Not anti-American but the difference between these two classes of ships is the British one actually works, the San Antonio class are dismal, a US admiral remarked he'd rarther keep the previous 50 year old Austin class in service as these were more capable, i'm sure that the Yanks are in the process of sorting out the issues but still makes you smile that 21st century $1.4 billion warship is less capable than a design over half a century older lol!
The BPE-LHD of Spain - Australia is the most modern, with major capacity both of personnel and of aircraft and you prop account with skyjump with which it can operate planes STOL-VSTOL besides helicopters. IT IS WHAT EXISTS
THIS 2 ships are very nice and great,but it's shame you don't show the french ship BPC MISTRAL CLASS is great too, i think this 3 ships are the best of the world in them specialities .
@esprit83990 They are all great but what i do not understand is why the Americans do not make more automated ships. the Mistral class only need 160 to crew the ship. Comparing that to these two 325 and 350 to crew...
Maybe their are things i do not know about why these ships need more of a crew but still...
America Baby!!! The US Navy has the best ships than any other Naval in the world. At least were not the ones who have ramps on the aircraft carrier. We dont need it, n we know its not that supportive for the carrier bc the wind pushes in n it makes it slower for their carriers
@invizz0ninja Hahaha me laughing at how wrong you are, British has the best anti-air destroyers in the world, the Type 45`s, and also the Astute class sub than is the most deadly nuke sub in the world, better than any US sub.
@invizz0ninja Thats why the U.S went ape shit when the Swedish made "Gotland class submarine" maneuvered behind a carrier in war games and sunk her without so much as a blip on the escort ships. The U.S demanded that they have a look at the sub, Sweden said sure you can rent her out for a while. Diesel subs with AIP systems are far quieter then anything else in the ocean.
@invizz0ninja hey, i had to snoop your profile, and yes, YOU DO NEED RAMPS on an aircraft carrier, i dont give a fuck if you are american the jets still need something behind them to BOOST them off of the carrier, i suppose that since your american that your f18's can land on an aircraft carrier without the needed assistance of a pull line, and a hook break? you have no fucking idea what you are talking about when it comes to naval battle ships and air craft carriers..
@alexmini123 You're right, planes do need assistance to take-off from carriers. But you don't have to have ramps to do so. All US carriers use steam catapults to do that. Of course it also helps they have longer flight decks than most other countries' carriers.
Mind you that I'm not saying whether a ramp or catapult is better for take-off, but I am saying there are different methods of doing so
@invizz0ninja Take it from me, canada has one of the best air force, and im not saying that because im canadian, my whole family is an air force family, my grandfathers have all been in the royal canadian air force, and my grandpa has flown an cf-18, take it from me... you need a ramp for lift off on an aircraft carrier, and you need a pull line and hook for landing...
@rb21122b they arent nuclear powered as it isnt enconomically viable to fit nuclear powerplants to smaller ships such as the San Antonio (SanAntonio class are approx. 24900 tonnes vs Gerald R Ford class at approx 101000+ tonnes). Diesel engines provide enough power at relatively cheap installation and running costs for this class whereas nuclear power is very expensive.
the San Antonio class has the space to launch and receive 4 sea knights to the Albion classes 2. also we have 5 ships built and 5 ships in production to the Royal naives 2 ships. plus United States Marines are the absolute best at amphibious warfare.
@gringodamanx ive met plenty of Marines and Recon Marines and trust me i would MUCH rather tell it to a Royal Marine than a Recon Marine. i have alot of respect for the Royal Marines, but Recon Marines are THE best.
@jonnywormy Track record, Testimonials and history show us that the United State is -not- better than the United Kingdom at amphibious warfare, Your barking bloody mad if you think so
@1MagicAndMayhem1 HISTORY? How about the Marine Corp in the pacific in world war 2?! Thats the fuckin history of amphibious warfare or how about D-Day? Where the US encountered the 2 toughest beaches. You need to check your facts.
