HAAAAYYYY Stacco. You still trolling around RN sites spouting your uneducated, unknowledgeable bullshit. I see the guys here have got you sussed and are keeping you down.
I wish you would remember that , although your carriers might not use fossil fuel, all your planes and the rest of the fleet do (excepting subs of course)
@SuperAncientmariner We were not talking about other types of naval ships or weapons in regards to nuclear propulion-We are FOCUSED on nuclear power in regards to super carrier units. Duhh? It makes sense in all aspects to have a nuclear powered 100K ton Carrier ship, or a submarine, but not a jet, a tank, and smaller naval surface warships.
If you want to settle for old 115 year old + technology, so be it. It is that kind of thinking that brought down the British Empire.
@1STACCS You really don't see it do you. You keep on and on about the use of fossil fuels and how bad that is. (115 year old technology etc) My point is that , apart from carrier and sub. power plants, everything you have is exctly the same. Also , as you say, we were discussing 100k ton supercarriers, a class that the QEs do not belong to. Even your navy does not stick Nuclear into 60K ton ships. Nobody has ever said that Nuclear is not correct for 100k tonners.
@SuperAncientmariner Durrrrt! lol How many non-nuclear 60k ton ships does the USN have in it's fleet?
Your sub-par carriers would be better off with nuclear power. Not 115 year old technology. The electrical demands of a modern carrier require nuclear power to supply great amounts of needed power.
@1STACCS When did anyone say the USN HAD any 60,000 tonners. Keep up to date old cocker, USN has procured the building of 3, 60,000 ton MLPs so thats 3 (or will be ) non nuke.. . And the "60,000 ton" benchmark was set by your navy, at a time when you had ships of that size. Now, having set that benchmark, why should we go against it?
@1STACCS And to put you straight. The power requirement of a carrier the size of a Nimitz does indeed require nuclear, a fact that I have never disputed. A carrier of 60k tons does not require the same power output.
@SuperAncientmariner The new MLP's are about 30,000 tons a piece, and on top of that, they are not even combat ships like cruisers, carriers, frigates, ect, they are Navy’s Maritime Prepositioning Force, (Logistical in nature.)
So, where is the new 60K ton ship we are building? Huh? Duh? Yes, your new carriers will be able to semi-function, but their ability to be really powerful naval platforms has been curtailed severely because of not having nuclear power and nuclear primary propulsion
@1STACCS Well now, who does one go by...1STACCS who says 30,0000 (and who has a dubious track record in such matters)....or does one go by the pages of General dynamics, NASSCO and the papers of MCR Federal LLC s Captain Eduard Lundquist...al of whom say 60,000. And they are being ordered by the USN...that, to me, makes them military.
Now , being designed for conventional Power, how are they going to "semi-function".?
@SuperAncientmariner You are talking extreme Deadweight Tonnage, and even if the MLP is loaded to 60K, it is still a non-combatant vessel. This is a logistical supply vessel. We were talking about nucleear power to 60K and over warships. You went way off topic trying to save face here. So you bring up a bunch of 30k ton ships, and get slapped down.
@1STACCS Absolutely. And as I said (actually you pointed out awhile ago, during another discussion) Your own navy decided that nuclear power for warships of around 60,000 tons was not neccessary. The QE's have been designed to have full operational capability using conventional power plants. What can't you accept about that. These ships do not require nuclear propulsion.If so important why were ships like Kitty Hawk not converted.Because that tonnage does not require Nuclear.. thats why.
@SuperAncientmariner Kitty Hawk, ect, were just dropped from the fleet. The USN wanted a total nuclear powered super carrier fleet.
Fully functional, yes, but fully functional to a much lower standard. The QE's would be far better off with Nuclear power-hands down. If the USN had a carrier in the 60k ton range today, you can bet that it would be nuclear powered. Nuclear power offers a future proof power source for the modern electronics that modern carriers require.
@1STACCS I know Kitty Hawk was droppd 2 years ago but it was because of her age not because of any Nuclear fleet. The point is that up to 2 years ago, you had 60,000 ton conventional powered carriers functioning to the standard they were designed for. I don't recall Naval voices giving your argument when they were in commission. And I repeat, your navy has decreed (according to you) that carriers of 60,000 +tons do not need to be nuclear.
@SuperAncientmariner Nuclear power had a lot to do with Kitty Hawk being decommissioned. The energy demand of modern warfare electronics was taking a toll on those old ships, like Ranger and Kitty Hawk. Nuclear energy supplies an indefinite amount of energy to a naval combatant unit. I never stated that non-combatant ships 60K + do not need to be nuclear, and I certainly never stated that 60+ carriers need to be non nuclear. Stop making up things in your head.
@1STACCS As for what you did or did not say, If you would care to return to the QE page and go right back (a long way I will grant you ) You stated that the almighty(sic) USN had decreed that any ship over 60,000+ tons (actually I think the figure was 65,000+ ) had to be nuclear powered ....ergo ships under that weight did not have to be.
Notice that the words "need to be non-nuclear" do not appear.(anywhere) I am not making up things, you are just not reading things.
@SuperAncientmariner Maybe, but Yes, but we both were referring to and speaking of Naval combatant ships, key word here is combatant. Ships that fight and are of said size should be nuclear. Hence, Kitty Hawk, JFK, Constellation=retired. Even the Iowa Battleships were so inefficient to run on fossil fuel at 57K.
As for a support logistical ship of 30k loaded down to DWT of 58K, I see no need for it to be nuclear. Logistical ships don't have to stay and fight like combatant warfare ships.
@SuperAncientmariner 60-65K ton Carrier is still a large vessel and would be much more efficient with a nuclear power plant for energy. BAE is stuffing the some of the most advanced electronic warfare systmes on board and they will all use power. Going back to 115 year old fossil fuel technology, emitting large heat signatures and needing a tanker supply fleet for that QE is not efficient.
@1STACCS The point is that those BAE systems are designed for and around the power output of the power plant. There is nothing the power plant cannot handle. And I'm afraid that even your supercarriers require a fleet train that includes tankers. (unless the aircraft run on something other than aviation fuel). And an Atomic powered carrier leaves a heat signature in its wake from its coolant system (raw water circ.from the condensers.)
@SuperAncientmariner Regardless, a nuclear powered QE Class ship would be much more efficient and self-sufficient during battle and wartime operations, and cheaper to run over the long term.
Going to nuclear propulsion leaves massive amounts of space for Jet Fuel supply on board, because a nuke carrier doesn't have to store main propulsion fuel. This means less tanker refuels for the jet fuel stores, which means greater combat abilities. This means better carrier than what you have or dont.
@1STACCS I'm sure the designers know what they are doing. And I think I qualified my statement by specifying Carriers. And those carriers were retired because they were old and obsolete.
@SamsSpaghetti While an admirable sentiment; it would be quite an insult after the events which mark our two countries past and I think many citizens of the Republic of Ireland would see it as the British trying to muscle in again. Also using another country's namesake in a war they may not want to be part of is a bit presumptuous on our part. Also we aren't Ireland's biggest trading partner, the UK has more trade with the US, France and Germany than Ireland
@jed371 Taking the ski ramp out is not a cut it is considerably increaing the cost of the carriers but will be much more capable the f35 c is much better hold more amunition and fuel
being first isnt always best. the u.s. started using them in the 1950's i served on the uss constellation CV-64 and with 4 catapults and also the angled flight deck we could launch and recover at the same time. an added plus
@RichardOhKaNoi after the recent defence review these new carriers will actually have angled flight decks instead of the ski ramp's because the f-35B IIs have been cut for the F-35C
@RichardOhKaNoi Lol. Three points. Firstly, we invented angled flight decks, we know what they do and how to use them. This video shows a STOVL F-35, which really wouldn't benefit from one. Secondly, the chimps building the F-35 can't get the STOVL version to fly carrying anything more than the pilots spare underpants, so the video's now out of date. Thirdly, that means we've had to completely re-design our carrier, at vast expense, to incorporate catapults and a bloody angle anyway! ;) :)
@RichardOhKaNoi They are going to be angled now. I think the original reason not to have cats and traps was due to operating costs. However, it meant the planes would not be inter-changable with allied carriers or something I guess? Wish they'd also make them nuclear powered instead of Gas Turbine - seems crazy, but again, for "cost" reasons. Just depends how bloody expensive the fuel is to buy in 20 years time...
