This along with the type 45 will be an almost invincible combo, but WHYOHWHYOHWHYOHWHY did Cameron decide to get rid of our old carrier & harriers so soon? And why does he want to sell one of these so that we can share carriers with the FRENCH of all people?
why does this carrier have two islands, it seems they could have used the extra deck space to put more aircraft, it's a primitive design in my opinion. Other than that they are amazing vessels.
For what they cost to build and operate, support and protect, and maintain, and equip with air wings...a mega-fleet or UAVs could be developed and fielded. Aircraft Carriers are dinosaurs. UAVs will rule the skies.
Do the math: What is the fully-loaded cost per sortie? Ship, aircraft, crew, training, fuel, supplies, escorts (type 45's) pilots, rescue choppers, supply ships, ports, etc.
So you can 'project power' like a large naval codpiece? Really? This IS the 21st century...
I always noticed that the British carriers have a ramp at the end of the deck and the US carriers have a flat top, are their tactical differences or pro's/cons? Do the British carriers have a different catapult system?
@cwilliams3567 This video is in a way out of date, the ramp was needed because the UK was going with the F-35B which was the replacement for the harrier. Since the recent SDR the UK is going with the F-35C which requires cats/traps to take off and no ramp. The ramp is there to allow aircraft that otherwise wouldn't be able to take off from a carrier.
@cwilliams3567 Aircraft that use the ramp carry less munitions and have less range than those that use cats/traps. They also need to dispose of excess munitions before landing on the carrier as they have to land using VTOL. The ramp was added to the Invincible class because the RN still wanted to have aircraft carriers, originally they were going to be ASW escort crusiers for CVA-01, but when that project was cancelled they had to make do with the Invincible class.
@bullseye2121 I know that aerodynamics is not a priority w/ carriers, but a ramp like that sticking up must cut down on top speed too and like you said, it limits its use in a coalition operation by not allowing the jets from other carriers and nations to land.
@cwilliams3567 Probably. The RAF campaigned hard for the F-35B as having the F-35C when they have only just got the Eurofighter would be pretty pointless. The RN in the last few decades has been pretty bad at pushing its own agenda and as a result lost it's carriers in the 70s and has also lost 8 escorts in the last 10 years alone. The Falklands war was in a way a blessing to the RN as it proved that carriers were and are vital for overseas operations.
@bullseye2121 That was another thing about the RN. Historically, the RN has always been first and foremost in terms of Naval tactics and strategy, but if WW2 taught us anything it was Carriers were the future. Especially after Midway, which showed a clear change of tactics in Naval warfare, and the loss of Hood. Bismark already sunk the Hood and was a MONSTER Battleship that was taken out by a WW1 biplane with canvass wings.
@cwilliams3567 IMO the importance of aircraft carriers was shown even earlier, in 1940 the Battle of Taranto were the Italians lost 1 battleship and 2 were heavily damaged, this done by 21 outdated Fairey Swordfish. The RN lost it's carriers because the RAF were more succesful at pushing there own agenda, at the time it was the TSR-2 vs CVA-01 and the RAF managed to win the argument, although they too eventually had there own project cancelled.
@cwilliams3567 Yep, but again pressure from the RAF/Air ministry before WW2 mean't that the FAA was unprepared. The RN was full of admirals that still prefered the battleship and were thinking that it would be Jutland all over again. Being so close to the enemy also stopped the FAA developing, the RAF could reach Germany from France/UK and RN battleships didn't have to travel the distances compared to the USN.
@cwilliams3567 The Ten Year Rule also cut the budgets, in 1919–20 the UK spent £766 million on defence and in 1932 the UK spent £102 million. Even current politicians are short sighted, in 2001 the Challenger 2 was stated to not be replaced yet 2 years later it was proving it's worth in Iraq. In 2003 manpower was cut by 9500 and a few years later everyone was complaining out the armed forces being undermanned.. Politicians cause most of our defence problems.
@cwilliams3567 Then we have the Libya operation only months after the Condems cut the Harriers, while the French had a carrier on station and were carrying out countless ops we had to fly aircraft from the UK to attack targets, we then took to using an airbase in Italy.
@cwilliams3567 It's because the UK went for Short Take Off / Vertical Landing due to ability of the Harrier, which was designed to be able to operate if all our airfields were destroyed in a nuclear attack during the cold war. A short run and jump into the air meant it could carry more weapons than if it took off vertically and also meant we could build shorter carriers The "Ski Jump" was intended for the F35-B which was also going to be operated in the same way. It will be the F-35C now.
unfortunatly the QECAC is not getting any JSF fighters because it was getting too expensive and lots of countries pulled out of the JSF project. the most likely aircraft the navy will chose is the the rafale fighter. if this goes ahead the QECAC will be getting 50 Rafale fighters.
sources my friend is a lietenant commander in the navy.
@TyphoonDelta1 more then 50. this ship can carry 50 of any plane that needs 2 have a run way to take off. so put more harriers on the part they use to take off more like 65+ lol would be a mighty Carrier but 2 years after the first is built i believe were geting 1 of the most advanced planes in the world, The FB-35.
@PyrrusOfEpirusTW Yeah 65 harriers would be mighty, more than all three invincible class carriers put together, not sure bout the F35..av to wait and see.
@MetalGearArmA indeed our new carriers will have Helicopters on them but i think having 1-2 Escorts of Type 45 Destroyers enemy aircraft wont get near the carrier :P. Type 45 destroyer can take out aircraft faster then they can take off.
@XxScorpion99xX 11million lol m8 i think ur tellin tails :P US already have 11 and building another 2 or 3. 11million wont get you a aircraft carrier, the 65.000 ton british supercarriers cost 3billion each so unless this 11million aircraft carrier is a peace of junk lol. some of the best weapons that go on ships cost more then 11milion lol.
@TuttyFruttynuts there using the Queen Elizabeth but i heard they might sell the Duke to India either way with the new Type 45 Anti aircraft Destroyers in our navy and we have 6 ;) aircraft are ganna become useless concidering that 1 Type 45 near the falklands can shoot every single Military Aircraft in the south of america down before they eithen take of if they wanted 2.
well its like the hedge funds only bigger ,we have had compulsory super in Aus for over 20 years wich even after taking a beating beacuase it invested in europe and america is still trillions of dollars ,norway has a tax on oil from the north sea so unlike england they did not let all the profit go to private hands, but im also right about the size of canada and aus being bigger than russia and about england renouncing both for the common market wich is why Ausies need visa to see england not US
@MrFattyfatfatboy Im pretty sure the UK also taxes North sea oil, in the early years they didn't as to allow the oil companies to regain money spent developing the field in the first place. The EU was the biggest mistake ever, the only good thing is the free trade, ive supported UKIP for a while, closer ties with the commonwealth/leave the EU and increase defence spending.
@bullseye2121 Englands cool and at the time with no chinese or Indian economic miracles the common market looked like where all the action is, but asia now has the second and third biggest economys with India on its way ,Canada Aus and Kiwis have made a fortune on all this and it was England that made these nations ,it just seemed strange that these nations if tied together are the biggest in the world and England walked away from it all .
Yeah that was very pathetic and yes i would take 2 Mistral LHDs over nothing but i would rather get 1 or 2 of these then build or buy 2 LHDs like Australia. Australia has a 54 ship navy and we barly have 33 that makes me sick we should have had atleast a 60-70 ship Navy by now but then those Liberal years recked every thing.
@CanadianPatriots1867 We have 98 Ships in the Navy... 6x Destroyers, 13x Frigates- the 'fighting ships', 2x LHD, 2x Albion Class etc...etc...etc. Stats show that we need 34 Frigates and Destroyers but as you can see we only have 19 (in total)... I agree with you that we need many more but we have more ships that you seem to think. We also have the largest and best airforce in Europe.
@MrXray2011 And yes the left wing, Labour Party did little to secure out power projection through our Armed Forces... We need a true Tory Party to come to power and rebuild our ecomony (we've dropped below BRAZIL) and rebuild our Armed Forces. We''re not as weak as people think but if Labour comes back in to power then the UK will fall forever.
Since Thatcher the Tories have been notorious for military cuts.
A year before the Falklands, Thatcher intended to decommission all our aircraft carriers and reduce the Royal Navy to a costal defence force. If the Argentines had invaded a year later - as they originally intended to - we would have been unable to retake the Falklands.
Her electoral success of the later 80s was due to nothing but LUCK - the Argentines invaded a year early!
@BasilFawlty4444 Yeah and if Hitler had ordered the Panzas not to stop then the entire B.E.F and the entire French Army would have been destroyed... it happened the way it did and so drop it! And perhaps we could spend more on the military instead of paying into the EU... which Labour dragged us into!!!
I was simply pointing out how idiotic the statement that "We need a true Tory Party to come to power and rebuild our ecomony... and rebuild our Armed Forces" is.
Both Thatcher and now Cameron seem committed to descimating what remains of our military might. At least the last Labour government ordered the supercarriers and Taranis, and didn't reduce the British Army to the smallest since the 20th Century.
btw, only one agency ranks us below Brazil. Our GDP remains larger.
@MrXray2011 Well there's no simple answer to that question.
It depends how you measure it. But if you mean GDP (the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country), then yes, essentially the UK is richer.
CEBR is the agency that put the Brazilian economy higher than the UK.
@MrXray2011 the media have a tendency to over-exaggerate the opinions of single agencies.
Remember when the US supposedly had it's AAA credit rating downgraded in August? That was just the opinion of one agency - S&P. Obama said "No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a AAA country"
@BasilFawlty4444 Right, I get it... thank you. Yeah the media do distort things to create 'moral panics'. So Officially we're still number 6 and Brizil is number 7?