@jonnywormy If you ARE as stupid as you sound, then pity on you
If your going to take TWO examples out of the whole of history, Then your history must be very narrow indeed, There are hundreds of other examples dating back longer than the United States has even been around, It's a child compared to many other countries,
You are obviously a hollywood cultish with very little knowledge or experience of either, The United States was not the first nor the only army in those theaters
@1MagicAndMayhem1 you say track record then reference to before the united states even existed? Thats absurd. To say the United States is bad at amphibious assaults because other countries can also do it if a terrible way to compare countries. As far as the pacific was concerned yes the British made a short appearance but it was the majority of the pacific was the Marine Corp. They are masters of amphibious assault. Plus we actually have the manpower/technology to still do it properly.
@Vot63 nope they were actually the two most heavily defended beaches on d-day, but don't worry your welcome. your welcome for us making the germans quit bombing you and destroying your capital.
@jonnywormy It was nice of you to "give" the genocidal Stalin eleven sovereign nations as a gift after WWII. I bet they'd all like to say thank you USA, and thanks for your betrayal in Suez and the Falklands. America only fights for Israel, your country is owned, bought and paid for, you need Ron Paul to rid the temple of money lenders, but you probably vote Republican or Kenyan.
@Vot63 well as i see it stopping the most prolific genocidal leader of all time and in turn letting another one rise is not a bad trade off maybe the 6 million dead jews would like to thank the US for saving what they could of their people? Also I'm going to be voting for Perry and I have NOT voted for Obama for obvious reasons. Also you must realize there will always be evil people we can't stop them all we must at the least however keep them in check Stalin was a good example of this.
@jonnywormy Stalin and Mao were more genocidal than Hitler. Your assertions are based on factual inaccuracies, also, the genocide of the Jews was a consequence of the expansion of the war, and was never a fundamental aim of the Nazis generally, or of Hitler specifically. If Germany had been left alone to destroy Stalin, America could have had the German Jewish population. More AIPAC, more PNAC, an even bigger menorah on the White House lawn.
@Vot63 6 million Jews killed is not a factual inaccuracy but just a fact. Also Hitler did aim to eradicate the Jews because when Germany surrendered during WWI Hitler and many other veterans of the war did not feel as though they were losing and blamed it primarily on the Jews. I would like to have seen how WWI had played out if Russia had remained neutral seeing that the US military was 9 Million strong by wars end while only losing 300k men. I think it would have been a more interesting fight.
@jonnywormy Even Jewish experts don't claim that Hitler expressed an intention to physically exterminate the Jews. If the German's had unleashed the forces used in Barbarossa westward, Britain would have been beaten into submission. America would have had no viable deployment route, so it's hard to see how America could have defeated Germany. It's even less likely that Germany could have defeated America. It's a moot point because Stalin always intended to invade Europe.
@Vot63 I'm sorry but you don't just have 6 million people of a specific race sent to concentration camps and murdered in mass without having people of another race murdered in the same way and it be a mistake or just a byproduct of war. Hitler meant to kill the Jews It's not as if they were leading a resistance force and Germany and having them killed made sense Hitler had to tie down vast resources to have them shipped in from all around Europe.
@Vot63 Where on earth do you live where they would make the discussion of history illegal? That's the main reason I love the USA we may not have the best country but we do have our freedom of speech.
Nice work on the film... But, the SAN ANTONIO can carry 800 US Marines, and is less than 700 ft long, and has a 105 ft beam, with a displacement of 25,000 tons.
well, they'll be excellent news if they show up on my shores, I'll give a party for crew, I feel a bit lonely now. And they'll certainly share my waters for next "Destined Glory" exercise
i went aboard HMS Albion last October and it is rely nice and the gun on the front is amazing ho it follows aircraft when you can only see blue sky Albion for the win
@agibbs98 Are you fukin stupid or just being plain dumb? READ my comment and you will see that what you just wrote has absolutley nothing to do with what i said,I said RED FLAG IS FOR ALLIED AIRFORCES ONLY,NO ARMY,NAVY OR MARINE DETACHMENTS , UNDERSTAND ? how old are you? agibbs98 ( 1998? if so that makes you12-15depending on when you made your account and have yet to have even finished schoolif so then dont speak about stuff your not familar with,and again what year did 200 uk troops go there?
@METALLICA3077 And if you think the US only allows for fellow allied NATO countries to join in, you're wrong. Sweden and India are just some examples of countries that have joined in and are not a part of Nato.