Whether we can even afford to fill them with planes remains to be seen!
@Zoomer123 the biggest advantage if a CVN is it has alot more bunkerage..ie weapon stores and aviation fuel...a Kitty Hawk class CV has some 2 weeks of combat stores and fuel.. a CVN has more than double..take into account that a CVN can sustain high fleet speeds with no worries of fuel range...Reagan after the Soviets put 3 carrier battlegroups off of vladivostok after the KAL 007 incident. They moved so fast the Soviets didnt know till they turned on their firecontrol and radar 200miles away
@SamsSpaghetti no i didnt sey thay changed the name that was someone else i wouldnt call a british warship hms ireland because ireland is not part of britian only northern but anyway you dont call warships after your country
i think we should have a ship called HMS lord nelson that would be a good one dont think we have had one in a long time called that
@SamsSpaghetti ark royal is just a famous carrier and always will be the name would be better
ark royal was a major aircraft carrier in ww2 it was there when the bismarck sunk and many more major battles there have been to aircraft carrier bar the name since then and it one of these new ones should have been called ark royal as anyone in the navy wot name would thay pick everyone would sey ark royal
A name change wouldn't be without precedent. Audacious-Class HMS Ark Royal R09 was originally to be named HMS Irresistible. She went on to have a distinguished Cold War career, operating F-4K Phantoms until 1978.
if you join you might be lucky and get sent t south america and spend ur time getting coked up with hookers when on shore. as long as you turn up for work on time the people in charge will turn a blind eye to things that aren't offically allowed. you will find its not as strict as it is made out to be. the guy in charge knows people have to have a laugh and they dont thing everybody is a goody goody. they will turn a blind eye to the occaional being coked up as long as you play it normal
Relax, Spain and France really could help Her Majesty´s interests (for the next 5-10, maybe 15 years) with their "Juan Carlos I", the "Prince of Asturias" and the "Charles de Gaulle"... hummm, thinking in Trafalgar? Just kidding!! It´s a sad day for the Royal Navy.
PS: Don´t forget Italy´s "Cavour" and "Garibaldi"!!!!
@Elitepoosniff Hmmm? No, it's 40. Where do you get your figures?
Delta CVF was originally specified to operate a maximum 'surge' air group of 36 F-35Bs and 4 MASC aircraft, with normal air groups being more around the levels of 30 F-35Bs, 4 MASC aircraft and 6 Merlin HMs. The change to the F-35C and its folding wings may free up space for potentially a few more, but nothing like 70.
CVF was designed around high sortie rates and not aircraft capacity, there's more to a carrier than hangar size.
I think you're getting CVF mixed up with the Nimitz class or with CVN-21, CVF was never at any stage envisaged to operate more than 50 aircraft. The original design allowed for a maximum of 50 aircraft, that was then revised down to 48 in 2002, then to 46 in 2003 and in 2004 it was finalised at a maximum of 40 aircraft. Perhaps ~45 with the change to F-35C.
What source(s) do you have to the contrary, other than your own opinion of how many it should carry?
"Supercarrier" is just a term to describe aircraft carriers with a displacement over 70,000 tons. Just because a ship is called a supercarrier doesn't mean that it automatically carries seventy aircraft. You have no idea what you're talking about.
@ObdurateJayhawker Your a bit late, it was a month ago that i last sent a comment on this, so to be honest i have forgotten about it so you do the same.
Guys i know the royal navy is reducing the amount of ships they operate,but so is everyone else!
Also by 2020 when the 2 aircraft carriers are operational,we will be the only country other than the US (posibly the indian navy might have one too)to oporate supercarriers.
at the end of the day usa aircraft carrier can hold just over twice the amount of aircraft as the uk aircraft carrier. think there would have been so much protentional if we had aircraft carriers that can do the same as a usa carrier but of a simlar design as the new uk carrier
@semperfidelis677 1st of all the fucking torries are scrapping the harriers 3 years earlier than expected and second the yanks like to delay everything so we won't be getting the F35s until at least 2016 and when the f35s do finaly come we are gonna have to launch them off the french aircraft carrier so now we are switching for the f35b to the f35c because the french carrier has a catapult system.
Actually raynkar, to tell you the truth you have really fucking angered me. You can call me a shit or whatever you like but if I think anyone insults my father I get very angry. So, you twat faced cunt, shut the fuck up. My father volunteered in wartime. Bit different you joining up because some fucking poster has told you you can visit Hong Kong or Singapore to get a suntan.
Truth is I can hardly bear looking at these clips. They are all history. We are history, and most people hardly know or care. Maybe that is what happens to nations that neither know or care.
Actually, ask yourself this. Would the Iranians have dared do to the Americans what they did to us. It is power that matters in the Middle East, and we are seen as having less and less of that. Recent cuts in defence spending must have taught you that. Rather than having a go at me why dont you lobby for them to be reversed. Seems I hit a raw nerve rankar.
Actually, ask yourself this. Would the Iraniand have dared do to the Americans what they did to us. It is power that matters in the Middle East, and we are seen as having less and less of that. Recent cuts in defence spending must have taught you that. Rather than having a go at me why dont you lobby for them to be reversed. Seems I hit a raw nerve rankar.
raynkar. My father volunteered in 1939. He was shot in the face in Holland in 1945 but survived. He died 18 months ago. I hope that is sufficient information for you. Why do you ask? If you wish top insult him I hope you will be good enough to supply your phone number so I can contact you personally. Yes, actually I am thick enough to fire on anyone who might insult and humiliate my country. Many people happen to feel the Royal Navy, and the United Kingdom was insulted on that day.
@leonwiganer it should have never happened and the rn navy admitted they fucked up .there should have been a helicopter in the air to cover them .its now standard practice
An £3billion 70.000 tonn aircraft carrier without aircraft, is something right out of Monty Python - you just couldn't make it up. Well, at least the royal navy will be the proud owner of the world largest helicopter carrier - until the damn thingt is scrapped after three years in service that is.
Good for you Elitepoosniff. I did hear that the Iranians tried to do a similar thing to the Aussie navy and got a burst of machine gun fire across their bows. Not sure how true the story was but I liked it.
I hope everyone in the Royal Navy realises what a disgrace the surrender of RN personnel was to the Iranian navy . This was a national humiliation. I know it is easy for me to say, but you signed up( as my father did in 1939) to defend his country, and if needs be die for it. You should have been prepared to do just that. I am 57 and I would do just that if some foreign bastard threatened me. I would have killed those bastards. We moaned about our ipods. It is not forgotton.
@pogmathon100 The Empire grew from not giving in to the Spanish and the Dutch, here it seems to now be going a bit down hill, but there are many like me who would die for my nation no matter if it made a difference or won what we were fighting for, the empire is dead but we still carry that power.
