been put on hold for now, and the brits will have to land like the US Navy, which I think might be better anyway, as the navy version of the JSF doesn't have the weight of the lift fan and swiveling tail nozzle. There is a fuel tank where the lift fan is. More fuel is always helpful.
@weirdguy564 The F-35C is, by far, a better fighter. It has a larger pay load and a longer range than the F-35B although I would not complain if we got 150 F-35C's then 50+ F-35B's.
We should purchase cheaper and more suitable Rafale which costs at most 45% less than the F-35. The money we save on the purchase should be spent on progression of BAEs Taranis stealth drone .
@Whaaaaatification Buy both. Have a few stealthy JSF's to lead the attack by hitting the radars, and use two seater Rafales for the follow on attacks to blow up the actual target.
@weirdguy564 Why would we want Rafales- which are made in France, giving jobs to the French when we could use the better Euro Fighter Typhoon which are made in the UK- thus creating jobs for British people. Plus the EF is much better than the Rafale. It is as agile as the F-22, the only difference being the F-22 is stealthy.
@SuperMole666 The first will be put to sea in 2016. the second ship due in 2018 will be further equipped with cats and traps before finally operating the first squadron of F-35s around 2020. only 3 years to wait for the first carrier.
@joe6bill I don't doubt for a moment that China and India will become superpowers but think it will take them a little longer to increase the technological level of their military. Now a days you can have more aircraft carriers but quality not quantity counts in this modern military world.
@joe6bill The EU is already a superpower and India would be a good superpower because they're allied with the UK, and I'm glad. I love the Indian's and I hope that the UK/EU has a lot to do with them in the coming years.
What a rubbish name, 'Queen Elizabeth Class' it sounds very old fashioned and by the time this sets to sea she will have croaked anyway but I don't suppose that matters. I would rather have named it the 'pancake class', but then again im a staunch republican
@SuperMole666 no not politicians no way how about 'Yorkshire Dales' or 'Surrey Downs' or 'Doon valley' or 'Lock Lomond' or 'Snowdonia' anything but 'Queen Queen Elizabeth' class it just sounds so antiquated in the modern world but as with the monarchy itself, I have no say, I do not get a vote.
@SuperMole666 Those would be great names if only Blair and Brown were not a pair of useless Labourite bastards who slowly eroded the UK and made it the shell that it is today.
@gluepot66 The Queen Elizabeth that the Queen Elizabeth Class are named after died 409 years ago. They're named after Queen Elizabeth I, not Queen Elizabeth II- hence why they are not called the Queen Elizabeth II Class. The QE name is good for Royal Navy vessels as Queen Elizabeth I defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588- her flag ship was HMS Ark Royal which is why the second in the class should be called HMS Ark Royal, not HMS Prince of Wales- that would work much better...
@MrXray2011 especially because Queen Elizabeth I did not have a Prince of Wales (heir to the throne) which is why James VI, of Scotland became King James I of England. James I started off the United Kingdom in 1603 when he became King of the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. Though the Acts of Union officially created/ merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 (104 years later)
@communalists I could accept India becoming more powerful because we helped them and we are close allies with them. I happen to like the Indian's. As for China and Brazil... they're not even close to becoming superpowers... my cock has more of a chance at ruling the world.
(continuing) y else do u think the US and Israel and the entire pro American Mideast are shitting their pants about Iran. y do they go through all the trouble of telling u how unsofisticated the iranians are and never attacking them? cuz they're gonna b against a real army unlike iraq. plus, they got basically most of the BLOC nations backing them. the west knows they cant take them all on at once,head on OR diplomatically. unless they want WW3. which they probably do in the long run.
First of all, these ships wouldn't come close to Iran's coast, that has already been discussed. Yes it does matter if the missiles are from the 70s, because they can be easily engaged and destroyed in air. But that is a mute point, because Iran's entire land based air and sea defense systems would be neutralized by cruise missile and stealth strikes long before any allied naval elements came into combat range. You've already seen this done to Iraq, so why so cocky?
The reason the middle east is afraid of Iran right now is because of their ballistic missile stockpile and the erratic behavior of their government. Whilst Iran has no means to defend against an American/European attack, Israel could suffer serious loss of life from aforementioned missiles. And don't worry about ww3. No one is coming to the aid of a hostile, nuclear weapon seeking state. If you think otherwise, I'm afraid you're living in a fantasy world.
@madhammudeux really fantasy world? u think china AND russia wouldnt come rushing to iran's side if there was a war? to not think they will is living in a dream world.and how many time have these 'analysis' ' been wrong? tons of timeeess! ur thinking like an american. read the art of war. thats how wars r won. not b theories.
Sorry but China and Russia both condemn Iran's nuclear program. And no they wouldn't rush to Iran's side any more than they did with Iraq. They would both condemn an attack on Iran, and it would end there. Do you think either country would jeopardize their recent economic success on an impossible attempt to support an impoverished and destabilizing state in the middle east? You're either woefully blind to the realities of the world, or just trolling. I'm thinking the latter.
@madhammudeux really, like iraq? first of all, china AND russia werent half as powerful as they were back then. secondly, really? u think they dont support the program? y? cuz putin and the chinese guy said they dont on tv? thirdly, impoverish? really? u think the chinese dont give a shit about the oil there? and u think the russians would let the americans fully surround them? fourth, realities of the world??? where the fuck do u live?? texas? get in the fucking world bro!
@communalists Bleh, it's just a matter of time before the freedom revolution sweeps Iran as it did the rest of the "Islamic States". Why do you think Iran keeps shuting down the internet there? But the kidds keep finding ways online so as i said, just a matter of time.
I live in England. China and Russia would do nothing in an attack on Iran, apart from Howl to the UN. China has no means with which to defend Iran militarily. It's power projection is minimal. But that's a mute point, since China would never jeopardize it's economic interests in a hopeless conflict with America & Europe. Russia is a poor country and lacks the resources to mount a global conflict. The best they could do would be to shut of the gas lines to the EU.