@agibbs98Do i even know what happens,yes and most probley a lot more than you do,RED FLAG IS FOR AIRFORCES ONLY!you said 200 soldiers from the Uk went up against 200 soldiers from the Us,load of shit because there has never been any other service other than the RAF to operate over there, you say sailors also go there? what is that in the deep oceans of the nevada desert where its held?! Iv kept track on the last 6 red flag events,you wont kid me!. What year did our 200 SOLDIERS go there then?
@joneslc42 - it's so funny, that little boat. It looks they put a ramp on the front of a Florida airboat. Classic. (I will say this is no slight to the Bootys that go ashore on them; those guys are fantastic)
Lol the last people to think quality is better than quantity was germany, and you remember how that turned out....
And besides, you don't have the most advanced sub. Thats what your government tells you but its far from the truth. The same with ships. You have THREE type 45 ships and we have 47 arleigh burkes that are not only faster, but carry more weapons.
And by the way, who has the f-22? The f-22 is by far the most advanced flying thing ever created.
@andrewm153351 if you were to put 200 US soldiers against 200 British soldiers in a combat situation, without air support or any UAV's or anything, who do you think would win?
HMS Albion is better, yes the american ship may be larger, and carrys more troops and equipment, however, HMS Albion is able to deploy more troops faster, which in battle term is better.
@wiganerrmc If u say so Wuhan lol .if the rn had that kinda tonnage you'd be spouting off n saying the same thing and acctually it's just meant as trivia and here's another the USN has more officers with college degrees than the total manpower of the whole rn
@andrewm153351 hahhahahahaah lol 1559 hahaha funny u 284 u mean your onabout support vessels and that royal navy as around 1.500 with merchant navy and trhat royal navy as 139 major warships US navy as 284
like i said, overall naval units including landing craft and so forth. And no, you don't count merchant ships you fucking clown. in that case, the u.s. would be far more than 1559. And you are forgetting that all of our ships have more firepower and are much heavier than ALL of the british ships. The royal navy mostly has frigates which are useless in today's standards. We have more destroyers and CRUISERS.
The u.s. navy has more TONNAGE of ships than the next 12 largest navies COMBINED
@andrewm153351 wot the fuck dose tonnage mean lol americans always think bigger better hahahhahah royal navy type 45 destroyer can fire 48 missiles at once the US destroyers can only fire 1 every 3 sec big diffrence
An demonstration? With a silent submarine AIP or electrician I sink your splendid navy of thousands of millions of dollars. It is already demonstrated in military maneuvers
oh and according to global fire power, the uk's merchant marine strength is only 518 so you wouldn't have 1500 ships you idiot.
the royal navy has 11 destroyers while the u.s. has 50+.
We not only have 11 aircraft carriers to the royal navy's 2, but ours are literally 4x bigger. Remember, the u.s. only has 1.5x more coastline to protect, yet our navy dwarfs the royal navy
@andrewm153351 ye but britian is alot easy to protect royal navy can get any were in britian in a mtter of hours now the US navy it would take days even weeks to get round US to the over side
Its WEIGHT. So that means the u.s. has more weight in ships as well. Yes, weight means a lot. It means you can carry more firepower and armor.
Also, no, the arleigh burke destroyer can fire 1 round every 1 second, not every 3 seconds. And the type 45 destroyer is NEWER. We are getting the zumwalt destroyer that blows the type 45 out of the water.
Oh, and there are only 2 type 45 destroyers to our 57 arleigh burke destroyers
@andrewm153351 i no wot tonnage is u stupid cunt i was seying that dosent have nout do with how good a navy is it takes a 10kg missiles to sink a 100.000 tonnage carrier
hahaha you are so fucking stupid. Our aircraft carriers have FOUR engines and they can run full speed on just ONE. SO theoretically they can be hit 3 times and still function perfectly.
And you would never get a shot off at our aircraft carriers anyways.
We also have more missiles and torpedoes(by far) than any other country.
@andrewm153351 it dosent matter about engines u stupid cunt u would just blow a big hole in the side of the ship so it sinks and HMS gotland sunk 22 US navy ships in exercise and US navy couldent even find it hahahhaha and russia as more missiles than US thay have 2 times more nukes aswell
you fucking idiot. The HMS gotland never even went near a carrier battle group, it was purely against single battleships. You don't even know what you're talking about.