I do have to ask if your father actually 'signed up' or was he conscripted, there is a huge difference. Either way, I guess you are referring to him being at war! We were not at war with Iran, so any shooting would have been murder under the ROE's at the time. If you are thick enough to start shooting at someone when you are completely surrounded, and were not at war, or legally bound to shoot, and to do so would make an international crisis, that's nothing to be shouting about!
@jamesleica8 YOU ARE WRONG! The finance is already in place and has been for some time! Cut-backs in defence will hit the RAF because we do not really need the Euro-fighter which was designed during the 'Cold War' period as an interceptor! An order was placed with Cammell- Laird, Birkenhead, Merseyside just two days ago and it was broadcast on both BBC & ITV news that work on QE had started!
@ericartwo1 Pity the finance/timing isn't in place for the bloody aircraft to go on them, LOL, your comments re Euro fighter are proved to be wrong by the latest defence review announcement!
@semperfidelis677 Yes! U r right! WTF are we going to do to defend ourselves!? It is crazy and I believe that the Liberals have had something to do with it! Do u realise that we will have to rely on France for carrier, the Charles de Gaulle?
@jamesleica8 you dont no nout do you the QE is getting built as we speak and thay cant be canceled because thay would lose billions if thay did
and wot do you mean my trident the astute class sub or the trident missile because we was ment be getting a new ballistic missile but then US dropped out because thay said the thay will use the trident D5 missiles untill 2040 which left britian building 1 on there own which would cost 30 billion which we can spend better things on
@veritascrusader Due to the fact they're not being sold to India, I think it's fair to say this shouldn't be titled "SUPER AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FOR INDIA!". India is building its own carriers.
shows how little u no , why dont u stop reading newspapers etc u fool
There not being sold to inida at all, the UK needs to be a carrier force it always has been , the falkland war proved the need to have them,
not to mention to be able to protect the 22 other british territories.
The labour government has said both are for UK and are 100% committed to the project , even the new tories and librel has more of less said the same even the MOD
@1STACCS sell them to inida lool u need to stop reading false stuff lol
they are both for the UK and if u wasent that dumb u would no.
inida a more powerfull nation ? lol the british spend more on there defence 2 xtimes more, have more GDP than inida have more carriers more nukes more navy bigger airfore i can go on lol,
usa is stronger than all nations combined and u ask if im on medication haaaaaaaaaaaa this is a new limt lol now , U CANT EVEN BEAT FAEMERS in viatnam lool,
lool so funny lol, just like the Marshall islands ,do u no im not even going to reply to a twat like u anways
Michael, we went over this. We got ride of the old fossil fueled ships. We only wan't nuclear carriers. A total of ten Ford class supercarriers are planned with construction continuing to 2058. We will never go below 11 supercarriers. In 2015, the Enterprise will be retired to reserves, and the Gerald Ford will take its place.
@1STACCS We got ride of the old fossil fueled ships
THATS WHY usa has fossil feul ships haaaaaaaaaa
U wil never go below 11? thats what u said about being 14 lol now 13 now 12 now 11 by 2020 it will be just 6 this is from the goverment this is fact lool
gerald ford only 3 will be built as the usa has huge debts and cant afford any more
by 2018 china will over take usa in GDP LOOOL CHINA WILL BE NEW TOP DOG:p
even britian was a super power FOR LONGER LOL THE USA HAS ONLY 90 YEARS LOL
@fairman3456 Michael, baby, the carriers we put in reserve are old fossil fueld ones. We still have them if we want to reactivate them, but we only want a Nuclear powered fleet.
China will never overtake us. Count on the USA being number one for the next 500 years.
first of stop reading newspapers U of all people no even newspapers talk shit
2nd lol trust u to get ur soruce from the newspaper i seen that source its old news,
If the goverment have said on wednesday prime minster question time both carriers are being built and both partys are 100% commited to it then thats good enough for me , if the prime minster said wer keping them thats good enough for me
@fairman3456 The Prime Minister is broke, just like the rest of the UK. He will change his mind,soon. Global military is reporting that they will sell the carriers to India to offset the national UK debt. It make sense.
The carriers are small anyway, fitting for a third world nation like India. Besides, there will only be two, the second will be cancelled if you don't sell at least one to India.
@1STACCS The Prime Minister is broke, just like the rest of the UK\
is that coming from the usa that has the highest debt in the world
HASCUT THE DESTROYER project from 33 to JUST 3 HAS ONLY ORDERED 130 raptors lol as the usa cant aoffrd any more loo,l has CUT THE carrier force to 11 now lool
has even cut the nuke stockpile lool and the navy is strinking loool not to mention the amphbious assult ships some are being put out lOOOOLO
UR just jesloeus cus THE UKIS BUILDING 2 OF THE STATE OF THE ART CARRIERS IN THE WORLD AND that its better than a 40 year old rust bucket nimitx hasaaaaaaOWNED
@fairman3456 Our 51 Year old Enterprise is a better ship than these new carriers you are making. Our USS GW BUSH, finished last year, is the most advanced carrier in operation. Putz!
i agree the chances are one will be sold! iff we have a Tory goverment other wise labour will keep them both! (public demand for atleast an attempt at a blue water navey) ahah and if ur american please dont lecture the british about debt ;) the only reason your military is soo big is because its 60% of your econmy face it yourr a war machine you have no choice! you'll see one day like we have it will end :)
@NiCe1TYLER I don't think the USA will end up like the dead UK. We have a special form of government the prevents us from flopping like you folks did. You will see in the end.
@1STACCS Where have you been for the past few months? Seeing as America has lost its triple A credit rating and with the highest levels of unemployment the country has seen in years im pretty sure it's going to be smooth sailing for you over the next few years.
@tomchambo Putz, we could have an even worse credit rating, and we would still be number 1. The whole world relies on the USA for money, aid and help. We support the world, for lack of a better phrase.
As bad as it is here, it is still better than any place else in the world. The least of what the USA has, is better than the best of whatever hell hole ditch you live in.
Owww my deer man the only reason britian ever failed iss we where raveged by 2 world wars, I will not denie america played a massive role but britian and our collionies where brought to our knees and america bailed us out and then had us inbetween a rock and a hard place ha
just like china is doing to u know with the debt crisis they will bringg u under there thumb FACT... xxx
@NiCe1TYLER No, you stooge, The USA will not end up like your dead nation. We are a continental power, you were an Island Empire relying on a navy to keep all the lanes open in the oceans for resoureces. We have resources right here on one major continent. And we are a more free people. You border on communisim.
@1STACCS we boarder on communism???! lol, dont you mean socialism, remember, where your bill of rights came from, the English Bill of Rights or more famously the Magna Carta. we simply dont go full throttle for capitalism, as you do. We prefer a more balanced approach one that balances protection for the people against big business, with their quest for bigger profits!!!!
@1STACCS communism socialism and capitalism have no relevance to freedom.
capitalism is bound by wealth
socialism by organisation
communism by common ideology
it is simply beacuse of the nations that adopted these that we have come to conclusions about what they offer, most african nations are capitalist, yet i wouldnt want to live there.
modern capitalism was invented by us english, so dont you yanks go around trying to say your the defenders of it, your relying on china! a communist nation!!!
@numba1danman Your an idiot, too. Communism has had a major impact on freedoms of over 200 million people during the cold war and even now. It has accounted for probably 100 million deaths in peace time alone.
@1STACCS as i said, as u dont seem to read what i put, the defenitions of ideologies are getting mixed up with the nations that have used them.
capitalism is the biggest killer of all, BILLIONS of people cannot AFFORD food and water around the world..communism may have cause millions but capitalism has caused billions of deaths.