@madhammudeux Neither China, or Russia would risk war with the West. Russia has already stepped diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria down due to pressure from NATO and other Western countries. China would be crippled by sanctions and then the people would take the chance to rebel against a government which is about as communist and fair as Nazi Germany was. The Chinese people will see that they're being taken advantage of and will rise against their government.
That's pretty much what I try to explain to people every day.
But it's not only Iranians who are deluded enough to think Russia or China would launch a military intervention to their benefit. Many Argentinians are also full of gusto, in the bizarre belief that Russia and China have both promised military support against UK in the Falklands dispute. It seems China and Russia, without their knowing, have become the champions of the hostile state.
@madhammudeux They would find out pretty soon that China and Russia would not support them. China and Russia would rather please a major world power than some socially dead, backward nation.
@madhammudeux If history can tell us anything it is that Israel would know that there was going to be an attack before the Iranian military had heard of it... Israel would launch their entire air force and destroy anything that threatened them then the US would see that their ally was being threatened and come to help then the UK will see that two of her allies are fighting and so we'll think... spiffing good chance to get some target practice in here lads.. tally-ho we go!!
,guys guys, if the iranians fire 100 missles at that thing, doesnt matter if they're from the 70s. they win. they are capable of doing that if that thing gets close enough to its coast, especially the strait of hormuz. which, if there is a big battle to occur, u can b sure it'll b there. and don't u think they've gotten a little more advanced? a few years ago one of their drones were able to follow one of the US aircraft carrier fr quite a while b4 being detected. i call that good technology.
Sorry but Iranian anti ship missles are refitted antiques. The Royal navy possesses the most sophisticated anti missile technology in the world. What's more these types of ships wouldn't even come within range of land based anti ship defenses, they have no need to. Modern British strike aircraft fire air born cruise missiles, which out-range anything Iran has to offer. The only long range missiles Iran possesses are totally inaccurate ballistics designed for land operations.
@madhammudeux how do you know? do you live there? they have so many cards that they havnt even played. y are letting yr ego get the better of you, didnt serve to well in Afghanistan. Famous general Sun Tzu once quoted, "Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance
Do you really think people living in Iran have any idea of the capabilities of their countries military? Think about what you just said. Think carefully. I know Iran's military capabilities due to free flow of information. A luxury we have here in the Western world. The resources and international cooperation needed to develop and maintain an effective modern military are immense. Iran has neither . I'm not sure you're aware of how imbalanced things have become.
And do enlighten us as to these 'cards' iran has to play. Has Allah recently dropped a vast stockpile of cruise missiles & and advanced anti ship missiles, as well as the supporting hardware needed to use them, in the Ayatollah's backyard? Maybe Muhammad is in space right now assembling a vast array of military satellites too right? ;)
I don't understand all the comments about China. It is one of the most hospitable and peaceful nations I have visited. Its seems the West isn't comfortable unless someone is the enemy, seems a bit like Orwell's 1984, there needs to be a constant cycle of war to keep the population in fear.
As an Englishman, I find it difficult to accept that we are building aircraft carriers... simply because it will cost more to cancel the project than to proceed with the build. What really annoys me though, is that we no longer have aircraft to fly off them.... after the demise of the Buccaneer and Harriers.... so we can only deploy helicopters off them !!!!.... WOW..!! ... shock and awe for our enemies I'm sure... we even proposed sharing one with the French....Sacre Bleu...!!!
@MrOrmesby we will have aircraft to fly off them, the F35C or joint strike fighter are currently being built and are expected to fly on our carriers at 2018-2020.
The sad part is that Britain doesn't rule the waves anymore the USA and China does.A Island nation is useless without her ships to force her will and to protect her interest.The jump carries suck and doesn't show a good image of Britain power like you did in WW2 Fighting the Bismark v.s Prince of Wales,famous ship HMS Hood.So I say to all the British is to get your head out of the sand and start building super carries and real warship like the U.S does besides those jump carries are ugly.
@jakeblack1982 Can you explain exactly how CHINA rules the waves. have you taken a look at the peoples liberation armies navy? Its a collection of rusting aged osolete garbage crewed by ignorant underpaid robots. China cant project force out to Taiwan!
@tommiatkins This guy I agree with, China has a huge POPULATION, NOT a huge Navy. The US's Navy stands alone; unmatched in it's might. Someone tell me to get off Uncle Sam's dick right? It's true though. The US Navy is unmatched to this date....
we could pull out of the iraq etc saving many millions, we could scrap F35 which is going through many troubles, cost & materials/manufacturing-performance against Rival Sukhoi jets,watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related (all 5 parts), use the EF2000 naval variant, we could scrap further nuclear weapons, we could replace the troublesome L85 series, &invest in a larger more technically advanced military. We're in recession so introduce conscription, helping defence & employment
@boffinboy100 or the US can stop being so damn imperialist.can just stop the whole military machine and put 662 billion dollars a year into its economy.
Have you seen the capabilities & size of the Peter the great? the other of its class is in the drydock, future being debated, but what some mistakenly think, is that the russian military never recovered from the 90s. it did & the VMF-RF is steadily rebuilding, though very slow. the sole reason that the VMF-RF isn't a pure blue water navy, is that its deployment areas & access to the sea are limited.
for the Kriegsmarine, they're smaller, but still have a proud tradition of sailing. they have also very capable vessels, the subs have been exported to the Norewgian, sweedish & italian navies. the latter is near a par with france, for it essentially controls the med. the russians essentially control the north sea, and with Germany and sweeden the Baltic.
@boffinboy100 The German Navy is small and less technically advanced than the Royal Navy. They have no nuclear powered subs, no helicopter carriers, no air craft carriers etc. Russia, as I said, have a navy identical in size to the Royal Navy but their ships are old and crap.
Lack of nuclear powered subs doesn't mean a bad or even cheap navy.
Also soviet ships are nothing to be ashamed of. Petr Veliky was commissioned in 98
VMF is a very capable/potent force & one notices throughout the history of the cold war, the NATO fleets having to invest in expensive defences like Aegis to try & defeat VMF.