@MrXray2011 Well, let's just say that it'll be interesting to see the World Bank figures for 2011.
We shouldn't worry that much about the economy. Before the crisis, our GDP was bigger than France's. It hit us bad because of the banks. 5% was knocked off our GDP from plummetting house prices and that isn't going to come back until the economy is growing again... which may not happen that soon.
@BasilFawlty4444 Yeah I knew that we were above France...what are the chances that the UK will go back to being number 5 above both France and Brazil? I really hope so... its embarrassing... France above us and Brazil... a shitty thrird world South American country.
@BasilFawlty4444 Thank you... Happy New Year to you too. Next year as in, in 40 minutes or next year (2013)... becasue most people think that Europe is heading back for another go for a recession so that may not happen too soon. Don't get me wrong... I hope it does happen... then I hope we over take Germany as well.
Again Happy New Year... Hope 2012 is a good one for you.
@MrXray2011 According to a some agencies by 2050 the UK economy will be the biggest in the EU, we will overtake both France/Germany. The UK is in a good position at the moment we have our own currency so can change inflation as we wish, while the Euro is being pulled down by the PIIGS.
@bullseye2121 2050... I'll be too old to give a shit!! Surely we'll be able to overtake France before then??? PIIGS? Again sorry.... History, Politics and English are my thing... not economics. I don't see how, France and Germeny both have lots of car industry, along with other manufacturing. We just have banking and Land Rover (owned by an Indian company.) I hope it comes true (but before 2050) The way I see it is the UK and the US get worse whilst China, India etc grow.
@MrXray2011 I can't see how this will happen (UK grow) and get stronger than Germany... what are we going to do start making things again and stop paying the workshy to sit on their arses and take taxes from the rest of us who either work hard of word hard at school/college/uni to get a good job and pay for 'bums' to never work!!! Hope this happens.
@MrXray2011 PIIGS stands for Portugal/Ireland/Italy/Greece and Spain, the countries that are currently pulling the Euro down. Chinas boom is going to eventually burst, look up the vast cities that have been made and with hardly anyone living in them, Spains property market has got them in the shit and so it will China. Chinas middle class will eventually want bigger wages so the cost of creating goods will eventually become more expensive.
@MrXray2011 Both China/India are growing countries, but alot of the products made there are seen as cheap/lack quality and the west will not let go of high tech manufacturing. There was a BBC program on a while back about how much money from the sale of an Ipod China gets, it's around the region of 10-20% the rest goes back to Apple. According to these agencies the UK is in a safer/better position for investment than both Germany/France who will suffer from being apart of the Euro.
@bullseye2121 sorry but china has india and japan to feed off as well as 300million people now with more buying power than all of englands population and they have another 700 million trying to get the same wealth ,im in australia and we have the fourth biggest pool of money in the world behind china ,japan ,and would you believe it not england but norway, but canada and will be richer than us when the oil sands kick in , canada and Australia combined are bigger than russia but you chose europe.
@MrFattyfatfatboy As a consumer group both India/China are alot smaller, they have there millionaires, but there are still many millions who live in in squalor. The reason jobs when abroad in the West is because the masses wanted a better life, to be treated fairly and to have a fair wage. The east was seen as an answer, with millions of people the labour is cheap, but to think that your average Indian/Chinese will not start to demand higher wages is foolish.
@MrFattyfatfatboy What do you mean by "pool of money", by GDP terms China/India are way behind the UK/west in general. In China it's 4.5K/ India 1.3K compare that to the UK 36K. The cost of shipping is only going to rise as fuel costs go up and with higher wages you will find some companies opting to return to Europe/US were most of the consumers are.
@bullseye2121 ready reserve in the market place, we have Australian super and norway something to do with taxing the oil, but they are the 3rd and 4th largest piles of liquid capital in the world(wich is why we stupidly gave money to the euro wich wont do nothing to save it) so unlike your banks ours have trillions sitting around looking for a return, England deserted canada and australia for the common market like i said both nation combined are bigger than russia full of minerals
@MrFattyfatfatboy Id like to see a source on this if you have any. I do agree with you about turning our back on the commonwealth and i think you would find many would rather have more relations with the commonwealth rather than Europe.
@truckerfromreno Look no offence but you guys besides the queen have no real presence here, the only soldiers we see here are US marines and we are about to have a whole lot more ,our army is being rebuilt to resemble a US marine expiditionary force which is why we got Abrams(crap) and marine apc's and two giant assault ships we cant find the people to mann and US navy is behind those 12 subs with an eye on us buying virginia's wich we dont have the crews for.
@MrFattyfatfatboy We don't have a pyshical presence, but your government/army and many of your traditions are from the UK. I would say Aus armed forces has many ex-UK personel and again recently have started up a drive to get ex-RN personel to join, the RAN struggles to man your current submarines, without the RN you would find it even harder.
@MrFattyfatfatboy AUS has hardly any defence industry, you buy US because it's cheaper and unlike the UK don't care about keeping your independence in defence terms. The UK on the other hand funds projects which are in real terms just their to keep people employed even if the final product lacks in certain areas against the competition. Look at the AUS assault ships, the UK would never give away such a contract to another country.
@bullseye2121 we dont need to make jobs,though those three aegis ship are being built here they cant find workers to build them just as the navy cant find sailors to sail them,we have no unemployment to speak of as our mines want more and pay more,we are actualy active in recruiting in england for our defence forces ,though US has offered us a pref scheme with its reenrolled and the govt is fast tracking citizen ship for American service people who take up the offer.
@MrFattyfatfatboy I quick search showed otherwise on Aus unemployment, showed 5.3% or 635,800 peopl, the UK was 3% higher at 8.3%. I know Aus has never really had an established defence industry, in a way it is better as you can shop around and get the best product for cheaper - the UK sadly only really has one defence contracter who dominates the UK market meaning the cost is higher - although a few recent contracts such as the FRES contract have gone to Lockheed.
@bullseye2121 i never said we didnt like UK gear ,plus we just bought a transport off you guys and right up till you brought in the SA80 we always bought english just look at Ausi troops in vietnam and english troops in borneo they are identical from guns to uniform, 5.3% includes our dear Aboriginies who get extra welfare and no incentive to work i dare you to walk past an Australian ship at Queens birthday celebrations because you would wake up bound for botany bay .
@truckerfromreno another thing ,last year china bought more ferraris and rolls royce then the rest of the world, they will never ever let london regain its position in world banking ,canary wharf has less a futre than glasgow ship building ,and you were the guys who walked away from singapore and hongkong just when they went on to overtke you on ready exchange offsets, and then you wonder why england has no money.
@MrFattyfatfatboy Do you honestly think London/New York would ever let China become dominate? Asia is growing, but at the the end of the day they still need to sell there cheap tat to the West. Walking away was part of the deal, although i think giving the people of Hong Kong a refuredum on joining China would of been the better option. England has plenty of money, we just need a leader to grow some balls and stop wasting billions.
@bullseye2121 I read that report too. Great Britain will be the richest country in Europe in a few years. That's why we have told the EU to fuck off - we don't them.
@MrXray2011 We have dropped below Brazil, but then they are a country 20X bigger and have a population 3X bigger, so in terms of money spent per person are still WAY below the UK. Some people in the UK love to say "little Englanders" when it comes to our military might, but these people are idiots, the UK remains a military power and will do for many years to come.
@bullseye2121 Of course we are still a military power... we may have lost the Empire but unlike Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union- to an extent France, we have managed to hold on to our staus as a major world power- ok no longer a 'super power' but I can live with that. The Royal Navy is second best to the US Navy, and, in some aspects like the Astute Class, Type 45 and Type 26 (future) even more advanced. We may not be the second, thrird... biggest but we're still number two!!
@MrXray2011 We have the largest Airforce in the EU and the most technological in Europe, the Royal Navy is the second biggest and most advanced, the Army is not the biggest but it, again is more advanced... the most tanks, France 224, UK 420 (main battle tanks)... we're still powerful... the world still listens to the UK...well not Iran, but who do they listen too, if the USN threatened me with war, I think that I'd roll over and say yes Sir!
@MrXray2011 Dude i didnt say the Royal Navy size was pathetic i said the Royal Canadian Navy size was pathetic but the Royal Navy should be bigger but i never said the Royal Navy was Pathetic.
@CanadianPatriots1867 Oh yeah it should be bigger... we need 35 Frigates and Destroyers combined but we only have 19. Canada does not need a big navy... if anyone threatened them then the USN and the Royal Navy would protect them.
@MrXray2011Now there you are extremely wrong saying Canada doesn’t need a big Navy and can rely on The United States is like saying Britain doesn’t need a big navy they can rely on the French or German navy… Canada has the longest coast line in the world and we are the biggest country in the world that has freedom and democracy.
@MrXray2011 Canada does need a bigger navy, with Canada being near the arctic which could hold huge untouched reserves you need a navy to defend it. Canada has alot of resources both of it's coast and on land and could eventually become very rich. Many in the RN opt to join the RCN or RAN, the RAN has recently stated it wants to recruit many of the RN sailors who have lost their jobs in the recent cuts. With the RAN looking to buy 12 subs who wouldn't want to leave to live in Aus.
@MrXray2011 The sad thing is that very soon 10-20 years both the RAN/RCN could be bigger than the RN, the AUS for example is buying 12 new subs and 2 new 'aircraft carriers' (Canberra class) although they have so far stated they will be helicopter carriers. The RN has increased in capability, but you still can't have 1 ship in two different places no matter how great it is.