@numba1danman Would you rather have the "banana republic" dictators of the third world running the "show" or a first world democratic republic run by capatilism?
And what the hell is up with your homoerotic videos?
Yes we have currently 2 main parties. The people have kept those parties in power because promises for money or favors. Unions lobbyist have made both sides the way they are but people are free to vote in anyone that meets the needs and they wish to vote for....but they havn't.
So you havn't actucally disputed his statment at all. The US has ruled over basicly the most prosperous time in human history and have made sure no world wars happened. Who else can say that?
@valcan321 erm read up on your history, the pax britannia was the time from napoleonic wars to world war 1 when the major powers never had a major war, that was about 100 years, america has been the undisputed superpower since the late 70's when the soviets started to fade so thats about 30 odd years? the dutch were the worlds biggest superpower for longer but they arent remembered, the spanish or the french, they are remembered as powerful but not as superpowers...160 years like britain needed
HAHA! the ignorance of that statement is blinding, for example britian did have large resevrse of coal hence us beening the first to start along an industrial path :P and at the timee having a blue water navey was essential to world dominace! where as today ill admit america does have resources but at the time oil is the modern day eqivalent of the coal we used.
and to say that britian is close to communisim dont be such and american! haha xx
@NiCe1TYLER Britian could not sustain a large navy for long. Not a continental power, no home resources. You relied on resources from India and the Suez was the key.
Oil!? Oil is what these new Queen Elizabeth carriers will burn in major amounts. Not one US Carrier uses fossil fuel for its primary propulsion.
@1STACCS but u pay 4,000 crew members per voyage, these will have 600, they are in more ways more efficient. nuclear propulsion is still not seen as cost effective for carriers, the nuke subs need to be as they need to be so very quiet.
britain spends a very small proportion of its budget on defence and even less on it navy, britain could easily support a 4 - 5 carrier fleet, but it choses not to, there is no reason at all for usa to have 12 carriers...NONE.
@numba1danman all this would probrbaly cost the RN over a 20 year period an extra £15BN, which isnt much to ensure the pride and protection of your country.
Will these aircraft carries come before or after the collapse of UK economy.
themightyjoseph 2 months ago
BTW, thats Capt. Lundquist USN(ret)
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
HAAAAYYYY Stacco. You still trolling around RN sites spouting your uneducated, unknowledgeable bullshit. I see the guys here have got you sussed and are keeping you down.
I wish you would remember that , although your carriers might not use fossil fuel, all your planes and the rest of the fleet do (excepting subs of course)
SuperAncientmariner 3 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner We were not talking about other types of naval ships or weapons in regards to nuclear propulion-We are FOCUSED on nuclear power in regards to super carrier units. Duhh? It makes sense in all aspects to have a nuclear powered 100K ton Carrier ship, or a submarine, but not a jet, a tank, and smaller naval surface warships.
If you want to settle for old 115 year old + technology, so be it. It is that kind of thinking that brought down the British Empire.
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS You really don't see it do you. You keep on and on about the use of fossil fuels and how bad that is. (115 year old technology etc) My point is that , apart from carrier and sub. power plants, everything you have is exctly the same. Also , as you say, we were discussing 100k ton supercarriers, a class that the QEs do not belong to. Even your navy does not stick Nuclear into 60K ton ships. Nobody has ever said that Nuclear is not correct for 100k tonners.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Durrrrt! lol How many non-nuclear 60k ton ships does the USN have in it's fleet?
Your sub-par carriers would be better off with nuclear power. Not 115 year old technology. The electrical demands of a modern carrier require nuclear power to supply great amounts of needed power.
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS Again, the expense.
Remember the essential rules of British politics?
BasilFawlty4444 2 months ago
@1STACCS When did anyone say the USN HAD any 60,000 tonners. Keep up to date old cocker, USN has procured the building of 3, 60,000 ton MLPs so thats 3 (or will be ) non nuke.. . And the "60,000 ton" benchmark was set by your navy, at a time when you had ships of that size. Now, having set that benchmark, why should we go against it?
Either learn the subject or give up
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@1STACCS And to put you straight. The power requirement of a carrier the size of a Nimitz does indeed require nuclear, a fact that I have never disputed. A carrier of 60k tons does not require the same power output.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner The new MLP's are about 30,000 tons a piece, and on top of that, they are not even combat ships like cruisers, carriers, frigates, ect, they are Navy’s Maritime Prepositioning Force, (Logistical in nature.)
So, where is the new 60K ton ship we are building? Huh? Duh? Yes, your new carriers will be able to semi-function, but their ability to be really powerful naval platforms has been curtailed severely because of not having nuclear power and nuclear primary propulsion
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS Well now, who does one go by...1STACCS who says 30,0000 (and who has a dubious track record in such matters)....or does one go by the pages of General dynamics, NASSCO and the papers of MCR Federal LLC s Captain Eduard Lundquist...al of whom say 60,000. And they are being ordered by the USN...that, to me, makes them military.
Now , being designed for conventional Power, how are they going to "semi-function".?
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner You are talking extreme Deadweight Tonnage, and even if the MLP is loaded to 60K, it is still a non-combatant vessel. This is a logistical supply vessel. We were talking about nucleear power to 60K and over warships. You went way off topic trying to save face here. So you bring up a bunch of 30k ton ships, and get slapped down.
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS Absolutely. And as I said (actually you pointed out awhile ago, during another discussion) Your own navy decided that nuclear power for warships of around 60,000 tons was not neccessary. The QE's have been designed to have full operational capability using conventional power plants. What can't you accept about that. These ships do not require nuclear propulsion.If so important why were ships like Kitty Hawk not converted.Because that tonnage does not require Nuclear.. thats why.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Kitty Hawk, ect, were just dropped from the fleet. The USN wanted a total nuclear powered super carrier fleet.
Fully functional, yes, but fully functional to a much lower standard. The QE's would be far better off with Nuclear power-hands down. If the USN had a carrier in the 60k ton range today, you can bet that it would be nuclear powered. Nuclear power offers a future proof power source for the modern electronics that modern carriers require.
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS I know Kitty Hawk was droppd 2 years ago but it was because of her age not because of any Nuclear fleet. The point is that up to 2 years ago, you had 60,000 ton conventional powered carriers functioning to the standard they were designed for. I don't recall Naval voices giving your argument when they were in commission. And I repeat, your navy has decreed (according to you) that carriers of 60,000 +tons do not need to be nuclear.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Nuclear power had a lot to do with Kitty Hawk being decommissioned. The energy demand of modern warfare electronics was taking a toll on those old ships, like Ranger and Kitty Hawk. Nuclear energy supplies an indefinite amount of energy to a naval combatant unit. I never stated that non-combatant ships 60K + do not need to be nuclear, and I certainly never stated that 60+ carriers need to be non nuclear. Stop making up things in your head.
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS As for what you did or did not say, If you would care to return to the QE page and go right back (a long way I will grant you ) You stated that the almighty(sic) USN had decreed that any ship over 60,000+ tons (actually I think the figure was 65,000+ ) had to be nuclear powered ....ergo ships under that weight did not have to be.
Notice that the words "need to be non-nuclear" do not appear.(anywhere) I am not making up things, you are just not reading things.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Maybe, but Yes, but we both were referring to and speaking of Naval combatant ships, key word here is combatant. Ships that fight and are of said size should be nuclear. Hence, Kitty Hawk, JFK, Constellation=retired. Even the Iowa Battleships were so inefficient to run on fossil fuel at 57K.
As for a support logistical ship of 30k loaded down to DWT of 58K, I see no need for it to be nuclear. Logistical ships don't have to stay and fight like combatant warfare ships.