ANY submarine can attack ANY battleship. The gotland isn't even a nuclear sub so ours are clearly better being that they can stay underwater far longer.
And they were SIMULATED sinkings meaning that they don't even account our extensive armor and anti submarine technology. It is purely a search and find mission
@andrewm153351 HMS Gotland managed to penetrate the massive defensive measures of a carrier battle group undetected and snap several pictures of the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against modern diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lackin
@wiganerrmc Calm down guys ! for a start the Gotland is not a nuclear submarine but a new type of deisel hybrid , she was asked to participate in litoral ( coastal ) exercises with the American fleet who now only use nuclear subs. This was to evaluate missions against this type of sub that say China or Russia might sell to maybe not so friendly powers.Gotland spent two years on loan from the Swedish navy and yes she was a hard target to find but thats why they asked for the loan! Be polite guys
No no no. First of all, any submarine can sneak up on a carrier or strike group, but it has to take an OFFENSIVE position before it can truly sink anything. Just because in exercises it was able to snap a picture doesn't mean it effectively sunk it.
And i bet you there wasn't any u.s. subs in that carrier fleet either. It was purely carrier and other battleships vs a rogue sub.
And by the way, ANY sub always has an advantage over all ships, thats why the u.s. has the most nuclear subs
@andrewm153351 But if US subs can sneak up to a carrier, then Britain having the most advanced sub in the world will be able to do the same, or even better.
And sure, there will always be occasions when our ships will lose a battle. NO war has ever gone on where there were NO casualties(at least for a fair fight)
At the end of the day, the u.s. has the greatest most powerful navy in the world. And you brits and other non-Americans just HATE to hear it. And if you deny it, then you are clearly wrong and you know you're wrong.
By the way, the u.s. has always had FASTER, MORE COMPACT and LONGER RANGE missles than the soviet union.
@andrewm153351 your wrong again because it was russia wot first made a missles wot could reach US it took US a year after to make 1 ye US as the most powerful navy but thay need 1 there is alot of countrys out there wot hate US
but britian as the best trained military and most advanced warship and sub
@andrewm153351 your right... the united states navy is larger then the next 14 largest navys in the world puttogether... and 11 of these countrys are US allies... without a doubt they possess the most advanced naval technology... i bet they will have railgun capable warships operational in the next 10 years... i know they are designing the ddx warships now
@andrewm153351 well we may hate to hear that you have the most powerful navy, however remember, Britain ruled the waves once, and we still can, also are you forgetting that Britain made America. So in that sence, all of Americas victories and power is all down to Britain. so i think that we'll take the credit thank you.
@camokid01Iv just read all your comments to andrew and you are a fukin embaresment mate!its all in your user name, your a kid,who knows nothing except how to play cod and eat the meals his mummy prepares for him , seriously stop with the"were the best bullshit"i used to believe that we once was a world power but look at the fukin state of us,having to share aircraft carriers with the FRENCH, never ending cuts,were a tiny defence force,thats all
@TaylorC011 Well im glad you think that buddy , bottom fact is we are not the same country we used to be , and i fukin hate that more than anyone, my great grandfather and yours too would would be turning in there graves at the state of this multi-cultural lazy , bankrupt shit hole that we live in today , the only thing i like paying my taxes for is for the military , yet we are currently cutting it ( they say its for a leaner fighting force, BULLSHIT )and increasing oversea aid!Fuk this country
And you're wrong. The u.s. PURPOSEFULLY has less nukes because we have lowered our stockpile ON PURPOSE over the years. We have more uranium reserves than any other country so we can build more if we want.
And no, the u.s. has more land-attack, anti-ship, and anti-satellite missiles than russia AND anyone else including the puny uk.
@andrewm153351 well i do believe that if we are "puny" then why does our Royal marines have the longest and toughest basic infantry training in the world, the most advanced sub and ship in the world, and the best special forces in the world. our SAS could take down an entire country and no-one would know about it. so you think Britain is "puny" still, well i think you should look at the facts, in areas, the UK beat the US. remember its not quantity its quality, and we have quality.