@bullseye2121 The ACC's will weigh less than 1 QE Class. They (RAN) are getting x3 destryoers we have 6. Less frigates. Neither the RCN or the RAN will be bigger than the RN... it just won't happen. And we may be getting the UXV Combatant (basically a destroyer with a big helicopter pad to launch UCAV's such as Taranis They would weigh the same as a destroyer and have the same type of weapons but with UCAVs too. If we got 6 of these then we could have 12 destroyer sized ships
@MrXray2011 And yes RAN are getting 12 new subs but what would you rather 12 loud deisel subs that need to surface of 7 nuclear attack and 4 SSBN's that can stay under water for 90 days and never have to meet with tankers to refuel. The RN has used Nuclear subs since the 1960's. Deisel subs are pretty much worthless the last ones we had were commissioned one year and sold to the RCN the next... we don't need them they actually put the lives of the sailors in danger...
@MrXray2011 they make so much noise that anyone could destect them. The Astute Class for instance makes less noise than a baby dolphin... in comparison a Deisel sub sounds like a fire alarm shouting I'm here, come and plug me up with your big torpedo... imagine that last bit in a stereotypical gay accent. We would be better off with 2 Nuclear subs than 50 deisel ones. Not really sure why the RAN has bought them... they're shit.
@MrXray2011 Being louder than a nuclear sub is certainly a myth, but it depends on the class i suppose, modern diesels are certainly just as quit as their nuclear counterparts. SSN are more practical for us because they can travel without having to be met up to be refueld and can carry more weapons. The UK likes to think it has the best sonar in the world, but as already said even we failed to catch the Victoria class sinking one of the Invincible class.
@MrXray2011 Diesel submarines are certainly are not louder, many a times in wargames these submarines have sunk capital ships. Our own capital ships were sunk by the RCN Victoria class and the USN lost a carrier to the Swedish Gotland class, they even loaned one of them for a while. Having a diesel allows you to go closer to shore and they are good for dropping of special forces as they were used in the Falklands war, the RN only got rid of them because of defence cuts.
@MrXray2011 Actually it could happen, the threat in Europe is non existent you only have to look how much European armies/navies have shrunk since the 1990's. Politcians know that to save money the armed forces is an easy target, unlike the rest of the publicly funded services they have no union and can be laid off without protests being held. The US is moving away from Europe and building up it's forces in AUS, AUS will carry on building with the threat from the Asian powers.
@MrXray2011 UXV will be a wet dream and i doubt will ever see the light of day. Even HMS Ocean was looking like it would be retired and i doubt we will see a replacement for when it finally goes and considering it was designed to have a 20 year lifespan and is already 16 years old i don't expect it to stay in service much longer.
@bullseye2121 UXV is a possibilty... the Gmt have paied BAE to come up with plans and ideas... that's something. The US and the UK are still in a "Special Relationship" we are closer to the US than anyother country. Diesels are noisier and as you say they need to be refuelled. Australia are not going to expand the Navy any more because to afford new ships they have had to reduce the amount that they spend on the sailors food!!! The US is putting Marines in N. Aus... just in case,
@MrXray2011 The noise is still something i disagree with, diesels are very capable as ive already mentioned in the examples, another thing they have going for them is cost. The UK Victoria class cost 900M for 4 subs, compare that to the estimated 1BN per Astute class, the running costs for the Astute class will probably be also alot bigger. I would love to see the UK adopt a small number of diesels for the kind of operations we used succesfully in the Falklands.
@bullseye2121 £900million yes... but we were trying to get rid of them... plus it was Canada that we sold them too so it's not like we're going to rip them off. The type of enemy that we will be fighting short term yes I guess Diesel's might work but suppose a more sophisticated enemy springs up... they would be like sitting ducks. We only have 11 subs but they're better than having 50 Diesel ones... otherwise we wouldn't have the Traflagar of Astute Class.
@MrXray2011 Nuclear subs are bigger and so can carry more weapons, more space for the Sailors etc. The Falklands will never be an issue again. Not even Argentina's stupid enough to have a go at round 2... although they did try in the first place. Diesels are perfect for nations like Canada and Australia who protect, mainly their own shores but for blue water navies like the USN and the Royal Navy Nuclear subs are the only realistic option.
@CanadianPatriots1867 me too... In reality we could afford and operate one with support ships no problem, when potential recruits see this in service they will join the navy, having 60 year old resupply ships does not help with recruitment. But also in reality we would be lucky to have LHD's with harriers that could be argued and can be used for aid and disaster relief. Dedicated aircraft carrier, the Liberals, NDP and hippies would go ape shit. I for one would support it
@Baseshocks AMEN i herd they are thinking about buying 2 Mistral ships from France but i would rather build or buy one from the UK and with are new Human government we might be able to do it but if so we need to start now because we only have 4 years I am thinking about going into the Army or the Navy but if we had these i might go in the Navy plus we need up to 4-6 new subs and 4-5 new Destroyers and 2-3 new support ships we need new every thing plus we need 100-150 F35s!
@CanadianPatriots1867 definitely. AMEN back to ya :D. The government might get away with two of these "Navantia LHDs" (Youtube it) and argue its for aid :P. 10 years later buy a few F35b's. Australia's is getting 2 of them and we have a higher GDP then them... But ya, I'd still be happy with the Mistral its far beyond anything we have now. Remember when we had to contract out a ship to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon... esshhhh....
@Baseshocks Yeah that was very pathetic and yes i would take 2 Mistral LHDs over nothing but i would rather get 1 or 2 of these then build or buy 2 LHDs like Australia. Australia has a 54 ship navy and we barly have 33 that makes me sick we should have had atleast a 60-70 ship Navy by now but then those Liberal years recked every thing
@thethreelions3 The Eurofighter would have to redesigned completely, the export market wouldn't exist so it would be a UK project which would cost billions. Eurofighter has cost the UK £20BN so far and that's mainly development costs, compare that to UK F-35 development costs of £3BN. Signing up to a project that will be largely funded by another country makes sense.
@442hoeky One will be devoted to controling the ship and the other will control the air operations. It has been designed this way as further forward the bridge the easier it is to control the ship, the further back the bridge the easier it is to control air operations. The French have there bridge further forward while the USA has theirs further back, the RN have decided to have the best of both.
@bullseye2121 Makes sense. I don't know if I'd want my ship captain separated from my air control officer (just in case something goes wrong and they can't communicate), but I guess that's a pretty remote chance and there's benefits and downfalls to every design. Impressive looking ship, that's for sure.
i shall respond in one comment rather than several . the info was on the bbc news , it stated completed by 2020 but not fully operational till 2030 . only going to be at sea for approx 115 days a year and the second getting built would be getting mothballed due to running costs . there facts not mine and they are claiming they came from the mod .
just been on the news , only using one , mothballing the other , not available till 2020 and not fully operational till 2030 ! fuck sake what is the bloody point . i served my whole life now i am just glad i am out . feel sorry for my sons and others like them who wanted the navy as there future , what future !
@bigrider2806 "Not fully operational" means that the RN/RAF won't have a full carriers worth of F-35s till 2030, it will be the same for the US as well. The carriers themselves will be operational, it's just the airwing. The other was always planned to be in 'reserve' and only be used when POW is in refit, with the current cuts it wouldn't be possible to use both at the same time, only in wartime when reserves can be called up. It also depends on how many F-35 are ordered.
@bigrider2806 Cuts sadly have been made, but in terms of firepower the RN has increased. All our subs now have cruise missile capability, they also hold more weapons than the previous class. Our destroyers have state of the art AA weapons and atleast can be fitted with AS capability if needed. The type 26s will be larger that the type 23 and with CAMM-M will be able to carry 48 missiles standard instead 32 max on type 23 - in wartime they could even carry 90+ missiles.
@bullseye2121 Thats what i try and tell everyone who claims that the Conservatives are destroying the Royal Navy. Firepower IS increasing, and the more Type 45s, the more Astute subs, the more QE carriers we get is only increasing firepower and capabilities.
@Pringles352 Although i agree about the firepower, lets not forget that the type 45/Astute and even the new carriers all started under Labour. Im certainly not a fan of Labour as they are the ones who cut the type 45 orders from 12 then to 8 and finally to 6, they are also responsible for the Astute class going way overbudget. The only good thing the Tories have done so far is switch from the F-35B to C.
@bullseye2121 i agree that the F35C is a good move but what do you mean the only good thing? The only good thing in defence do you mean? And yeah i am also annoyed at the halfing of the type 45s but the astute class, despite going over budget, remain untouched. 7 astute class subs is alone and incredibaly powerful navy, and to be accompanied by state of the art ships is brilliant. Also remember there are not really going to be any conflicts nowadays where we would go in alone..
@Pringles352 What i mean't was that the Tories so far have just cut defence, the only sound decision they have made while in government regarding defence is switching to the F-35C. The Astute class remain untouched, but SSN numbers have fallen from 12 in 2000 to what eventually will be 7. You also have to remember that not all subs are active at the same time, it takes 4 Vanguard class subs just to cover having 1 at sea at all times, im sure its also the same for the Astute class.
@Pringles352 Im sure the politicians before the Falklands thought the same, you should always expect the unexpected or as the saying goes Si vis pacem, para bellum. The world is more unsyable now than it ever was 30 years ago, with rising powers which rivil each other eventually some conflict is going to kick off and when it does i would rather have an armed forces that is ready. I don't support silly defence spending, but i think our budget should increase to 3% GDP/ 9BN more.