1STACCS 1 month ago
@1STACCS And again, the power requirement of a 60,000 ton carrier is not as great as a 100,000 ton carrier.
You keep going on but when have I ever denied the benefits of nuclear power.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner 60-65K ton Carrier is still a large vessel and would be much more efficient with a nuclear power plant for energy. BAE is stuffing the some of the most advanced electronic warfare systmes on board and they will all use power. Going back to 115 year old fossil fuel technology, emitting large heat signatures and needing a tanker supply fleet for that QE is not efficient.
1STACCS 2 months ago
@1STACCS The point is that those BAE systems are designed for and around the power output of the power plant. There is nothing the power plant cannot handle. And I'm afraid that even your supercarriers require a fleet train that includes tankers. (unless the aircraft run on something other than aviation fuel). And an Atomic powered carrier leaves a heat signature in its wake from its coolant system (raw water circ.from the condensers.)
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Regardless, a nuclear powered QE Class ship would be much more efficient and self-sufficient during battle and wartime operations, and cheaper to run over the long term.
Going to nuclear propulsion leaves massive amounts of space for Jet Fuel supply on board, because a nuke carrier doesn't have to store main propulsion fuel. This means less tanker refuels for the jet fuel stores, which means greater combat abilities. This means better carrier than what you have or dont.
1STACCS 1 month ago
@1STACCS BTW, "any ship" was my bad. It should read "any aircraft carrier"
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@1STACCS I'm sure the designers know what they are doing. And I think I qualified my statement by specifying Carriers. And those carriers were retired because they were old and obsolete.
SuperAncientmariner 1 month ago
@numba1danman what sort of naval attack aircraft does the RN use?
MegaJizzem 3 months ago
prince of whales lool
MegaJizzem 3 months ago
@MegaJizzem lol but u realise its prince of wales...the nation?
numba1danman 3 months ago
Why Queen Elizabeth carriers dont use nuclear propulsion like Nimitz class carriers ?
xsf908 3 months ago
HMS Prince of Wales not Whales
MrXray2011 4 months ago
One will be sold :)
ikhalify 4 months ago
just heard the jsf 35 joint stirke figher as been canned
binaryfinary1 5 months ago
@SamsSpaghetti While an admirable sentiment; it would be quite an insult after the events which mark our two countries past and I think many citizens of the Republic of Ireland would see it as the British trying to muscle in again. Also using another country's namesake in a war they may not want to be part of is a bit presumptuous on our part. Also we aren't Ireland's biggest trading partner, the UK has more trade with the US, France and Germany than Ireland
taraniis 5 months ago
When r they going 2 build this ???? someone Reply !!
m1y2sti3cal 5 months ago
@m1y2sti3cal The first hull is already under construction
taraniis 5 months ago
hallelujah bout time. bless you and your navy. and join the ranks of seafaring men
RichardOhKaNoi 6 months ago
@RichardOhKaNoi well I don't think this is a good thing, ski ramp is better imo! But cuts have to be made i suppose
jed371 6 months ago
@jed371 Taking the ski ramp out is not a cut it is considerably increaing the cost of the carriers but will be much more capable the f35 c is much better hold more amunition and fuel
xDarkVengeancex 6 months ago
INVENT YES USE NO
RichardOhKaNoi 6 months ago
being first isnt always best. the u.s. started using them in the 1950's i served on the uss constellation CV-64 and with 4 catapults and also the angled flight deck we could launch and recover at the same time. an added plus
RichardOhKaNoi 6 months ago
@RichardOhKaNoi Launch and recover. Yes, thats why we invented them.
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@RichardOhKaNoi after the recent defence review these new carriers will actually have angled flight decks instead of the ski ramp's because the f-35B IIs have been cut for the F-35C
jed371 6 months ago
when are our british brothers going to learn to put on an angle flight deck, it is proven to be worth its weight in gold
RichardOhKaNoi 6 months ago
@RichardOhKaNoi Lol. Three points. Firstly, we invented angled flight decks, we know what they do and how to use them. This video shows a STOVL F-35, which really wouldn't benefit from one. Secondly, the chimps building the F-35 can't get the STOVL version to fly carrying anything more than the pilots spare underpants, so the video's now out of date. Thirdly, that means we've had to completely re-design our carrier, at vast expense, to incorporate catapults and a bloody angle anyway! ;) :)
Flosailor 6 months ago
@RichardOhKaNoi
dude, british where the first to incorperate them... xx
NiCe1TYLER 6 months ago
@RichardOhKaNoi They are going to be angled now. I think the original reason not to have cats and traps was due to operating costs. However, it meant the planes would not be inter-changable with allied carriers or something I guess? Wish they'd also make them nuclear powered instead of Gas Turbine - seems crazy, but again, for "cost" reasons. Just depends how bloody expensive the fuel is to buy in 20 years time...
Whether we can even afford to fill them with planes remains to be seen!
Zoomer123 5 months ago
Comment removed
RedFileProductions 5 months ago
@Zoomer123 the biggest advantage if a CVN is it has alot more bunkerage..ie weapon stores and aviation fuel...a Kitty Hawk class CV has some 2 weeks of combat stores and fuel.. a CVN has more than double..take into account that a CVN can sustain high fleet speeds with no worries of fuel range...Reagan after the Soviets put 3 carrier battlegroups off of vladivostok after the KAL 007 incident. They moved so fast the Soviets didnt know till they turned on their firecontrol and radar 200miles away
RJF1966 5 months ago
@SamsSpaghetti ye but calling a ship hms ireland is like nameing it after republic of ireland
wiganerrmc 6 months ago
@SamsSpaghetti no i didnt sey thay changed the name that was someone else i wouldnt call a british warship hms ireland because ireland is not part of britian only northern but anyway you dont call warships after your country
i think we should have a ship called HMS lord nelson that would be a good one dont think we have had one in a long time called that
wiganerrmc 6 months ago
@SamsSpaghetti ark royal is just a famous carrier and always will be the name would be better
ark royal was a major aircraft carrier in ww2 it was there when the bismarck sunk and many more major battles there have been to aircraft carrier bar the name since then and it one of these new ones should have been called ark royal as anyone in the navy wot name would thay pick everyone would sey ark royal
wiganerrmc 6 months ago
A name change wouldn't be without precedent. Audacious-Class HMS Ark Royal R09 was originally to be named HMS Irresistible. She went on to have a distinguished Cold War career, operating F-4K Phantoms until 1978.
Planetar17 6 months ago
Comment removed
Planetar17 6 months ago
Comment removed
Planetar17 6 months ago
They have not changed the name to Ark Royal at all, also wales, not whales
jacob12910 7 months ago
@jacob12910 thay should do tho
wiganerrmc 6 months ago
i dont think the song goes with the video no offense
aznkid353 8 months ago
if you join you might be lucky and get sent t south america and spend ur time getting coked up with hookers when on shore. as long as you turn up for work on time the people in charge will turn a blind eye to things that aren't offically allowed. you will find its not as strict as it is made out to be. the guy in charge knows people have to have a laugh and they dont thing everybody is a goody goody. they will turn a blind eye to the occaional being coked up as long as you play it normal
210482fmj 8 months ago
Spelling fail...
ShowPolitics 9 months ago
@SamsSpaghetti ? but Ark Royal's better.
MrXray2011 9 months ago
They've changed the name to Ark Royal now
MrXray2011 9 months ago
this design has the front ramp/scoop on it. This was removed after the British government scrapped the HMS Ark Royal and its entire Harrier fleet.
gta4ishardcore 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Relax, Spain and France really could help Her Majesty´s interests (for the next 5-10, maybe 15 years) with their "Juan Carlos I", the "Prince of Asturias" and the "Charles de Gaulle"... hummm, thinking in Trafalgar? Just kidding!! It´s a sad day for the Royal Navy.