VMF will also be modernising. there are plans to build another 4-5 carriers, new cruisers and corvettes, and new subs, including the advanced Borei class boomer.
@jakeblack1982 For an American you speak a lot of sence :) Unlike many American's who claim that we should give up atleast you actually want us to do something. We are building supercarriers the HMS Queen Ellizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales (may be renamed HMS Ark Royal). The Invincible Class is ugly but they're not true air craft carriers... they're through-deck-cruisers.
@MrXray2011 I am american too, and I think UK should build as many carriers as possible. No way should they give up!! You should also build more SSBNs and have a strong nuclear deterent against Red China at all costs! im behind you brits 100%
type 45 warships best in world fact
MrStevenjamestrue 8 hours ago
SAS best
MrStevenjamestrue 8 hours ago
rule britannia
MrStevenjamestrue 8 hours ago
britain prevails!
MrStevenjamestrue 8 hours ago
Nothing that P-700 Granit missile can not deal with.
Elizabeth Class will make good fish crib. NOW for the British who say give us Americans more money, The reason USA can have 800 Billion(probably more) military budget is cause they have PRINTING PRESS of Worlds reserve currency DOLLAR. 200.000 billion $ in circulation in the world. Paper worth nothing only USA benefits. But New financial system is on the horizon YUAN.
aviomaster 18 hours ago
British is bullshit now a day. When America tells them to be stupid. they act stupid. British navy is shit now.
Dragonmantis36 22 hours ago
@Dragonmantis36 type 45 warships best in world we have 6 the world has 0
MrStevenjamestrue 8 hours ago
@MrStevenjamestrue Best in the world? what have Type45 done to deserve the name best in the world?lol.
Dragonmantis36 4 hours ago
The one problem with the QE class in my opinion is that it isn't nuclear powered, although gas turbines do have some advantages.
VonPete105 1 week ago
@VonPete105 What is the problem with that exactly.
SuperAncientmariner 5 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner It isn't so much a problem, although it's cheaper it costs more in the long run because of refueling, reduces the time it can spend on sustained operations and increases logistical problems because you have to supply a carrier as well as your destroyers. And we rely on the arabs for a lot (not all though) of our petroleum products.
VonPete105 5 days ago
@VonPete105 Fair comment but a nuclear carrier still needs replenishment (aviation fuel etc) and It's support group are still dependant on replenishment. To be nuclear we would have to construct a facility to handle maintenance of nuclear plant of the size required (we will have to expant existing berths to handle them anyway). There would also need a training programme for crews to operate such plant.....cont
SuperAncientmariner 5 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner It would be quicker to refuel though if the RFA only needed to give it new aviation fuel.
MrXray2011 5 days ago
@MrXray2011 I can't argue with that. How things like food and other supplies would last I don't know. A Nimitz needs full replenishment every 90 days. The De Gaulle evey 45 days (when its not in dock). Now there is an example of the argument that although nuclear solves some problems, it can also create problems. Then you have maintenece and refit costs. Nuclear is very expensive in comparison to conventional.
SuperAncientmariner 4 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner Oh yeah there are problems with it but it would allow the RN to be more interchangable with the USN. I assume that the QE Class would be between the Nimitz Class and the Charles de Gaulle about 80 days? The RN are also looking at vacuum packing their food to allow them to store more food. And the RN will only keep 6 F-35's on the QE Class during peace time unless they're going on a training op with allies so the aviation fuel would last a long time.
MrXray2011 4 days ago
@MrXray2011 LOL, we've got to get the 35s yet. The way that particular aircraft is shaping, I'm not holding my breath for it. They say if it looks right , it is right.. Well, i'm no aviation expert but theres something about that plane that, to me, just doesn't look right.
SuperAncientmariner 4 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner We'll get the F-35C eventually after they fix the arrestor hook which can't reach the arrestor wire at the moment becuase the American's out it in the wrong place. The best looking plane in the world is the F-22 Raptor followed, closely by the EuroFighter! We'll get it and it will dominate the air!
Rule Britannia
MrXray2011 4 days ago
@MrXray2011 Yeah. I read aboutthe hook location. as oe of the other regulars said, "how the hell did that get overlooked". Best looking jet? I'm of the old school. Give me a Lightning or a Hunter. :o)
SuperAncientmariner 4 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner Nahhh they may look cool but the EF and the F-22 look amazing!!! It was a stupid mistake but it'll be fixed and they'll fly in the RAF and FAA by 2019 :)
MrXray2011 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperAncientmariner , some say's the JSF F-35 is a failure =
part 1 : /watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
part 2 : /watch?v=8kssZua8MVc&feature=related
part 3 : /watch?v=nh2Gnxa_fTw&feature=related
part 4 : /watch?v=BhGIglwmFB8&feature=related
part 5 : /watch?v=TS7O14nzrzE&feature=related
XBotticelli 3 days ago
@MrXray2011 , the QE wont be 80 days auto sufficient and he wont be mutch more than the Charle de Gaulle because he is a conventional propulsion carrier that mean a part of the ship will be used for fuel storage tankers to make run the ship meanwhile the among of kerosene for the jets will be diminished you don't have that dilemma with nuclear propulsion, that the advantage.
XBotticelli 3 days ago
@XBotticelli
I know that nuclear power is better and I think that the QE Class should be nuclear powered but France is looking to buy a QE Class (that we will build.) And the Royal Navy has announced that she will have 80 days endurance.
MrXray2011 3 days ago
@MrXray2011 , sorry but France dont whant to buy the second QE because the hull's modifications are to heavy and will cost more then just make a new one with the Tales design.
XBotticelli 2 days ago
@XBotticelli The French government will make a decision about whether to buy a QE Class later this month. This was on a French news website last December (2011). Whether you will I don't know... and I don't really care but the fact the the French Navy looked at it means that they think that it is good.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@MrXray2011 , the French Navy looked at it because she belived it would have been cheaper to directly buy the ship's hull but it is the opposite.