@bullseye2121 I would like to see defence spednign double to 5%GDP, meaning other services would have to be cut but i see defence as right up there in importance, long and short term. And i totally agree... i would like to see more attack subs. I would like the remaining 6 trafalgar to stay in service , in addition to the 6 future astutes. 11 would be great
@Pringles352 The reason defence is in such a mess is because so many big programs are running at the same time. Type 45/Astute/CVF/FRES/Eurofighter are all £££ projects and the T26/F-35 projects are also picking up speed, it also didn't help that the MOD had to spend billions buying equipment needed for Iraq/Afghan without having an increase in budget. The reason ships were sold early was to fund Iraq/Afghan, Gordo was okay splashing the cash, but defence didn't get any.
@Pringles352 Increasing to 5% i would see as abit to much, but when you look at the benefits budget which is a whopping £125BN i would almost agree. Defence is a high tech market and many of the advances in health/travel come from defence, currently 300,000 people work in defence sectors in the UK, for 2.5% GDP thats not bad, also add in the 190,000 active personel thats nearly 500,000 people. Our export market is 7.5BN and that could easily increase with more being invested.
@Pringles352 The Tories have so far shown they are also disinterested in defence, everytime we have a Strategic defence review it equals more cuts, there is never anything strategic about it, its a Treasury driven cost cutting exercise. With no union to represent the armed forces it's easy pickings and if something does popup the government can always blame the previous administration, if they want to have a crappy defence force, then stop getting us involved in conflicts like Libya
@Pringles352 The point is the number of escorts is so small now the RN is not a credible force anymore.One capable ship can only be in one place at one time. We need more cheaper vessels for duties like anti piracy you don't need cruise missiles to stop pirates. The frigates on Carribean anti drugs duties never fired their main gun in anger never mind missiles. Now we have not enough escorts for that duty either, just a RFA filling in. Numbers do matter.
@bigrider2806 The new carriers will carry the F-35C which has a longer range and can carry on heavier payload than the harrier/F-35B, we will also be able to carry 40 F-35s vs the 12 we could carry on the Invincible class. The RN has shrunk, but in many ways it is stronger than it has ever been, in the Falklands war many of the ships we used were outdated gunplatforms which led to many people being killed. We still could do with having a few more escorts though.
@bullseye2121 Stop making excuses for our stupidity. The F35-C is catapult launched. We spent god knows how much money working on VSTOL because we are an Island with vulnerable airfields and needed to have the ability to land our aircraft anywhere. The new carriers were designed to carry the F-35B and we tried to save money to pay for them by retiring the Harrier, then spent as much converting the for catapult launch... a pathetic waste of money.
@honwavet40 Rubbish. The Need for VSTOL aircraft disappeared when the Soviet Union fell, even then our airfields would not be the first to be attacked, you have Germany/France before you reach UK airfields. The new carriers were designed for both cats/traps and STVOL, look up the history of the project on Navymatters, they will have a service life of 50 years to make such a cockup as to design them as STVOL only would of been one huge fuckup.
@honwavet40 The UK has not spent as much money on the F-35B as the USA and infact so far we have been allowe dto change our first orders without having to suffer from our investment in the F-35B, the US has allowed 2 of our 3 orders to be changed to the F-35C. The F-35C trumps the B variant - More payload/ Further range and it also allows other nations such as the US/French to land on our carriers. Even if the project costs more i would say it well worth it.
@bullseye2121 I wasn't talking about the cost of the aircraft as such or the aircraft variant. The UK will be buying the B; More the over run cost of changing the carriers to take a catapult launched aircraft, which completely removed the cost benefit of retiring the Harriers. I don't have a problem with anyone other than the incompetent idiots that make big purchases for the MOD. We aren't buying the C. That is what is so bloody stupid; we need someone else to be able to use it. We can't!
@bullseye2121 These carriers were given the basic go ahead way after the cold war ended. If they have suddenly decided that shoving a catapult launch system on them might be a good idea then they are even more stupid than I think. That isn't what happened though. They just waste money; add this add that (skimp here add later, delay add costs). Not making them Nuclear powered will prove to be far more expensive eventually. Makes me so angry.
@honwavet40 The main reason for the change was that the F-35B estimated cost has risen by quite abit and recent figures show it will cost $10M more per airframe than the F-35C. Making them not nuclear powered was stupid, but with the treasury in command the MOD couldn't afford to fund it. It is also a joke that it took over 10 years to order them, Labour had no problem wasting money on quangos, but when it came to defence of the realm there always seemed to be a cash problem.
@honwavet40 Alot of the problems we do face are problems that stem from the government being cheap, the Astute class has gone so overbudget that we could of bought an submarine with the money wasted. The Nimrod program was cut so the project cost more for less and then it was eventually cancelled, the Eurofighter project is suffering from lack of spares, meaning perfectly acceptable aircraft have been caniballised. If only we had just ordered CVA-01 in the 60s..
@bullseye2121 So much money has been wasted on Defence Procurement. The three services have to compete for money with BAE Systems who are in fact the fourth service and have consumed so much money for so little. Government are buying ships that are too expensive for their roles and then selling them off cheap to foreign navies when the money runs out. The fleet gets smaller and smaller. Madness. the remaining 4 broadsword class are being sold off, Duke class ships have already gone
@adelaide102 well as a small island that has made more enemies than friends over the last couple of decades i thinks its right that defence is a top priority.
@adelaide102 BAE is a company, at the end of the day it's down to the government to manage the contracts and make sure the taxpayer is getting value for money. It doesn't help when the government keeps asking for modifications to be made or cutting the order, if you order 12 of something then cut the order to 6 you should expect the cost per item to increase, it's the same if you buy in bulk that overall you are getting each item cheaper.
Selling of ships that are only a few years old is a UK tradition. The Upholder class that were sold to Canada cost the UK 900M and the longest they were in service was 3 years, HMS Unicorn was only inservice for just over a year. The story goes that the RN offered them up for the defence review thinking that the government would never cut submarines only 3 years old, how wrong were they.
@bigrider2806 What news station was that??? Estimated completion date is 2018 and in service in 2020. It doesn't take 10 years to do sea trials....... look at credible sources, like the MoD, as opposed to some speculation on the BBC
Look out folks, here comes the return of the British E(va)mpire contemplating on re-conquering the world in the name of peace keeping. They done it before, no surprise that they won't do it again.
China, wake up!! The brits might bring these battle ships to your shores to start a Cocaine War, like the Opium War, and a list of unequal treaties favoring the brits.
This has been flagged as spam show
You have to know,who's behind multiculturalism.
Watch this:
watch?v=SulXz7ROECU
.DEFY and BOYCOTT:
Unilever, Microsoft, Masterfoods, GAP, Dell,
ZARA, L'Oreal, Garnier, Nestle, Heinz, Marks & Spencer, Starbucks, Kraft, AIG, Tesco, Aldi,
Lidl, Topshop, BHS, Reebok, Nike, Danone, Citroen, CocaCola, Estee Lauder-Clinique,
Mango, Calvin Klein, Mattel, Phillips, Fisher Price, Axel Springer
80balbina 1 day ago
This along with the type 45 will be an almost invincible combo, but WHYOHWHYOHWHYOHWHY did Cameron decide to get rid of our old carrier & harriers so soon? And why does he want to sell one of these so that we can share carriers with the FRENCH of all people?
VonPete105 1 day ago
why does this carrier have two islands, it seems they could have used the extra deck space to put more aircraft, it's a primitive design in my opinion. Other than that they are amazing vessels.
bombarderoazul 2 days ago
@bombarderoazul You some Naval Architect ??
keirfree 2 days ago
For what they cost to build and operate, support and protect, and maintain, and equip with air wings...a mega-fleet or UAVs could be developed and fielded. Aircraft Carriers are dinosaurs. UAVs will rule the skies.
Do the math: What is the fully-loaded cost per sortie? Ship, aircraft, crew, training, fuel, supplies, escorts (type 45's) pilots, rescue choppers, supply ships, ports, etc.
So you can 'project power' like a large naval codpiece? Really? This IS the 21st century...
iThinkThereforeiCan 3 days ago
I always noticed that the British carriers have a ramp at the end of the deck and the US carriers have a flat top, are their tactical differences or pro's/cons? Do the British carriers have a different catapult system?
cwilliams3567 2 weeks ago
@cwilliams3567 This video is in a way out of date, the ramp was needed because the UK was going with the F-35B which was the replacement for the harrier. Since the recent SDR the UK is going with the F-35C which requires cats/traps to take off and no ramp. The ramp is there to allow aircraft that otherwise wouldn't be able to take off from a carrier.
bullseye2121 1 week ago
@cwilliams3567 Aircraft that use the ramp carry less munitions and have less range than those that use cats/traps. They also need to dispose of excess munitions before landing on the carrier as they have to land using VTOL. The ramp was added to the Invincible class because the RN still wanted to have aircraft carriers, originally they were going to be ASW escort crusiers for CVA-01, but when that project was cancelled they had to make do with the Invincible class.
bullseye2121 1 week ago
@cwilliams3567 i would rather have cats/traps than a ramp.
A. F-35C has further range and can carry a heavier payload than the F-35B/Harrier.
B. Other allied nations with aircraft carriers will be able to land on yours, on the Invincible class only other Harriers/Helicopters could land.