PS: Don´t forget Italy´s "Cavour" and "Garibaldi"!!!!
ningunodiponible 11 months ago
HMS Prince of Whales - you stupid twat!
gray499kcw 11 months ago
70 or 40 Aircarft ?
xsf908 11 months ago
Is this class going to be CATOBAR?
KNS1996DFS 1 year ago
@KNS1996DFS, yes.
citizenerased1992 10 months ago
@KNS1996DFS
Yeah, as off 2011 and the end of 2010, they decided to alter it a bit and make it catobar
PlaneAU 10 months ago
lol. price of whales!!?!
citizenerased1992 1 year ago
Only 40 Aircraft ?
xsf908 1 year ago
@xsf908 thats incorrect, its 70 fighters in all the same as the US super carriers.
Elitepoosniff 1 year ago
@Elitepoosniff Hmmm? No, it's 40. Where do you get your figures?
Delta CVF was originally specified to operate a maximum 'surge' air group of 36 F-35Bs and 4 MASC aircraft, with normal air groups being more around the levels of 30 F-35Bs, 4 MASC aircraft and 6 Merlin HMs. The change to the F-35C and its folding wings may free up space for potentially a few more, but nothing like 70.
CVF was designed around high sortie rates and not aircraft capacity, there's more to a carrier than hangar size.
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier Its a super carrier you idiot, they carry 70 planes.
Elitepoosniff 1 year ago
@Elitepoosniff Umm... no they don't?
I think you're getting CVF mixed up with the Nimitz class or with CVN-21, CVF was never at any stage envisaged to operate more than 50 aircraft. The original design allowed for a maximum of 50 aircraft, that was then revised down to 48 in 2002, then to 46 in 2003 and in 2004 it was finalised at a maximum of 40 aircraft. Perhaps ~45 with the change to F-35C.
What source(s) do you have to the contrary, other than your own opinion of how many it should carry?
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@Elitepoosniff
"Supercarrier" is just a term to describe aircraft carriers with a displacement over 70,000 tons. Just because a ship is called a supercarrier doesn't mean that it automatically carries seventy aircraft. You have no idea what you're talking about.
ObdurateJayhawker 1 year ago
@ObdurateJayhawker Your a bit late, it was a month ago that i last sent a comment on this, so to be honest i have forgotten about it so you do the same.
Elitepoosniff 1 year ago
Guys i know the royal navy is reducing the amount of ships they operate,but so is everyone else!
Also by 2020 when the 2 aircraft carriers are operational,we will be the only country other than the US (posibly the indian navy might have one too)to oporate supercarriers.
james8765100 1 year ago
at the end of the day usa aircraft carrier can hold just over twice the amount of aircraft as the uk aircraft carrier. think there would have been so much protentional if we had aircraft carriers that can do the same as a usa carrier but of a simlar design as the new uk carrier
movieviewing 1 year ago
Lol @ Prince of Whales
adze1969 1 year ago
FUTURE CARRIERS WITHOUT ANY AIRCRAFT IT APPEARS! WHAT MILITARY GENIUS THOUGHT THAT ONE UP (DR. LIAM FOX)
semperfidelis677 1 year ago
@semperfidelis677
Dr Fox was fighting tooth and nail to preserve the carriers - the blame should lie squarely with Cameroon and Osborne.
grobanista 1 year ago
@semperfidelis677 1st of all the fucking torries are scrapping the harriers 3 years earlier than expected and second the yanks like to delay everything so we won't be getting the F35s until at least 2016 and when the f35s do finaly come we are gonna have to launch them off the french aircraft carrier so now we are switching for the f35b to the f35c because the french carrier has a catapult system.
conza410 1 year ago
@conza410 So what, it still adds up to a bloody farce(and who are "torries" by the way????)
semperfidelis677 1 year ago
@semperfidelis677 the torries are those lying pricks that we call our government.
conza410 1 year ago
@conza410 I think you will find that they are the "tories" actually, but nice try!
semperfidelis677 1 year ago
@semperfidelis677 wow i like how u make an argument out of a spelling mistake.
conza410 1 year ago
@conza410 I think we have a Labour supporter in the house!
lankinator24 1 year ago
@lankinator24 make that 62,041,708
conza410 1 year ago
@conza410 the F-35C was picked because it's cheaper and we can modify our carriers to operate them. We won't be getting the F-35C till 2020.
mrgeorgeallison 1 year ago
@semperfidelis677 They're coming into service same time as the aircraft.
mrgeorgeallison 1 year ago
@mrgeorgeallison Who says so...you????
semperfidelis677 1 year ago
Ever been called a smug cunt raynkar?
pogmathon100 1 year ago
Actually raynkar, to tell you the truth you have really fucking angered me. You can call me a shit or whatever you like but if I think anyone insults my father I get very angry. So, you twat faced cunt, shut the fuck up. My father volunteered in wartime. Bit different you joining up because some fucking poster has told you you can visit Hong Kong or Singapore to get a suntan.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
Truth is I can hardly bear looking at these clips. They are all history. We are history, and most people hardly know or care. Maybe that is what happens to nations that neither know or care.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
Actually, ask yourself this. Would the Iranians have dared do to the Americans what they did to us. It is power that matters in the Middle East, and we are seen as having less and less of that. Recent cuts in defence spending must have taught you that. Rather than having a go at me why dont you lobby for them to be reversed. Seems I hit a raw nerve rankar.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
Actually, ask yourself this. Would the Iraniand have dared do to the Americans what they did to us. It is power that matters in the Middle East, and we are seen as having less and less of that. Recent cuts in defence spending must have taught you that. Rather than having a go at me why dont you lobby for them to be reversed. Seems I hit a raw nerve rankar.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
@leonwiganer lol ok mate
marks95911 1 year ago
raynkar. My father volunteered in 1939. He was shot in the face in Holland in 1945 but survived. He died 18 months ago. I hope that is sufficient information for you. Why do you ask? If you wish top insult him I hope you will be good enough to supply your phone number so I can contact you personally. Yes, actually I am thick enough to fire on anyone who might insult and humiliate my country. Many people happen to feel the Royal Navy, and the United Kingdom was insulted on that day.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
@leonwiganer yes there should and its now standard operating procedure as it is with the usn .you need aircover incase something goes wrong
marks95911 1 year ago
@leonwiganer it should have never happened and the rn navy admitted they fucked up .there should have been a helicopter in the air to cover them .its now standard practice
marks95911 1 year ago
HMS prince of whales Lol.. HMS prince of whales of sunk during WWII in singapore.
ZRenegageZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An £3billion 70.000 tonn aircraft carrier without aircraft, is something right out of Monty Python - you just couldn't make it up. Well, at least the royal navy will be the proud owner of the world largest helicopter carrier - until the damn thingt is scrapped after three years in service that is.
fitte6 1 year ago
Good for you Elitepoosniff. I did hear that the Iranians tried to do a similar thing to the Aussie navy and got a burst of machine gun fire across their bows. Not sure how true the story was but I liked it.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
I hope everyone in the Royal Navy realises what a disgrace the surrender of RN personnel was to the Iranian navy . This was a national humiliation. I know it is easy for me to say, but you signed up( as my father did in 1939) to defend his country, and if needs be die for it. You should have been prepared to do just that. I am 57 and I would do just that if some foreign bastard threatened me. I would have killed those bastards. We moaned about our ipods. It is not forgotton.
pogmathon100 1 year ago
@pogmathon100 The Empire grew from not giving in to the Spanish and the Dutch, here it seems to now be going a bit down hill, but there are many like me who would die for my nation no matter if it made a difference or won what we were fighting for, the empire is dead but we still carry that power.