XBotticelli 2 days ago
@VonPete105 My own personal view is that, given the pros and cons, we have taken the right decision with the Trents.
SuperAncientmariner 5 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner Well seeing as you seem to know a lot about ships etc and I'm just a general military enthusiast who concentrates more on ground forces I'll have to adopt your opinion. Nice to have a real discussion on youtube rather than the general retarded rant, thanks for improving my knowledge.
VonPete105 3 days ago
@SuperAncientmariner Although, on the other hand I cant see any problem with training professionals in nuclear plant operation who will then go on to work in the private sector and improve the country's skill base as a whole. We'd then have less reliance on the french.
VonPete105 3 days ago
@VonPete105 As I see it, it's a matter of manpower.Given the cutbacks in personnel, the engineering branch are pushed to cover conventional requirements. to then cover nuclear would require many more ratings and officers. These would need to be trained in this highly specialist field.. By staying with conventional, these ships can be manned within existing manpower levels.
Unfortunately those inpower seem to like the thought of Anglo-French co-operation. :o(
SuperAncientmariner 3 days ago
Wast of money, crap!
Markaten 1 week ago
@Markaten Not waste of moeny, awesome! Btter than all US carriers.
Quacky58tv 1 week ago
@Markaten "Crap" you probably don't know anything about this carrier.
oiReWiin 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
UK aid to argentina = £450 million over 12 years, Argentina has untold reserves of their own, UK citizens face cut back after cut back across the board and our government havent finished.
why is the UK giving so much financial aid to Argentina who are so against UK interests?
If like me you are sickened by this news, you would be glad to know the UK government website has an e-petition.
google: Overseas Aid Assessment
Do your bit, spread this message, this cannot be allowed to continue.
ashyk72 1 week ago
when is the 1st one supposed to begin sea trials?
kronos501 1 week ago
Question and I mean question. What is the advantage of such big ships in an age of drones? One of Al Quedas topmen in the Yemen was taken out by a drone that took off from East Africa but was flown by someone in the US. Drone missions in Afghanistan are flown by pilots sitting in control rooms in Europe. Would a much smaller ship or a lot of smaller cheaper ships loaded with drones not do the job better and cheaper?
freebeerfordworkers 1 week ago
@freebeerfordworkers I think they're making UAV fleet protection carriers as well, they're completely redesigning the Royal Navy
InitialAB 1 week ago
@freebeerfordworkers Drons need hue runways, and the Royal Navy need aircraft carriers for long range flights. Drones are extremely expensive to produce and moe slowly. Also only being able to carry a couple of missiles/ bombs. Our current fighters outclass drones hugely. Also, considering that the Royal navy only has 6-12 Reapers..
Quacky58tv 1 week ago
@freebeerfordworkers Smaller ships while being cheaper to acquire, are actually much more expensive to maintain & operate, they use more fuel to maintain speed & have less growth potential. bigger carriers are also able to continue flight ops in sea states that would stop flight operations on smaller ships. smaller ships also are easier damaged by wave action then the bigger ships. AskaRoyal Navy Vetern from the Faulkland Islands war if he wished the royal navy had had a large carrier then.
kdrapertrucker 1 week ago
@kdrapertrucker Harriers as good as they are are fairly short legged aircraft to begin with, when you take off vertically or with the skijump & vectored thrust you use even more fuel just to get airborne making their effective range even shorter. not to mention that it's subsonic.
kdrapertrucker 1 week ago
@freebeerfordworkers Because such a ship can easily take out a drone before it gets anywhere near effective range with CWIS systems and Sea Viper Air-Defense units, that are now on the new Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyers.
JackGamer193 1 week ago
@JackGamer193 ciws you mean and range on ciws is only about 2 miles
wiganerrmc 6 days ago
@wiganerrmc Yes, what I meant when I said 'take out' I mean it's no longer a threat. Drones normally carry Hellfire missiles and 2 miles is by far enough to take out a missile of any kind.
JackGamer193 6 days ago
@JackGamer193 ye a drome wouldnt even get close aster 30 as a range of 120km
wiganerrmc 5 days ago
HMS Prince of Wales will be using F35C as their primary jet fighter. It's a single engine for goodness sake! When the engine of the F35C fails so as the pilot flying this aircraft.
boggs2005 1 week ago
@boggs2005 Actually the shipbuilders asked if they could rename the Prince of Wales to the Ark Royal. they agreed, so the Name Lives on
WWWallace71 1 week ago
@boggs2005 The Harriers were single engine also and the royal navy used those to great success for years.
Antifaith29 1 week ago
I was walking down the street in London and a bloke asked me if I wanted a free cruise on the QE. I signed up for a free drawing, and I won! Now they tell me it's not a week-long cruise, but 6 bloody years! I don't get a private cabin, heck I don't even get a private bunk! And I have to work 12 hours a day. Bullocks!
iThinkThereforeiCan 1 week ago
@iThinkThereforeiCan Lol the its an old one but still works.
Antifaith29 1 week ago
What does England need an aircraft carrier for? Their empire is gone, what a waste of money.
abc64pan 2 weeks ago
@abc64pan Geography ring a bell mate were an island in that case what does any nation need an ACC for power projection at seas i dont see this as a waste at all unless the government decide to balls it up usually the way with parliament
pudsey111 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abc64pan We are making two just to park off the coast of argentina just for the lolz how is that a waste of money.
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
@abc64pan *Britain, not England. And the bulk of the Empire may be gone but we still own many islands around the world and we are involved in most wars that the US... so we have to be on our toes becuase we're at war quite a lot.
MrXray2011 1 day ago
The carrier is no longer STOL based (using the F-35B), it is now CATOBAR (catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery using the F-35C.
EmperoroftheSkies 2 weeks ago
@EmperoroftheSkies well, they hope it can be arrested. It would seem there is a major problem with the location of the hook on the airframe.