- The only downside is the cost to develop the cats/traps and to maintain them, but overall having cats/traps beats the ramp hands down.
bullseye2121 1 week ago
@bullseye2121 I know that aerodynamics is not a priority w/ carriers, but a ramp like that sticking up must cut down on top speed too and like you said, it limits its use in a coalition operation by not allowing the jets from other carriers and nations to land.
cwilliams3567 1 week ago
@cwilliams3567 Probably. The RAF campaigned hard for the F-35B as having the F-35C when they have only just got the Eurofighter would be pretty pointless. The RN in the last few decades has been pretty bad at pushing its own agenda and as a result lost it's carriers in the 70s and has also lost 8 escorts in the last 10 years alone. The Falklands war was in a way a blessing to the RN as it proved that carriers were and are vital for overseas operations.
bullseye2121 6 days ago
@bullseye2121 That was another thing about the RN. Historically, the RN has always been first and foremost in terms of Naval tactics and strategy, but if WW2 taught us anything it was Carriers were the future. Especially after Midway, which showed a clear change of tactics in Naval warfare, and the loss of Hood. Bismark already sunk the Hood and was a MONSTER Battleship that was taken out by a WW1 biplane with canvass wings.
cwilliams3567 4 days ago
@cwilliams3567 IMO the importance of aircraft carriers was shown even earlier, in 1940 the Battle of Taranto were the Italians lost 1 battleship and 2 were heavily damaged, this done by 21 outdated Fairey Swordfish. The RN lost it's carriers because the RAF were more succesful at pushing there own agenda, at the time it was the TSR-2 vs CVA-01 and the RAF managed to win the argument, although they too eventually had there own project cancelled.
bullseye2121 3 days ago
@bullseye2121 Yeah your right I forgot about Taranto..Imagine how history would of changed if the RN had a large carrier group off of Dunkirk.
cwilliams3567 3 days ago
@cwilliams3567 Yep, but again pressure from the RAF/Air ministry before WW2 mean't that the FAA was unprepared. The RN was full of admirals that still prefered the battleship and were thinking that it would be Jutland all over again. Being so close to the enemy also stopped the FAA developing, the RAF could reach Germany from France/UK and RN battleships didn't have to travel the distances compared to the USN.
bullseye2121 3 days ago
@cwilliams3567 The Ten Year Rule also cut the budgets, in 1919–20 the UK spent £766 million on defence and in 1932 the UK spent £102 million. Even current politicians are short sighted, in 2001 the Challenger 2 was stated to not be replaced yet 2 years later it was proving it's worth in Iraq. In 2003 manpower was cut by 9500 and a few years later everyone was complaining out the armed forces being undermanned.. Politicians cause most of our defence problems.
bullseye2121 3 days ago
@cwilliams3567 Then we have the Libya operation only months after the Condems cut the Harriers, while the French had a carrier on station and were carrying out countless ops we had to fly aircraft from the UK to attack targets, we then took to using an airbase in Italy.
bullseye2121 3 days ago
@cwilliams3567 It's because the UK went for Short Take Off / Vertical Landing due to ability of the Harrier, which was designed to be able to operate if all our airfields were destroyed in a nuclear attack during the cold war. A short run and jump into the air meant it could carry more weapons than if it took off vertically and also meant we could build shorter carriers The "Ski Jump" was intended for the F35-B which was also going to be operated in the same way. It will be the F-35C now.
Leftopeningdoors 1 week ago
unfortunatly the QECAC is not getting any JSF fighters because it was getting too expensive and lots of countries pulled out of the JSF project. the most likely aircraft the navy will chose is the the rafale fighter. if this goes ahead the QECAC will be getting 50 Rafale fighters.
sources my friend is a lietenant commander in the navy.
hooligan31ify 2 weeks ago
Anyone know when it will be in action?
LastLegionGaming 3 weeks ago
Just imagine how many harriers we could av got on these ships...50 at least !! shame the government sold em off...great plane !!
TyphoonDelta1 4 weeks ago
@TyphoonDelta1 more then 50. this ship can carry 50 of any plane that needs 2 have a run way to take off. so put more harriers on the part they use to take off more like 65+ lol would be a mighty Carrier but 2 years after the first is built i believe were geting 1 of the most advanced planes in the world, The FB-35.
PyrrusOfEpirusTW 3 weeks ago
@PyrrusOfEpirusTW Yeah 65 harriers would be mighty, more than all three invincible class carriers put together, not sure bout the F35..av to wait and see.
TyphoonDelta1 3 weeks ago
wow this Aircraft Carrier is Awsome it can carry a heavy Helicopters
MetalGearArmA 1 month ago
@MetalGearArmA indeed our new carriers will have Helicopters on them but i think having 1-2 Escorts of Type 45 Destroyers enemy aircraft wont get near the carrier :P. Type 45 destroyer can take out aircraft faster then they can take off.
PyrrusOfEpirusTW 3 weeks ago
Is
XxScorpion99xX 1 month ago
The us I buying a 11 million dollar carrier most of the plane parking areas can lower
XxScorpion99xX 1 month ago
@XxScorpion99xX 11million lol m8 i think ur tellin tails :P US already have 11 and building another 2 or 3. 11million wont get you a aircraft carrier, the 65.000 ton british supercarriers cost 3billion each so unless this 11million aircraft carrier is a peace of junk lol. some of the best weapons that go on ships cost more then 11milion lol.
PyrrusOfEpirusTW 3 weeks ago
You think they'll make 2? I have to admit, The UK have alot of money, but the basic truth is, there cheap skates.
TuttyFruttynuts 1 month ago
@TuttyFruttynuts there using the Queen Elizabeth but i heard they might sell the Duke to India either way with the new Type 45 Anti aircraft Destroyers in our navy and we have 6 ;) aircraft are ganna become useless concidering that 1 Type 45 near the falklands can shoot every single Military Aircraft in the south of america down before they eithen take of if they wanted 2.
PyrrusOfEpirusTW 3 weeks ago
pls 480p or 720p :)
filip92belgrade 1 month ago
floating junkyard
210482fmj 1 month ago
i love the royal navy.
bandeiraglaucia 1 month ago
well its like the hedge funds only bigger ,we have had compulsory super in Aus for over 20 years wich even after taking a beating beacuase it invested in europe and america is still trillions of dollars ,norway has a tax on oil from the north sea so unlike england they did not let all the profit go to private hands, but im also right about the size of canada and aus being bigger than russia and about england renouncing both for the common market wich is why Ausies need visa to see england not US
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy Im pretty sure the UK also taxes North sea oil, in the early years they didn't as to allow the oil companies to regain money spent developing the field in the first place. The EU was the biggest mistake ever, the only good thing is the free trade, ive supported UKIP for a while, closer ties with the commonwealth/leave the EU and increase defence spending.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@bullseye2121 Englands cool and at the time with no chinese or Indian economic miracles the common market looked like where all the action is, but asia now has the second and third biggest economys with India on its way ,Canada Aus and Kiwis have made a fortune on all this and it was England that made these nations ,it just seemed strange that these nations if tied together are the biggest in the world and England walked away from it all .
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy The Americans made us give up the empie after the second world war.
truckerfromreno 1 month ago
great ship but the problem is the aircraft it carries, f35 just sucks
SamuelVanH 2 months ago
The Z is the Zealand N is for CaN and New.
CLVASHJBHWFS 2 months ago
Yeah that was very pathetic and yes i would take 2 Mistral LHDs over nothing but i would rather get 1 or 2 of these then build or buy 2 LHDs like Australia. Australia has a 54 ship navy and we barly have 33 that makes me sick we should have had atleast a 60-70 ship Navy by now but then those Liberal years recked every thing.
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@CanadianPatriots1867 The Z is for Zealand, and N is for CaN and New.
CLVASHJBHWFS 2 months ago
@CLVASHJBHWFS Ohh cool.
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@CanadianPatriots1867 We have 98 Ships in the Navy... 6x Destroyers, 13x Frigates- the 'fighting ships', 2x LHD, 2x Albion Class etc...etc...etc. Stats show that we need 34 Frigates and Destroyers but as you can see we only have 19 (in total)... I agree with you that we need many more but we have more ships that you seem to think. We also have the largest and best airforce in Europe.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 And yes the left wing, Labour Party did little to secure out power projection through our Armed Forces... We need a true Tory Party to come to power and rebuild our ecomony (we've dropped below BRAZIL) and rebuild our Armed Forces. We''re not as weak as people think but if Labour comes back in to power then the UK will fall forever.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 ha ha ha, what a joke.
Since Thatcher the Tories have been notorious for military cuts.
A year before the Falklands, Thatcher intended to decommission all our aircraft carriers and reduce the Royal Navy to a costal defence force. If the Argentines had invaded a year later - as they originally intended to - we would have been unable to retake the Falklands.
Her electoral success of the later 80s was due to nothing but LUCK - the Argentines invaded a year early!
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 Yeah and if Hitler had ordered the Panzas not to stop then the entire B.E.F and the entire French Army would have been destroyed... it happened the way it did and so drop it! And perhaps we could spend more on the military instead of paying into the EU... which Labour dragged us into!!!
MrXray2011 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrXray2011
I was simply pointing out how idiotic the statement that "We need a true Tory Party to come to power and rebuild our ecomony... and rebuild our Armed Forces" is.
Both Thatcher and now Cameron seem committed to descimating what remains of our military might. At least the last Labour government ordered the supercarriers and Taranis, and didn't reduce the British Army to the smallest since the 20th Century.
btw, only one agency ranks us below Brazil. Our GDP remains larger.
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 one agency? What is that? And that is a relief.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011
It's CEBR.
Really, it's the World Bank that you should keep your eye on, if you ask me.
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 Right.... can't say as I know what CEBR is... look make it easy for me... is the UK richer than Brazil?
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Well there's no simple answer to that question.
It depends how you measure it. But if you mean GDP (the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country), then yes, essentially the UK is richer.
CEBR is the agency that put the Brazilian economy higher than the UK.
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 So really it's one agencies view not really a true and actual picture... and atleast we're still richer.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 the media have a tendency to over-exaggerate the opinions of single agencies.