Elitepoosniff 1 year ago
@pogmathon100
I do have to ask if your father actually 'signed up' or was he conscripted, there is a huge difference. Either way, I guess you are referring to him being at war! We were not at war with Iran, so any shooting would have been murder under the ROE's at the time. If you are thick enough to start shooting at someone when you are completely surrounded, and were not at war, or legally bound to shoot, and to do so would make an international crisis, that's nothing to be shouting about!
raynkar 1 year ago
@MILLMANTV1 lol
van11695 1 year ago
@jamesleica8 YOU ARE WRONG! The finance is already in place and has been for some time! Cut-backs in defence will hit the RAF because we do not really need the Euro-fighter which was designed during the 'Cold War' period as an interceptor! An order was placed with Cammell- Laird, Birkenhead, Merseyside just two days ago and it was broadcast on both BBC & ITV news that work on QE had started!
ericartwo1 1 year ago
@ericartwo1 Pity the finance/timing isn't in place for the bloody aircraft to go on them, LOL, your comments re Euro fighter are proved to be wrong by the latest defence review announcement!
semperfidelis677 1 year ago
@semperfidelis677 Yes! U r right! WTF are we going to do to defend ourselves!? It is crazy and I believe that the Liberals have had something to do with it! Do u realise that we will have to rely on France for carrier, the Charles de Gaulle?
ericartwo1 1 year ago
@jamesleica8 you dont no nout do you the QE is getting built as we speak and thay cant be canceled because thay would lose billions if thay did
and wot do you mean my trident the astute class sub or the trident missile because we was ment be getting a new ballistic missile but then US dropped out because thay said the thay will use the trident D5 missiles untill 2040 which left britian building 1 on there own which would cost 30 billion which we can spend better things on
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
let all G7 countries team up and take out ,,, north korea, iran, and who ever else likes blowing them self up !!!!
steamfitter123 1 year ago
This should be re titled "SUPER AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FOR INDIA!"
veritascrusader 1 year ago
@veritascrusader Due to the fact they're not being sold to India, I think it's fair to say this shouldn't be titled "SUPER AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FOR INDIA!". India is building its own carriers.
mrgeorgeallison 1 year ago
@mrgeorgeallison Just wait and see my optomistic friend !!
veritascrusader 1 year ago
@mrgeorgeallison
shows how little u no , why dont u stop reading newspapers etc u fool
There not being sold to inida at all, the UK needs to be a carrier force it always has been , the falkland war proved the need to have them,
not to mention to be able to protect the 22 other british territories.
The labour government has said both are for UK and are 100% committed to the project , even the new tories and librel has more of less said the same even the MOD
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 Just wait for the next defence review matey and see what you will have to say then. Two new British carriers? RUBBISH!!!
veritascrusader 1 year ago
@veritascrusader if u wasen that thick to no
its to late to cancell them , so please get real
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 Lol. The Brits are going to sell these carriers to India! They would have too! India is a more powerful nation.
I bet the second one gets cancelled.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS sell them to inida lool u need to stop reading false stuff lol
they are both for the UK and if u wasent that dumb u would no.
inida a more powerfull nation ? lol the british spend more on there defence 2 xtimes more, have more GDP than inida have more carriers more nukes more navy bigger airfore i can go on lol,
china is strong er than usa so is russia
fairman3456 1 year ago
@1STACCS Respond to this video... bet the second one gets cancelled
u just said the british are selling them to inida then u said the 2nd might be cancelled lool
god talk about thick , same things lol,
Both carriers are paid for and are building them as we speak , why do u have to be so thick all the time i mean really
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 First off, the US is stronger than all you countries combined.
Second, Michael, You will have to sell these to India or cancel them.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
usa is stronger than all nations combined and u ask if im on medication haaaaaaaaaaaa this is a new limt lol now , U CANT EVEN BEAT FAEMERS in viatnam lool,
lool so funny lol, just like the Marshall islands ,do u no im not even going to reply to a twat like u anways
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 You wanker! India is going to buy your carriers! lol
Yes, we own the Marshall Islands. We still do missile tests there.
Where is my picture of your sister?
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
HAAA U GOT OWNED BY THE FACTS LOOOOOL
U READ NEWSPAPERS AS UR SOURCE LOOOL
READ prime minster mouth!!! thats better of the MOD lol
china and russia are far stronger than usa
usa is only building 3 of the new G ford class
as they cant afford any more lool, the new govermebt is cutting the carriers to 9 now looooool as they cant afford 11
fairman3456 1 year ago
Michael, we went over this. We got ride of the old fossil fueled ships. We only wan't nuclear carriers. A total of ten Ford class supercarriers are planned with construction continuing to 2058. We will never go below 11 supercarriers. In 2015, the Enterprise will be retired to reserves, and the Gerald Ford will take its place.
1STACCS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1STACCS We got ride of the old fossil fueled ships
THATS WHY usa has fossil feul ships haaaaaaaaaa
U wil never go below 11? thats what u said about being 14 lol now 13 now 12 now 11 by 2020 it will be just 6 this is from the goverment this is fact lool
gerald ford only 3 will be built as the usa has huge debts and cant afford any more
by 2018 china will over take usa in GDP LOOOL CHINA WILL BE NEW TOP DOG:p
even britian was a super power FOR LONGER LOL THE USA HAS ONLY 90 YEARS LOL
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 Michael, baby, the carriers we put in reserve are old fossil fueld ones. We still have them if we want to reactivate them, but we only want a Nuclear powered fleet.
China will never overtake us. Count on the USA being number one for the next 500 years.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS just come down to plaent earth for a min and think with ur brain ,
the UK has always been a carrier force ,
the UK wouldnt even build thse two carriers if they was to be sold as it would cost more to built them thasn to sell them to inidam,
and unlike USA ! the british have 22 over seas territoties all over the world,
the FALKLANDA war proved the need to have carriers
also the who reason why the BEST anti air destroyer in world was built type 45 was for the carriers so read better
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 Michael, are you on medications?
1STACCS 1 year ago
@fairman3456 Royal Navy aircraft carrier may be sold to IndiaGovernment considering sale one of two £2bn machines as part of strategic defence review
This is what the Guardian is reporting.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS This is what the Guardian is reporting.
first of stop reading newspapers U of all people no even newspapers talk shit
2nd lol trust u to get ur soruce from the newspaper i seen that source its old news,
If the goverment have said on wednesday prime minster question time both carriers are being built and both partys are 100% commited to it then thats good enough for me , if the prime minster said wer keping them thats good enough for me
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 The Prime Minister is broke, just like the rest of the UK. He will change his mind,soon. Global military is reporting that they will sell the carriers to India to offset the national UK debt. It make sense.
The carriers are small anyway, fitting for a third world nation like India. Besides, there will only be two, the second will be cancelled if you don't sell at least one to India.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS The Prime Minister is broke, just like the rest of the UK\
is that coming from the usa that has the highest debt in the world
HASCUT THE DESTROYER project from 33 to JUST 3 HAS ONLY ORDERED 130 raptors lol as the usa cant aoffrd any more loo,l has CUT THE carrier force to 11 now lool
has even cut the nuke stockpile lool and the navy is strinking loool not to mention the amphbious assult ships some are being put out lOOOOLO
fairman3456 1 year ago
Comment removed
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS china will never over take usa?
lool by 2018 CHINA WILL OVER TAKE ON GDP!!! weath lool
even in 2030 inida will have over take usa
by 2050 braziil will over take usa lool,
do u want the link to all this instead of guessing all the time loooool
the usa is finished hudge debts its called soo many porject and cut the number of stufff loool
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 And you don't think the USA will grow. By then, the US will be uber powerul!