SuperAncientmariner 2 weeks ago
I bet that it's food stores have lots of TEA!
gateman42 2 weeks ago
@gateman42 Well us English would actually die if we didn't have it !
TheONEWELL 2 weeks ago
@gateman42 It will be able to hold 10 Tonnes of tea we can not expect our boys to fight with out there tea
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
It would be good if they are given more suitable names when commissioned, something with an aircraft carrier heritage. Ark Royal, Eagle,Invincible,Illustrious, or even Hermes.
peterjayy 2 weeks ago
@jci10 what are you on about ? One of the major turning points in the Falklands war was the sinking of the argentine war ship belgrano! 1 torpedo from hms Trafalgar (could be wrong on the sub) and the argentine navy didn't come in the perimeter we set after that!!!! Not to mention the ship we sank was of WW2 era! With type 45's protecting one of these you might aswell surrender
22kaka22gerrard 3 weeks ago
and call it HMS Mandela
k1bomber 3 weeks ago
@k1bomber That wouldnt really make sense would it?
Nelson Mandela was an African who was all for Peace. Naming a War machine after him would be a little bit insulting wouldn't it?
galloway62042009 2 weeks ago
@galloway62042009 Men of peace dont lead bombing campaigns so calling him a man of peace is a liberal joke,Martin Luther King jr was a man of peace,besides it was just a joke so who cares.
k1bomber 2 weeks ago
Take the planes off,add a Polish day centre,some Romanians selling the big issue and few chavs with staffs and it'll be more realistic.
k1bomber 3 weeks ago
Can I direct my taxes to these two ships rather than the NHS?
pastyo 3 weeks ago
@pastyo No you can't, and these aircraft carriers are vital.
ScottishCaledonian 3 weeks ago
this will be the two best aircraft carriers in the world,and what are we going to do,sell one and let the french have the other, yes the french because we no they like us, wtf why not make seven and give them away to iraq and iran and who ever eles wants one, uk make the best subs and carriers. idea but shouldent we just keep some
michaelkeeble1 3 weeks ago
@michaelkeeble1 we NEED the money which is a shame i think if we wernt in a recession we would be a better army than china or someone
Boro1Legend 2 weeks ago
@Boro1Legend Britain is rich mate, it does have the money.
jayc342009 2 weeks ago
@jayc342009 well yeah obviously but are you forgetting were in a recession
Boro1Legend 2 weeks ago
@Boro1Legend Nooooooooooooooooooo neverr.........
jayc342009 2 weeks ago
@jayc342009 fraid so
Boro1Legend 2 weeks ago
@Boro1Legend I think that China will always have a better military in numerical terms as we have 60 million people in the UK when 1 million+ people are born in China every week.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@michaelkeeble1 you guys are keeping both of them, its just one of them will not be outfitted for carrier operations until 2020, unless your government pulls a quick douche and sells one off.
Baseshocks 2 weeks ago
@michaelkeeble1 We're not selling either of them. If the French decide to buy a QE Class then they will pay BAE Surface Ships and then a 'third' QE Class would be built (most likely in France.) The Royal Navy will get HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (or it might be HMS Ark Royal.)
MrXray2011 1 day ago
Comment removed
CACATUAFULL 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
CACATUAFULL 3 weeks ago
Giant, floating coffins. That's what all air-craft carriers are. Let's face it, if France didn't give the British those codes for the anti-carrier missiles France sold to Argentina, Argentina would have *EASILY* won the Falkin War and there would have been 30,000 dead British sailers in steel, coffins.
jci10 3 weeks ago
@jci10 What complete bollocks, they only thing France did was agree not to sell any Exocet missiles to Argentina while the Falklands War was happening. Get your facts right before talking shit.
Longs81 3 weeks ago
@jci10 By calling these giant coffins it shows that you are completely ignorant of modern warfare,
ScottishCaledonian 3 weeks ago
@jci10 We would have invaded Argentina if too many Royal Navy ships has been sunk. Argentina would not have easily won the Falkland's War becuase the Royal Navy was still huge at the time and the SAS, SBS and other special forces would have taken out the Argentine Air Force which had pretty much been wiped out pretty quick. And there weren't codes given to the UK from France... we simply sent more Type 42 Anti-Air Destroyers.
MrXray2011 1 day ago
2020? what are you guys doing, building it from matchsticks?Argentina needs to see an english flat top in the water real soon or they are going to starting asking for the falklands .
MrFattyfatfatboy 3 weeks ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to enter service in 2016. HMS Prince of Wales is due to enter service in 2018.
MrOldPenguin 3 weeks ago
How many will it be in the class? They look awsome
henrikarvidsson 3 weeks ago
@henrikarvidsson Two to begin with 65,000 tonnes +
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Prince of Wales.
There is the possibility of a third by 2028- if the economy picks up.
MrXray2011 3 weeks ago
why do other countries still use ramps on their carriers?
TheRidersChoice 4 weeks ago
@TheRidersChoice cause you can launch a jet with a higher payload at a lower speed
mg10186 4 weeks ago
@TheRidersChoice
A Ramp is also cheaper & easier to use, than a catapult. If the steam catapult fails/is hit, how to launch the heavy fighter?
boffinboy100 4 weeks ago
@boffinboy100 than you use one of the several backup catapults? but I see your point
TheRidersChoice 4 weeks ago
@TheRidersChoice
yeah, you can use them, US carriers have I think at least 4 catapults, 2 at the front, 2 at the side. but, in the event of an attack, & you take damage, & have to shut down the generators, then the catapults will be useless or run out quickly.
boffinboy100 3 weeks ago
@boffinboy100 cats run on steam pressure, i dont think the system is reliant on electronics
TheRidersChoice 3 weeks ago
@boffinboy100 There are more than 1 catapults on ACC's and that is why the QE Class will sail as part of a Carrier Task Group consisting of;
QE Class,
2x Type 45 Destroyers,
3x Type 23/26 Class Frigates,
1 or 2 Astute Class/ Trafalgar Class SSN's
The Type 45 protects the Task Group from air attack (the most advanced anti-air ship in the world). The Type 23/26's protect from enemy subs and the subs protect from ships and other subs.