Remember when the US supposedly had it's AAA credit rating downgraded in August? That was just the opinion of one agency - S&P. Obama said "No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a AAA country"
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 Right, I get it... thank you. Yeah the media do distort things to create 'moral panics'. So Officially we're still number 6 and Brizil is number 7?
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Well, let's just say that it'll be interesting to see the World Bank figures for 2011.
We shouldn't worry that much about the economy. Before the crisis, our GDP was bigger than France's. It hit us bad because of the banks. 5% was knocked off our GDP from plummetting house prices and that isn't going to come back until the economy is growing again... which may not happen that soon.
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 Yeah I knew that we were above France...what are the chances that the UK will go back to being number 5 above both France and Brazil? I really hope so... its embarrassing... France above us and Brazil... a shitty thrird world South American country.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Well Happy New Year.
Let's hope next year we'll be celebrating a recovering economy.
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@BasilFawlty4444 Thank you... Happy New Year to you too. Next year as in, in 40 minutes or next year (2013)... becasue most people think that Europe is heading back for another go for a recession so that may not happen too soon. Don't get me wrong... I hope it does happen... then I hope we over take Germany as well.
Again Happy New Year... Hope 2012 is a good one for you.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 According to a some agencies by 2050 the UK economy will be the biggest in the EU, we will overtake both France/Germany. The UK is in a good position at the moment we have our own currency so can change inflation as we wish, while the Euro is being pulled down by the PIIGS.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 2050... I'll be too old to give a shit!! Surely we'll be able to overtake France before then??? PIIGS? Again sorry.... History, Politics and English are my thing... not economics. I don't see how, France and Germeny both have lots of car industry, along with other manufacturing. We just have banking and Land Rover (owned by an Indian company.) I hope it comes true (but before 2050) The way I see it is the UK and the US get worse whilst China, India etc grow.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 I can't see how this will happen (UK grow) and get stronger than Germany... what are we going to do start making things again and stop paying the workshy to sit on their arses and take taxes from the rest of us who either work hard of word hard at school/college/uni to get a good job and pay for 'bums' to never work!!! Hope this happens.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 PIIGS stands for Portugal/Ireland/Italy/Greece and Spain, the countries that are currently pulling the Euro down. Chinas boom is going to eventually burst, look up the vast cities that have been made and with hardly anyone living in them, Spains property market has got them in the shit and so it will China. Chinas middle class will eventually want bigger wages so the cost of creating goods will eventually become more expensive.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Both China/India are growing countries, but alot of the products made there are seen as cheap/lack quality and the west will not let go of high tech manufacturing. There was a BBC program on a while back about how much money from the sale of an Ipod China gets, it's around the region of 10-20% the rest goes back to Apple. According to these agencies the UK is in a safer/better position for investment than both Germany/France who will suffer from being apart of the Euro.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 Basically the East is as screwed as the West, long term then!!! At least that's something.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 sorry but china has india and japan to feed off as well as 300million people now with more buying power than all of englands population and they have another 700 million trying to get the same wealth ,im in australia and we have the fourth biggest pool of money in the world behind china ,japan ,and would you believe it not england but norway, but canada and will be richer than us when the oil sands kick in , canada and Australia combined are bigger than russia but you chose europe.
MrFattyfatfatboy 2 months ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy As a consumer group both India/China are alot smaller, they have there millionaires, but there are still many millions who live in in squalor. The reason jobs when abroad in the West is because the masses wanted a better life, to be treated fairly and to have a fair wage. The east was seen as an answer, with millions of people the labour is cheap, but to think that your average Indian/Chinese will not start to demand higher wages is foolish.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy What do you mean by "pool of money", by GDP terms China/India are way behind the UK/west in general. In China it's 4.5K/ India 1.3K compare that to the UK 36K. The cost of shipping is only going to rise as fuel costs go up and with higher wages you will find some companies opting to return to Europe/US were most of the consumers are.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 ready reserve in the market place, we have Australian super and norway something to do with taxing the oil, but they are the 3rd and 4th largest piles of liquid capital in the world(wich is why we stupidly gave money to the euro wich wont do nothing to save it) so unlike your banks ours have trillions sitting around looking for a return, England deserted canada and australia for the common market like i said both nation combined are bigger than russia full of minerals
MrFattyfatfatboy 2 months ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy Id like to see a source on this if you have any. I do agree with you about turning our back on the commonwealth and i think you would find many would rather have more relations with the commonwealth rather than Europe.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy What are you talking about? England did not desert Canda and Australia. Where do you get this stuff from?
truckerfromreno 1 month ago
@truckerfromreno Look no offence but you guys besides the queen have no real presence here, the only soldiers we see here are US marines and we are about to have a whole lot more ,our army is being rebuilt to resemble a US marine expiditionary force which is why we got Abrams(crap) and marine apc's and two giant assault ships we cant find the people to mann and US navy is behind those 12 subs with an eye on us buying virginia's wich we dont have the crews for.
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy We don't have a pyshical presence, but your government/army and many of your traditions are from the UK. I would say Aus armed forces has many ex-UK personel and again recently have started up a drive to get ex-RN personel to join, the RAN struggles to man your current submarines, without the RN you would find it even harder.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy AUS has hardly any defence industry, you buy US because it's cheaper and unlike the UK don't care about keeping your independence in defence terms. The UK on the other hand funds projects which are in real terms just their to keep people employed even if the final product lacks in certain areas against the competition. Look at the AUS assault ships, the UK would never give away such a contract to another country.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@bullseye2121 we dont need to make jobs,though those three aegis ship are being built here they cant find workers to build them just as the navy cant find sailors to sail them,we have no unemployment to speak of as our mines want more and pay more,we are actualy active in recruiting in england for our defence forces ,though US has offered us a pref scheme with its reenrolled and the govt is fast tracking citizen ship for American service people who take up the offer.
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy I quick search showed otherwise on Aus unemployment, showed 5.3% or 635,800 peopl, the UK was 3% higher at 8.3%. I know Aus has never really had an established defence industry, in a way it is better as you can shop around and get the best product for cheaper - the UK sadly only really has one defence contracter who dominates the UK market meaning the cost is higher - although a few recent contracts such as the FRES contract have gone to Lockheed.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@bullseye2121 General Dynamics - not Lockheed.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@bullseye2121 i never said we didnt like UK gear ,plus we just bought a transport off you guys and right up till you brought in the SA80 we always bought english just look at Ausi troops in vietnam and english troops in borneo they are identical from guns to uniform, 5.3% includes our dear Aboriginies who get extra welfare and no incentive to work i dare you to walk past an Australian ship at Queens birthday celebrations because you would wake up bound for botany bay .
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 month ago
@truckerfromreno another thing ,last year china bought more ferraris and rolls royce then the rest of the world, they will never ever let london regain its position in world banking ,canary wharf has less a futre than glasgow ship building ,and you were the guys who walked away from singapore and hongkong just when they went on to overtke you on ready exchange offsets, and then you wonder why england has no money.
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy Do you honestly think London/New York would ever let China become dominate? Asia is growing, but at the the end of the day they still need to sell there cheap tat to the West. Walking away was part of the deal, although i think giving the people of Hong Kong a refuredum on joining China would of been the better option. England has plenty of money, we just need a leader to grow some balls and stop wasting billions.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@MrFattyfatfatboy
hahaha nice joke bro xD
Alemania4ever 1 month ago
@bullseye2121 I read that report too. Great Britain will be the richest country in Europe in a few years. That's why we have told the EU to fuck off - we don't them.
truckerfromreno 1 month ago
@truckerfromreno Keep dreaming my friend ...
GermanMilitaryPower 1 month ago 2
@GermanMilitaryPower He might actually be right though.
jayc342009 1 month ago
@GermanMilitaryPower Sorry, we have idiots like that.
They're called Daily Express readers.
BasilFawlty4444 1 month ago
@truckerfromreno Daily Express??
TheXdog5 1 week ago
@MrXray2011 We have dropped below Brazil, but then they are a country 20X bigger and have a population 3X bigger, so in terms of money spent per person are still WAY below the UK. Some people in the UK love to say "little Englanders" when it comes to our military might, but these people are idiots, the UK remains a military power and will do for many years to come.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 Of course we are still a military power... we may have lost the Empire but unlike Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union- to an extent France, we have managed to hold on to our staus as a major world power- ok no longer a 'super power' but I can live with that. The Royal Navy is second best to the US Navy, and, in some aspects like the Astute Class, Type 45 and Type 26 (future) even more advanced. We may not be the second, thrird... biggest but we're still number two!!
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 We have the largest Airforce in the EU and the most technological in Europe, the Royal Navy is the second biggest and most advanced, the Army is not the biggest but it, again is more advanced... the most tanks, France 224, UK 420 (main battle tanks)... we're still powerful... the world still listens to the UK...well not Iran, but who do they listen too, if the USN threatened me with war, I think that I'd roll over and say yes Sir!
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Dude i didnt say the Royal Navy size was pathetic i said the Royal Canadian Navy size was pathetic but the Royal Navy should be bigger but i never said the Royal Navy was Pathetic.
God save the Queen
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@CanadianPatriots1867 Oh yeah it should be bigger... we need 35 Frigates and Destroyers combined but we only have 19. Canada does not need a big navy... if anyone threatened them then the USN and the Royal Navy would protect them.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011Now there you are extremely wrong saying Canada doesn’t need a big Navy and can rely on The United States is like saying Britain doesn’t need a big navy they can rely on the French or German navy… Canada has the longest coast line in the world and we are the biggest country in the world that has freedom and democracy.