Michael-take your medications! And send me pictures of your sister!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS yes usa will grow but not on the same scale as china or inida looolo
thats why they are CALLED DEVELOPING NATIONS
FUCK ME TALK ABOUT THICK LOL USA FINISHED
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 You nob head.
The USA will be number one when you are an old mean man.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@fairman3456 We don't need the destroyers, we have four Iowa Class Battlships in reserve.
Tally Ho, mate!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS its just clearl how little u no lol
UR just jesloeus cus THE UKIS BUILDING 2 OF THE STATE OF THE ART CARRIERS IN THE WORLD AND that its better than a 40 year old rust bucket nimitx hasaaaaaaOWNED
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 Our 51 Year old Enterprise is a better ship than these new carriers you are making. Our USS GW BUSH, finished last year, is the most advanced carrier in operation. Putz!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
i agree the chances are one will be sold! iff we have a Tory goverment other wise labour will keep them both! (public demand for atleast an attempt at a blue water navey) ahah and if ur american please dont lecture the british about debt ;) the only reason your military is soo big is because its 60% of your econmy face it yourr a war machine you have no choice! you'll see one day like we have it will end :)
NiCe1TYLER 6 months ago
@NiCe1TYLER I don't think the USA will end up like the dead UK. We have a special form of government the prevents us from flopping like you folks did. You will see in the end.
1STACCS 5 months ago
@1STACCS Where have you been for the past few months? Seeing as America has lost its triple A credit rating and with the highest levels of unemployment the country has seen in years im pretty sure it's going to be smooth sailing for you over the next few years.
tomchambo 5 months ago
@tomchambo Putz, we could have an even worse credit rating, and we would still be number 1. The whole world relies on the USA for money, aid and help. We support the world, for lack of a better phrase.
As bad as it is here, it is still better than any place else in the world. The least of what the USA has, is better than the best of whatever hell hole ditch you live in.
1STACCS 5 months ago
@1STACCS You sir are a ignorant typical yank. You have no real idea of the world or it's workings.
fyorbane 4 months ago
@1STACCS
Owww my deer man the only reason britian ever failed iss we where raveged by 2 world wars, I will not denie america played a massive role but britian and our collionies where brought to our knees and america bailed us out and then had us inbetween a rock and a hard place ha
just like china is doing to u know with the debt crisis they will bringg u under there thumb FACT... xxx
NiCe1TYLER 4 months ago
@NiCe1TYLER No, you stooge, The USA will not end up like your dead nation. We are a continental power, you were an Island Empire relying on a navy to keep all the lanes open in the oceans for resoureces. We have resources right here on one major continent. And we are a more free people. You border on communisim.
1STACCS 4 months ago
@1STACCS we boarder on communism???! lol, dont you mean socialism, remember, where your bill of rights came from, the English Bill of Rights or more famously the Magna Carta. we simply dont go full throttle for capitalism, as you do. We prefer a more balanced approach one that balances protection for the people against big business, with their quest for bigger profits!!!!
darren1678 4 months ago
@darren1678 You went from the land of the Magna Carta to the pimple faced Chav, urinating in the streets and burning Muslim stores.
1STACCS 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1STACCS lol, you cant reason with some people
darren1678 4 months ago
@1STACCS communism socialism and capitalism have no relevance to freedom.
capitalism is bound by wealth
socialism by organisation
communism by common ideology
it is simply beacuse of the nations that adopted these that we have come to conclusions about what they offer, most african nations are capitalist, yet i wouldnt want to live there.
modern capitalism was invented by us english, so dont you yanks go around trying to say your the defenders of it, your relying on china! a communist nation!!!
numba1danman 4 months ago
@numba1danman Your an idiot, too. Communism has had a major impact on freedoms of over 200 million people during the cold war and even now. It has accounted for probably 100 million deaths in peace time alone.
1STACCS 4 months ago
@1STACCS as i said, as u dont seem to read what i put, the defenitions of ideologies are getting mixed up with the nations that have used them.
capitalism is the biggest killer of all, BILLIONS of people cannot AFFORD food and water around the world..communism may have cause millions but capitalism has caused billions of deaths.
numba1danman 4 months ago
@1STACCS u realise capitalism dictates to poorn people in poor nations that as they have no money they cannot afford food or water...TO LIVE!
numba1danman 4 months ago
@numba1danman Would you rather have the "banana republic" dictators of the third world running the "show" or a first world democratic republic run by capatilism?
And what the hell is up with your homoerotic videos?
1STACCS 3 months ago
@1STACCS i take my top off.
america is a first world democratic capitalist nation..yet the americans have 2 parties to choose from...good luck with that.
numba1danman 3 months ago
@numba1danman ...........
Yes we have currently 2 main parties. The people have kept those parties in power because promises for money or favors. Unions lobbyist have made both sides the way they are but people are free to vote in anyone that meets the needs and they wish to vote for....but they havn't.
So you havn't actucally disputed his statment at all. The US has ruled over basicly the most prosperous time in human history and have made sure no world wars happened. Who else can say that?
valcan321 3 months ago
@valcan321 erm read up on your history, the pax britannia was the time from napoleonic wars to world war 1 when the major powers never had a major war, that was about 100 years, america has been the undisputed superpower since the late 70's when the soviets started to fade so thats about 30 odd years? the dutch were the worlds biggest superpower for longer but they arent remembered, the spanish or the french, they are remembered as powerful but not as superpowers...160 years like britain needed
numba1danman 3 months ago
@1STACCS
HAHA! the ignorance of that statement is blinding, for example britian did have large resevrse of coal hence us beening the first to start along an industrial path :P and at the timee having a blue water navey was essential to world dominace! where as today ill admit america does have resources but at the time oil is the modern day eqivalent of the coal we used.
and to say that britian is close to communisim dont be such and american! haha xx
NiCe1TYLER 4 months ago
@NiCe1TYLER Britian could not sustain a large navy for long. Not a continental power, no home resources. You relied on resources from India and the Suez was the key.
Oil!? Oil is what these new Queen Elizabeth carriers will burn in major amounts. Not one US Carrier uses fossil fuel for its primary propulsion.
1STACCS 3 months ago
@1STACCS
you clearly didnt see the analigy in my comment my man :)
and ill admit that but hey if a us carrier gets hitt that could be disasterous! :O x
NiCe1TYLER 3 months ago
@1STACCS but u pay 4,000 crew members per voyage, these will have 600, they are in more ways more efficient. nuclear propulsion is still not seen as cost effective for carriers, the nuke subs need to be as they need to be so very quiet.
britain spends a very small proportion of its budget on defence and even less on it navy, britain could easily support a 4 - 5 carrier fleet, but it choses not to, there is no reason at all for usa to have 12 carriers...NONE.
numba1danman 3 months ago
@numba1danman IMHO the best fleet for the royal navy would be; 4 carriers
15 frigates
12 destroyers
10 nuke attack subs
2 helicopter carriers
4 nuclear ballistic missile subs with tomohawk capability.
numba1danman 3 months ago
@numba1danman all this would probrbaly cost the RN over a 20 year period an extra £15BN, which isnt much to ensure the pride and protection of your country.
numba1danman 3 months ago
@numba1danman There is a reason to support a 11 super carrier fleet-supremacy of the seas.
1STACCS 3 months ago