All have anti ship capabilities.
MrXray2011 3 weeks ago
what about hms rolling stones
TheTwollocks 1 month ago
Out of date now. They QE class is going to go with conventional wires and tailhook option.
The VTOL joint strike fighters have been put on hold for now, and the brits will have to land like the US Navy, which I think might be better anyway, as the navy version of the JSF doesn't have the weight of the lift fan and swiveling tail nozzle. There is a fuel tank where the lift fan is. More fuel is always helpful.
weirdguy564 1 month ago
@weirdguy564 The F-35C is, by far, a better fighter. It has a larger pay load and a longer range than the F-35B although I would not complain if we got 150 F-35C's then 50+ F-35B's.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
we need british made planes on board not american. lets invest in our own military technology and stop relying on the everyone else's.
essexmanta 1 month ago
@essexmanta F35 are partly made and funded by the British.
ryantika 4 weeks ago
We should purchase cheaper and more suitable Rafale which costs at most 45% less than the F-35. The money we save on the purchase should be spent on progression of BAEs Taranis stealth drone .
Whaaaaatification 1 month ago
@Whaaaaatification Buy both. Have a few stealthy JSF's to lead the attack by hitting the radars, and use two seater Rafales for the follow on attacks to blow up the actual target.
weirdguy564 1 month ago
@weirdguy564 Why would we want Rafales- which are made in France, giving jobs to the French when we could use the better Euro Fighter Typhoon which are made in the UK- thus creating jobs for British people. Plus the EF is much better than the Rafale. It is as agile as the F-22, the only difference being the F-22 is stealthy.
MrXray2011 3 weeks ago
@Whaaaaatification But, they're French!
snozdog 4 weeks ago
2020 hurry up and get here
best of british
SuperMole666 1 month ago
@SuperMole666 The first will be put to sea in 2016. the second ship due in 2018 will be further equipped with cats and traps before finally operating the first squadron of F-35s around 2020. only 3 years to wait for the first carrier.
Whaaaaatification 1 month ago
@Whaaaaatification
cat and trap how carrier should be
first one put to sea 2016, could we see some us f18 based on one till we have some f35
SuperMole666 1 month ago
@SuperMole666 rubbish
popeye54434 1 month ago
to late for 2020 china and india will be superpowers.
is this joint with france
joe6bill 1 month ago
@joe6bill I don't doubt for a moment that China and India will become superpowers but think it will take them a little longer to increase the technological level of their military. Now a days you can have more aircraft carriers but quality not quantity counts in this modern military world.
Hawks474 1 month ago
@joe6bill The EU is already a superpower and India would be a good superpower because they're allied with the UK, and I'm glad. I love the Indian's and I hope that the UK/EU has a lot to do with them in the coming years.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
Looks the buissnes just what we need.
SILVERCLOUD141 1 month ago
What a rubbish name, 'Queen Elizabeth Class' it sounds very old fashioned and by the time this sets to sea she will have croaked anyway but I don't suppose that matters. I would rather have named it the 'pancake class', but then again im a staunch republican
gluepot66 1 month ago
@gluepot66 Well you sound full of hope and optimism........
SILVERCLOUD141 1 month ago
@gluepot66
sorry mate, should we perhaps name it "Rush Limbaugh Class"?
alikos88 1 month ago
@gluepot66
how about President class
hms blair , brown,
SuperMole666 1 month ago
@SuperMole666 no not politicians no way how about 'Yorkshire Dales' or 'Surrey Downs' or 'Doon valley' or 'Lock Lomond' or 'Snowdonia' anything but 'Queen Queen Elizabeth' class it just sounds so antiquated in the modern world but as with the monarchy itself, I have no say, I do not get a vote.
gluepot66 1 month ago
@SuperMole666 Those would be great names if only Blair and Brown were not a pair of useless Labourite bastards who slowly eroded the UK and made it the shell that it is today.
Long live the Monarchy
God Save the Queen
Rule Britannia
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@gluepot66 It's not named after Queen Elizabeth II, rather the first.
kdum8 2 weeks ago
@gluepot66 The Queen Elizabeth that the Queen Elizabeth Class are named after died 409 years ago. They're named after Queen Elizabeth I, not Queen Elizabeth II- hence why they are not called the Queen Elizabeth II Class. The QE name is good for Royal Navy vessels as Queen Elizabeth I defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588- her flag ship was HMS Ark Royal which is why the second in the class should be called HMS Ark Royal, not HMS Prince of Wales- that would work much better...
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@MrXray2011 especially because Queen Elizabeth I did not have a Prince of Wales (heir to the throne) which is why James VI, of Scotland became King James I of England. James I started off the United Kingdom in 1603 when he became King of the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. Though the Acts of Union officially created/ merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 (104 years later)
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Ark Royal
(Like if the PoW should be renamed Ark Royal.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
They must build a third one.
Eigenteeld 1 month ago
(continuing) its the only way europe and the US could save it self from losing everything it has to the chinese, india, and brazil.
communalists 1 month ago
@communalists I could accept India becoming more powerful because we helped them and we are close allies with them. I happen to like the Indian's. As for China and Brazil... they're not even close to becoming superpowers... my cock has more of a chance at ruling the world.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
(continuing) y else do u think the US and Israel and the entire pro American Mideast are shitting their pants about Iran. y do they go through all the trouble of telling u how unsofisticated the iranians are and never attacking them? cuz they're gonna b against a real army unlike iraq. plus, they got basically most of the BLOC nations backing them. the west knows they cant take them all on at once,head on OR diplomatically. unless they want WW3. which they probably do in the long run.
communalists 1 month ago
@communalists
First of all, these ships wouldn't come close to Iran's coast, that has already been discussed. Yes it does matter if the missiles are from the 70s, because they can be easily engaged and destroyed in air. But that is a mute point, because Iran's entire land based air and sea defense systems would be neutralized by cruise missile and stealth strikes long before any allied naval elements came into combat range. You've already seen this done to Iraq, so why so cocky?