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Canada does need a bigger navy, with Canada being near the arctic which could hold huge untouched reserves you need a navy to defend it. Canada has alot of resources both of it's coast and on land and could eventually become very rich. Many in the RN opt to join the RCN or RAN, the RAN has recently stated it wants to recruit many of the RN sailors who have lost their jobs in the recent cuts. With the RAN looking to buy 12 subs who wouldn't want to leave to live in Aus.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 The sad thing is that very soon 10-20 years both the RAN/RCN could be bigger than the RN, the AUS for example is buying 12 new subs and 2 new 'aircraft carriers' (Canberra class) although they have so far stated they will be helicopter carriers. The RN has increased in capability, but you still can't have 1 ship in two different places no matter how great it is.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 The ACC's will weigh less than 1 QE Class. They (RAN) are getting x3 destryoers we have 6. Less frigates. Neither the RCN or the RAN will be bigger than the RN... it just won't happen. And we may be getting the UXV Combatant (basically a destroyer with a big helicopter pad to launch UCAV's such as Taranis They would weigh the same as a destroyer and have the same type of weapons but with UCAVs too. If we got 6 of these then we could have 12 destroyer sized ships
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 And yes RAN are getting 12 new subs but what would you rather 12 loud deisel subs that need to surface of 7 nuclear attack and 4 SSBN's that can stay under water for 90 days and never have to meet with tankers to refuel. The RN has used Nuclear subs since the 1960's. Deisel subs are pretty much worthless the last ones we had were commissioned one year and sold to the RCN the next... we don't need them they actually put the lives of the sailors in danger...
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 they make so much noise that anyone could destect them. The Astute Class for instance makes less noise than a baby dolphin... in comparison a Deisel sub sounds like a fire alarm shouting I'm here, come and plug me up with your big torpedo... imagine that last bit in a stereotypical gay accent. We would be better off with 2 Nuclear subs than 50 deisel ones. Not really sure why the RAN has bought them... they're shit.
MrXray2011 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Being louder than a nuclear sub is certainly a myth, but it depends on the class i suppose, modern diesels are certainly just as quit as their nuclear counterparts. SSN are more practical for us because they can travel without having to be met up to be refueld and can carry more weapons. The UK likes to think it has the best sonar in the world, but as already said even we failed to catch the Victoria class sinking one of the Invincible class.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Diesel submarines are certainly are not louder, many a times in wargames these submarines have sunk capital ships. Our own capital ships were sunk by the RCN Victoria class and the USN lost a carrier to the Swedish Gotland class, they even loaned one of them for a while. Having a diesel allows you to go closer to shore and they are good for dropping of special forces as they were used in the Falklands war, the RN only got rid of them because of defence cuts.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 Actually it could happen, the threat in Europe is non existent you only have to look how much European armies/navies have shrunk since the 1990's. Politcians know that to save money the armed forces is an easy target, unlike the rest of the publicly funded services they have no union and can be laid off without protests being held. The US is moving away from Europe and building up it's forces in AUS, AUS will carry on building with the threat from the Asian powers.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MrXray2011 UXV will be a wet dream and i doubt will ever see the light of day. Even HMS Ocean was looking like it would be retired and i doubt we will see a replacement for when it finally goes and considering it was designed to have a 20 year lifespan and is already 16 years old i don't expect it to stay in service much longer.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 UXV is a possibilty... the Gmt have paied BAE to come up with plans and ideas... that's something. The US and the UK are still in a "Special Relationship" we are closer to the US than anyother country. Diesels are noisier and as you say they need to be refuelled. Australia are not going to expand the Navy any more because to afford new ships they have had to reduce the amount that they spend on the sailors food!!! The US is putting Marines in N. Aus... just in case,
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011 The noise is still something i disagree with, diesels are very capable as ive already mentioned in the examples, another thing they have going for them is cost. The UK Victoria class cost 900M for 4 subs, compare that to the estimated 1BN per Astute class, the running costs for the Astute class will probably be also alot bigger. I would love to see the UK adopt a small number of diesels for the kind of operations we used succesfully in the Falklands.
bullseye2121 1 month ago
@bullseye2121 £900million yes... but we were trying to get rid of them... plus it was Canada that we sold them too so it's not like we're going to rip them off. The type of enemy that we will be fighting short term yes I guess Diesel's might work but suppose a more sophisticated enemy springs up... they would be like sitting ducks. We only have 11 subs but they're better than having 50 Diesel ones... otherwise we wouldn't have the Traflagar of Astute Class.
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011 Nuclear subs are bigger and so can carry more weapons, more space for the Sailors etc. The Falklands will never be an issue again. Not even Argentina's stupid enough to have a go at round 2... although they did try in the first place. Diesels are perfect for nations like Canada and Australia who protect, mainly their own shores but for blue water navies like the USN and the Royal Navy Nuclear subs are the only realistic option.
MrXray2011 1 month ago
I wish we could build one for Canada.
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@CanadianPatriots1867 me too... In reality we could afford and operate one with support ships no problem, when potential recruits see this in service they will join the navy, having 60 year old resupply ships does not help with recruitment. But also in reality we would be lucky to have LHD's with harriers that could be argued and can be used for aid and disaster relief. Dedicated aircraft carrier, the Liberals, NDP and hippies would go ape shit. I for one would support it
Baseshocks 2 months ago
@Baseshocks AMEN i herd they are thinking about buying 2 Mistral ships from France but i would rather build or buy one from the UK and with are new Human government we might be able to do it but if so we need to start now because we only have 4 years I am thinking about going into the Army or the Navy but if we had these i might go in the Navy plus we need up to 4-6 new subs and 4-5 new Destroyers and 2-3 new support ships we need new every thing plus we need 100-150 F35s!
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@CanadianPatriots1867 definitely. AMEN back to ya :D. The government might get away with two of these "Navantia LHDs" (Youtube it) and argue its for aid :P. 10 years later buy a few F35b's. Australia's is getting 2 of them and we have a higher GDP then them... But ya, I'd still be happy with the Mistral its far beyond anything we have now. Remember when we had to contract out a ship to evacuate Canadians from Lebanon... esshhhh....
Baseshocks 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Baseshocks Yeah that was very pathetic and yes i would take 2 Mistral LHDs over nothing but i would rather get 1 or 2 of these then build or buy 2 LHDs like Australia. Australia has a 54 ship navy and we barly have 33 that makes me sick we should have had atleast a 60-70 ship Navy by now but then those Liberal years recked every thing
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
@CanadianPatriots1867 If we join together, like we should, you'd have 3. CANZUK
CLVASHJBHWFS 2 months ago
@CLVASHJBHWFS That would be cool but who is the (z) :p
CanadianPatriots1867 2 months ago
it is only effective against the less developed countries! a very large target
MrSLAVA39 2 months ago
@MrSLAVA39 Well that's why we have the Type 45 destroyers - the most advanced anti-aircraft ships in the world.
Any carrier strike force would be surrounded by these.
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrSLAVA39 2 months ago
wow nice song
georgestrat1 2 months ago
why cant the eurofighter be used on the aircraft carriers or mabye the design modified surely it wud be less costly
thethreelions3 2 months ago
@thethreelions3 The Eurofighter would have to redesigned completely, the export market wouldn't exist so it would be a UK project which would cost billions. Eurofighter has cost the UK £20BN so far and that's mainly development costs, compare that to UK F-35 development costs of £3BN. Signing up to a project that will be largely funded by another country makes sense.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@MegaUnionJack So no time to loose ;)
MasterLouisSG 2 months ago
I love very much these aircraft carriers !! But ... Price ?
MasterLouisSG 2 months ago
@MasterLouisSG erm... around 60billion ba...
CR7fans1993 2 months ago
@CR7fans1993 Wow ... Ok thanks ! ;)
MasterLouisSG 2 months ago
inspiring music! hail britannia!
mikefan09 2 months ago
Why the duel superstructures? Any idea? Just curious.
442hoeky 2 months ago
@442hoeky One will be devoted to controling the ship and the other will control the air operations. It has been designed this way as further forward the bridge the easier it is to control the ship, the further back the bridge the easier it is to control air operations. The French have there bridge further forward while the USA has theirs further back, the RN have decided to have the best of both.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 Makes sense. I don't know if I'd want my ship captain separated from my air control officer (just in case something goes wrong and they can't communicate), but I guess that's a pretty remote chance and there's benefits and downfalls to every design. Impressive looking ship, that's for sure.
442hoeky 2 months ago
@442hoeky One Island can be handling landings while the other handles takeoff's or vice versa.
TrentVenture 2 months ago
@TrentVenture Aft island is the flyco, the for'ard Island is ship con. The structures also carry the uptakes from the power plants.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
i shall respond in one comment rather than several . the info was on the bbc news , it stated completed by 2020 but not fully operational till 2030 . only going to be at sea for approx 115 days a year and the second getting built would be getting mothballed due to running costs . there facts not mine and they are claiming they came from the mod .
bigrider2806 2 months ago
Grand Britannia has fathered many economically and militarily powerful nations
and is still the reigning numero UNO.
cal45deserteagle 3 months ago
not just one, BUT TWO! wow the USN has over 10 of them and nearly twice as big and heavier, woop di doo
j0noStrIk3r 3 months ago
@j0noStrIk3r no way near twice as big. compare the sizes
Pringles352 3 months ago
just been on the news , only using one , mothballing the other , not available till 2020 and not fully operational till 2030 ! fuck sake what is the bloody point . i served my whole life now i am just glad i am out . feel sorry for my sons and others like them who wanted the navy as there future , what future !
bigrider2806 3 months ago
@bigrider2806 "Not fully operational" means that the RN/RAF won't have a full carriers worth of F-35s till 2030, it will be the same for the US as well. The carriers themselves will be operational, it's just the airwing. The other was always planned to be in 'reserve' and only be used when POW is in refit, with the current cuts it wouldn't be possible to use both at the same time, only in wartime when reserves can be called up. It also depends on how many F-35 are ordered.
bullseye2121 3 months ago
@bigrider2806 Cuts sadly have been made, but in terms of firepower the RN has increased. All our subs now have cruise missile capability, they also hold more weapons than the previous class. Our destroyers have state of the art AA weapons and atleast can be fitted with AS capability if needed. The type 26s will be larger that the type 23 and with CAMM-M will be able to carry 48 missiles standard instead 32 max on type 23 - in wartime they could even carry 90+ missiles.
bullseye2121 3 months ago
@bullseye2121 Thats what i try and tell everyone who claims that the Conservatives are destroying the Royal Navy. Firepower IS increasing, and the more Type 45s, the more Astute subs, the more QE carriers we get is only increasing firepower and capabilities.