madhammudeux 1 month ago
@communalists
The reason the middle east is afraid of Iran right now is because of their ballistic missile stockpile and the erratic behavior of their government. Whilst Iran has no means to defend against an American/European attack, Israel could suffer serious loss of life from aforementioned missiles. And don't worry about ww3. No one is coming to the aid of a hostile, nuclear weapon seeking state. If you think otherwise, I'm afraid you're living in a fantasy world.
madhammudeux 1 month ago
@madhammudeux really fantasy world? u think china AND russia wouldnt come rushing to iran's side if there was a war? to not think they will is living in a dream world.and how many time have these 'analysis' ' been wrong? tons of timeeess! ur thinking like an american. read the art of war. thats how wars r won. not b theories.
communalists 1 month ago
@communalists
Sorry but China and Russia both condemn Iran's nuclear program. And no they wouldn't rush to Iran's side any more than they did with Iraq. They would both condemn an attack on Iran, and it would end there. Do you think either country would jeopardize their recent economic success on an impossible attempt to support an impoverished and destabilizing state in the middle east? You're either woefully blind to the realities of the world, or just trolling. I'm thinking the latter.
madhammudeux 1 month ago
@madhammudeux really, like iraq? first of all, china AND russia werent half as powerful as they were back then. secondly, really? u think they dont support the program? y? cuz putin and the chinese guy said they dont on tv? thirdly, impoverish? really? u think the chinese dont give a shit about the oil there? and u think the russians would let the americans fully surround them? fourth, realities of the world??? where the fuck do u live?? texas? get in the fucking world bro!
communalists 4 weeks ago
@communalists Bleh, it's just a matter of time before the freedom revolution sweeps Iran as it did the rest of the "Islamic States". Why do you think Iran keeps shuting down the internet there? But the kidds keep finding ways online so as i said, just a matter of time.
MrVonKruger 3 weeks ago
@communalists
I live in England. China and Russia would do nothing in an attack on Iran, apart from Howl to the UN. China has no means with which to defend Iran militarily. It's power projection is minimal. But that's a mute point, since China would never jeopardize it's economic interests in a hopeless conflict with America & Europe. Russia is a poor country and lacks the resources to mount a global conflict. The best they could do would be to shut of the gas lines to the EU.
madhammudeux 3 weeks ago
@madhammudeux Neither China, or Russia would risk war with the West. Russia has already stepped diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria down due to pressure from NATO and other Western countries. China would be crippled by sanctions and then the people would take the chance to rebel against a government which is about as communist and fair as Nazi Germany was. The Chinese people will see that they're being taken advantage of and will rise against their government.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@MrXray2011
That's pretty much what I try to explain to people every day.
But it's not only Iranians who are deluded enough to think Russia or China would launch a military intervention to their benefit. Many Argentinians are also full of gusto, in the bizarre belief that Russia and China have both promised military support against UK in the Falklands dispute. It seems China and Russia, without their knowing, have become the champions of the hostile state.
madhammudeux 2 days ago
@madhammudeux They would find out pretty soon that China and Russia would not support them. China and Russia would rather please a major world power than some socially dead, backward nation.
MrXray2011 1 day ago
@madhammudeux If history can tell us anything it is that Israel would know that there was going to be an attack before the Iranian military had heard of it... Israel would launch their entire air force and destroy anything that threatened them then the US would see that their ally was being threatened and come to help then the UK will see that two of her allies are fighting and so we'll think... spiffing good chance to get some target practice in here lads.. tally-ho we go!!
MrXray2011 2 days ago
,guys guys, if the iranians fire 100 missles at that thing, doesnt matter if they're from the 70s. they win. they are capable of doing that if that thing gets close enough to its coast, especially the strait of hormuz. which, if there is a big battle to occur, u can b sure it'll b there. and don't u think they've gotten a little more advanced? a few years ago one of their drones were able to follow one of the US aircraft carrier fr quite a while b4 being detected. i call that good technology.
communalists 1 month ago
Remember HMS Sheffield ..... what a humbling experience .
AntiEverything00 1 month ago
Boom & bang. the fleet knocked out by two Oscar II class Subs with Granit 24+ missiles each.
boffinboy100 1 month ago
BOOM! nine iranian anti ship missles just hit the deck......there goes ur master piece.lol
communalists 1 month ago
@communalists Not while there are even bigger US ones.
SuperAncientmariner 1 month ago
@communalists
Sorry but Iranian anti ship missles are refitted antiques. The Royal navy possesses the most sophisticated anti missile technology in the world. What's more these types of ships wouldn't even come within range of land based anti ship defenses, they have no need to. Modern British strike aircraft fire air born cruise missiles, which out-range anything Iran has to offer. The only long range missiles Iran possesses are totally inaccurate ballistics designed for land operations.
madhammudeux 1 month ago
@madhammudeux how do you know? do you live there? they have so many cards that they havnt even played. y are letting yr ego get the better of you, didnt serve to well in Afghanistan. Famous general Sun Tzu once quoted, "Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance
99knight 1 month ago
@99knight
Do you really think people living in Iran have any idea of the capabilities of their countries military? Think about what you just said. Think carefully. I know Iran's military capabilities due to free flow of information. A luxury we have here in the Western world. The resources and international cooperation needed to develop and maintain an effective modern military are immense. Iran has neither . I'm not sure you're aware of how imbalanced things have become.
madhammudeux 1 month ago
@99knight
And do enlighten us as to these 'cards' iran has to play. Has Allah recently dropped a vast stockpile of cruise missiles & and advanced anti ship missiles, as well as the supporting hardware needed to use them, in the Ayatollah's backyard? Maybe Muhammad is in space right now assembling a vast array of military satellites too right? ;)
madhammudeux 1 month ago
@madhammudeux once they attack you will see! thats all i will say
99knight 1 month ago
Comment removed
communalists 1 month ago
your queen is a zombie
ardalanhamrah 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't understand all the comments about China. It is one of the most hospitable and peaceful nations I have visited. Its seems the West isn't comfortable unless someone is the enemy, seems a bit like Orwell's 1984, there needs to be a constant cycle of war to keep the population in fear.
m1trekker 1 month ago
As an Englishman, I find it difficult to accept that we are building aircraft carriers... simply because it will cost more to cancel the project than to proceed with the build. What really annoys me though, is that we no longer have aircraft to fly off them.... after the demise of the Buccaneer and Harriers.... so we can only deploy helicopters off them !!!!.... WOW..!! ... shock and awe for our enemies I'm sure... we even proposed sharing one with the French....Sacre Bleu...!!!