Pringles352 3 months ago
@Pringles352 Although i agree about the firepower, lets not forget that the type 45/Astute and even the new carriers all started under Labour. Im certainly not a fan of Labour as they are the ones who cut the type 45 orders from 12 then to 8 and finally to 6, they are also responsible for the Astute class going way overbudget. The only good thing the Tories have done so far is switch from the F-35B to C.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 i agree that the F35C is a good move but what do you mean the only good thing? The only good thing in defence do you mean? And yeah i am also annoyed at the halfing of the type 45s but the astute class, despite going over budget, remain untouched. 7 astute class subs is alone and incredibaly powerful navy, and to be accompanied by state of the art ships is brilliant. Also remember there are not really going to be any conflicts nowadays where we would go in alone..
Pringles352 2 months ago
@Pringles352 What i mean't was that the Tories so far have just cut defence, the only sound decision they have made while in government regarding defence is switching to the F-35C. The Astute class remain untouched, but SSN numbers have fallen from 12 in 2000 to what eventually will be 7. You also have to remember that not all subs are active at the same time, it takes 4 Vanguard class subs just to cover having 1 at sea at all times, im sure its also the same for the Astute class.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@Pringles352 Im sure the politicians before the Falklands thought the same, you should always expect the unexpected or as the saying goes Si vis pacem, para bellum. The world is more unsyable now than it ever was 30 years ago, with rising powers which rivil each other eventually some conflict is going to kick off and when it does i would rather have an armed forces that is ready. I don't support silly defence spending, but i think our budget should increase to 3% GDP/ 9BN more.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 I would like to see defence spednign double to 5%GDP, meaning other services would have to be cut but i see defence as right up there in importance, long and short term. And i totally agree... i would like to see more attack subs. I would like the remaining 6 trafalgar to stay in service , in addition to the 6 future astutes. 11 would be great
Pringles352 2 months ago
@Pringles352 The reason defence is in such a mess is because so many big programs are running at the same time. Type 45/Astute/CVF/FRES/Eurofighter are all £££ projects and the T26/F-35 projects are also picking up speed, it also didn't help that the MOD had to spend billions buying equipment needed for Iraq/Afghan without having an increase in budget. The reason ships were sold early was to fund Iraq/Afghan, Gordo was okay splashing the cash, but defence didn't get any.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@Pringles352 Increasing to 5% i would see as abit to much, but when you look at the benefits budget which is a whopping £125BN i would almost agree. Defence is a high tech market and many of the advances in health/travel come from defence, currently 300,000 people work in defence sectors in the UK, for 2.5% GDP thats not bad, also add in the 190,000 active personel thats nearly 500,000 people. Our export market is 7.5BN and that could easily increase with more being invested.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@Pringles352 The Tories have so far shown they are also disinterested in defence, everytime we have a Strategic defence review it equals more cuts, there is never anything strategic about it, its a Treasury driven cost cutting exercise. With no union to represent the armed forces it's easy pickings and if something does popup the government can always blame the previous administration, if they want to have a crappy defence force, then stop getting us involved in conflicts like Libya
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@Pringles352 The point is the number of escorts is so small now the RN is not a credible force anymore.One capable ship can only be in one place at one time. We need more cheaper vessels for duties like anti piracy you don't need cruise missiles to stop pirates. The frigates on Carribean anti drugs duties never fired their main gun in anger never mind missiles. Now we have not enough escorts for that duty either, just a RFA filling in. Numbers do matter.
adelaide102 2 months ago
@bigrider2806 The new carriers will carry the F-35C which has a longer range and can carry on heavier payload than the harrier/F-35B, we will also be able to carry 40 F-35s vs the 12 we could carry on the Invincible class. The RN has shrunk, but in many ways it is stronger than it has ever been, in the Falklands war many of the ships we used were outdated gunplatforms which led to many people being killed. We still could do with having a few more escorts though.
bullseye2121 3 months ago
@bullseye2121 Stop making excuses for our stupidity. The F35-C is catapult launched. We spent god knows how much money working on VSTOL because we are an Island with vulnerable airfields and needed to have the ability to land our aircraft anywhere. The new carriers were designed to carry the F-35B and we tried to save money to pay for them by retiring the Harrier, then spent as much converting the for catapult launch... a pathetic waste of money.
honwavet40 2 months ago
@honwavet40 Rubbish. The Need for VSTOL aircraft disappeared when the Soviet Union fell, even then our airfields would not be the first to be attacked, you have Germany/France before you reach UK airfields. The new carriers were designed for both cats/traps and STVOL, look up the history of the project on Navymatters, they will have a service life of 50 years to make such a cockup as to design them as STVOL only would of been one huge fuckup.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@honwavet40 The UK has not spent as much money on the F-35B as the USA and infact so far we have been allowe dto change our first orders without having to suffer from our investment in the F-35B, the US has allowed 2 of our 3 orders to be changed to the F-35C. The F-35C trumps the B variant - More payload/ Further range and it also allows other nations such as the US/French to land on our carriers. Even if the project costs more i would say it well worth it.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
Comment removed
honwavet40 2 months ago
Comment removed
honwavet40 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 I wasn't talking about the cost of the aircraft as such or the aircraft variant. The UK will be buying the B; More the over run cost of changing the carriers to take a catapult launched aircraft, which completely removed the cost benefit of retiring the Harriers. I don't have a problem with anyone other than the incompetent idiots that make big purchases for the MOD. We aren't buying the C. That is what is so bloody stupid; we need someone else to be able to use it. We can't!
honwavet40 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 These carriers were given the basic go ahead way after the cold war ended. If they have suddenly decided that shoving a catapult launch system on them might be a good idea then they are even more stupid than I think. That isn't what happened though. They just waste money; add this add that (skimp here add later, delay add costs). Not making them Nuclear powered will prove to be far more expensive eventually. Makes me so angry.
honwavet40 2 months ago
@honwavet40 The main reason for the change was that the F-35B estimated cost has risen by quite abit and recent figures show it will cost $10M more per airframe than the F-35C. Making them not nuclear powered was stupid, but with the treasury in command the MOD couldn't afford to fund it. It is also a joke that it took over 10 years to order them, Labour had no problem wasting money on quangos, but when it came to defence of the realm there always seemed to be a cash problem.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@honwavet40 Alot of the problems we do face are problems that stem from the government being cheap, the Astute class has gone so overbudget that we could of bought an submarine with the money wasted. The Nimrod program was cut so the project cost more for less and then it was eventually cancelled, the Eurofighter project is suffering from lack of spares, meaning perfectly acceptable aircraft have been caniballised. If only we had just ordered CVA-01 in the 60s..
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bullseye2121 So much money has been wasted on Defence Procurement. The three services have to compete for money with BAE Systems who are in fact the fourth service and have consumed so much money for so little. Government are buying ships that are too expensive for their roles and then selling them off cheap to foreign navies when the money runs out. The fleet gets smaller and smaller. Madness. the remaining 4 broadsword class are being sold off, Duke class ships have already gone
adelaide102 2 months ago
@adelaide102 well as a small island that has made more enemies than friends over the last couple of decades i thinks its right that defence is a top priority.
gladifly 2 months ago
@adelaide102 BAE is a company, at the end of the day it's down to the government to manage the contracts and make sure the taxpayer is getting value for money. It doesn't help when the government keeps asking for modifications to be made or cutting the order, if you order 12 of something then cut the order to 6 you should expect the cost per item to increase, it's the same if you buy in bulk that overall you are getting each item cheaper.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
Selling of ships that are only a few years old is a UK tradition. The Upholder class that were sold to Canada cost the UK 900M and the longest they were in service was 3 years, HMS Unicorn was only inservice for just over a year. The story goes that the RN offered them up for the defence review thinking that the government would never cut submarines only 3 years old, how wrong were they.
bullseye2121 2 months ago
@bigrider2806 What news station was that??? Estimated completion date is 2018 and in service in 2020. It doesn't take 10 years to do sea trials....... look at credible sources, like the MoD, as opposed to some speculation on the BBC
Pringles352 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The British Navy = pirates in uniform.
Look out folks, here comes the return of the British E(va)mpire contemplating on re-conquering the world in the name of peace keeping. They done it before, no surprise that they won't do it again.
China, wake up!! The brits might bring these battle ships to your shores to start a Cocaine War, like the Opium War, and a list of unequal treaties favoring the brits.
taow222328 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We give BILLIONS in foreign aid to the likes of India (a nuclear power with carrier)
We give MILLIONS to foreign immigrants coming here to abuse the lax benefits system
Yet we cannot afford jets for our aircraft carriers.
What kind of sick, fucking twilight zone am i living in??? beam me up scotty!
wank0r 3 months ago