MrOrmesby 1 month ago
@MrOrmesby we will have aircraft to fly off them, the F35C or joint strike fighter are currently being built and are expected to fly on our carriers at 2018-2020.
thethreelions3 1 month ago
@MrOrmesby you have U.S. aircraft to fly off of them man. NATO rules! <3
theSicilianToe 1 month ago
The money been spent,it would take more money to cancell them than to build them.
Plus it takes 10 years to build these ships.It's not taht they will stop building them
The Government KNOW they WILL need them.
But they also know China<India<Brazil ect are 10 years + from ther own modern carriers.
Argentina's Miltary is shit.
By selling the present carriers and aircraft off now & saving money in the short term
they are gambling with they will not need them in the meantime soon. Very IFF'EE
TrentVenture 2 months ago
The sad part is that Britain doesn't rule the waves anymore the USA and China does.A Island nation is useless without her ships to force her will and to protect her interest.The jump carries suck and doesn't show a good image of Britain power like you did in WW2 Fighting the Bismark v.s Prince of Wales,famous ship HMS Hood.So I say to all the British is to get your head out of the sand and start building super carries and real warship like the U.S does besides those jump carries are ugly.
jakeblack1982 2 months ago
@jakeblack1982 Can you explain exactly how CHINA rules the waves. have you taken a look at the peoples liberation armies navy? Its a collection of rusting aged osolete garbage crewed by ignorant underpaid robots. China cant project force out to Taiwan!
tommiatkins 1 month ago 2
@tommiatkins This guy I agree with, China has a huge POPULATION, NOT a huge Navy. The US's Navy stands alone; unmatched in it's might. Someone tell me to get off Uncle Sam's dick right? It's true though. The US Navy is unmatched to this date....
StarSeath 1 month ago
@StarSeath TO this date lol? I swear the Royal Navy outclassed and outmatched the US navy from well 1776 untill 1956
WolveZGuY 1 month ago
@WolveZGuY
Until 1956 exactly. The Russian navy is better than ours now, The French, The Japanese, The Korean, Chinese, maybe even the Germans'.
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@boffinboy100 i know i know and it really pisses me off, but what can ya do about it? :(
WolveZGuY 1 month ago
@WolveZGuY
we could pull out of the iraq etc saving many millions, we could scrap F35 which is going through many troubles, cost & materials/manufacturing-performance against Rival Sukhoi jets,watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related (all 5 parts), use the EF2000 naval variant, we could scrap further nuclear weapons, we could replace the troublesome L85 series, &invest in a larger more technically advanced military. We're in recession so introduce conscription, helping defence & employment
boffinboy100 1 month ago
@boffinboy100 or the US can stop being so damn imperialist.can just stop the whole military machine and put 662 billion dollars a year into its economy.
communalists 1 month ago
@boffinboy100 dream on.
kdum8 2 weeks ago
@boffinboy100 The Russian Navy is, apart from subs, exactly the same size as the Royal Navy but the Russian ships are old and rusting away.
The Frech Navy is 3x firgates bigger but none of their ships could match the Type 45.
The German Navy is nowhere near as good they cannot project power like the US, UK and France can.)
There are only 3 navies, in the world, that can project power (blue water navies.)
1) United States Navy
2) Royal Navy
3) French Navy
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@MrXray2011
Have you seen the capabilities & size of the Peter the great? the other of its class is in the drydock, future being debated, but what some mistakenly think, is that the russian military never recovered from the 90s. it did & the VMF-RF is steadily rebuilding, though very slow. the sole reason that the VMF-RF isn't a pure blue water navy, is that its deployment areas & access to the sea are limited.
boffinboy100 2 days ago
@MrXray2011
for the Kriegsmarine, they're smaller, but still have a proud tradition of sailing. they have also very capable vessels, the subs have been exported to the Norewgian, sweedish & italian navies. the latter is near a par with france, for it essentially controls the med. the russians essentially control the north sea, and with Germany and sweeden the Baltic.
boffinboy100 2 days ago
@boffinboy100 The German Navy is small and less technically advanced than the Royal Navy. They have no nuclear powered subs, no helicopter carriers, no air craft carriers etc. Russia, as I said, have a navy identical in size to the Royal Navy but their ships are old and crap.
MrXray2011 23 hours ago
@MrXray2011
Lack of nuclear powered subs doesn't mean a bad or even cheap navy.
Also soviet ships are nothing to be ashamed of. Petr Veliky was commissioned in 98
VMF is a very capable/potent force & one notices throughout the history of the cold war, the NATO fleets having to invest in expensive defences like Aegis to try & defeat VMF.
VMF will also be modernising. there are plans to build another 4-5 carriers, new cruisers and corvettes, and new subs, including the advanced Borei class boomer.
boffinboy100 13 minutes ago
@jakeblack1982 For an American you speak a lot of sence :) Unlike many American's who claim that we should give up atleast you actually want us to do something. We are building supercarriers the HMS Queen Ellizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales (may be renamed HMS Ark Royal). The Invincible Class is ugly but they're not true air craft carriers... they're through-deck-cruisers.
MrXray2011 2 days ago
@MrXray2011 I am american too, and I think UK should build as many carriers as possible. No way should they give up!! You should also build more SSBNs and have a strong nuclear deterent against Red China at all costs! im behind you brits 100%
kryptonian55 1 day ago