At the end of the day, the u.s. is the sole military superpower of the world. Britain, russia or china does NOT rule the seas the way the u.s. does. We are basically the world's police force.
And yeah, we came from britain 300 years ago. Just like everyone in the world came from africa eventually.
@andrewm153351 ok then "world police". isnt the job of the police to keep peace (the UN's job, which is a collection of all the worlds powers) and to stop wars (America started Iraq and Afghanistan and dragged Britain and the rest of NATO into it).
yes, and we help countries that are denied by the un.
And all of this doesn't matter anyways cause the u.s. is still the strongest country in the world. Uk isn't even in the top 4. Go to global fire power . com
@andrewm153351 ok, so we may not be as strong as the Us, however Britiain has better training, you can give a soldier all the latest equipment, however everything comes down to basic training. also you may be suprised to hear, that US commanders in Afghanistan have praised British soldiers for their efforts and tactics out there. Power and equipment doesn mean everthing. take the taliban, AK47's and RPG's and still defeating NATO.
lol what in GODS name makes you think the taliban is defeating NATO? lol that has got to be the dumbest thing i've heard all week. Stop watching so much t.v. and actually do RESEARCH. For every 1 American or NATO officer killed in afghanistan, there are at least 20 insurgents killed.
Name some battles that NATO has lost in afghanistan. You won't find many.
@andrewm153351 ok then, explain why its been 9 years and the taliban are still here. im well aware of their fighting style and i know that style of fighting is hard to fight against, but surely with americas greatness and power, they would be defeated by now. after all, you are the most powerful country on earth as you say.
First of all, afghanistan is by far the hardest place to fight in the world. The mountains make it hard to maneuver anywhere. But that still doesn't mean we're not winning.
Look at it this way, We've been there for 9 years and lost a little over 1,000 soldiers.
The soviet union was there for 10 years and they lost over 14,000 soldiers.
We are there to win over the PEOPLE of afghanistan as well as fight the insurgents. You can't do that in 5 years
@andrewm153351 yeah that is true, but what im trying to say is that not ever country is perfect and arn't the most powerful at everything or have everything the best. (sorry if i cause offense) its just seems that Americans think that they are the best at war and military, yet other countrys not just Britain have better things. your only the best in terms of numbers and size. however in 5 - 10 years time we could see china being the world superpower.
No, if the us only has 1.5x more coastline, then that means it doesn't take that much longer than going around britain. And you still have to go around the whole british island you moron.
Oh, and the type 45 doesn't even carry cruise missiles like our arleigh burkes do. AND our arleigh burkes have more armor, AND ours go faster.
And did i mention the fact that we have 57 compared to britain's 2 type 45 destroyers?
hahaha
Dude, just face it, the u.s. has the most powerful navy. period.
@andrewm153351 no lol look at britian all you would need do is but warships at carndonagh Aberdeen and Penzance and you can protect all britian US is on 2 diffrent oceans North Atlantic ocean and North pacific ocean for ships to get from florida to washington it would take weeks even mouths and wots speed got to do with it even tho type 45 is 2mph faster and type 45 is a air defence destroyer but it can carry cruise missiles but thay dont need them on at the min
haha what a fucking joke. Thats why we have ships STATIONED all over the u.s. so we don't have to spend that time going from coast to coast you imbecile. And britian has the whole eglish channel and north sea to protect so stop downplaying it fool.
"even tho type 45 is 2mph faster"
HAHAHAHA the type 45 has a 29+ knot speed and our arleigh burke(which we have 57 of has a 30+ knot speed. SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
This whole UK Vs America argument that always seems to descend and fester on military videos is petty and tiresome as it's the same regurgitated, mostly ignorant, comments designed solely to annoy a certain demographic on YouTube.
It is such a waste of time sifting through comments trying to find at least one objective and intelligent remark about the video.
It's a shame too because both Classes are worth talking about for so many more reasons.
wow this game of whos country is better than who's is really getting old but tbh britain was a super power before there even was a usa and it will be tht way when usa has long passed.
hahaha BULLSHIT. First of all, britain can HARDLY be considered a superpower anymore. Your the 6th richest country in the world(do i really need to say whos #1...)
We spend more on fucking healthcare than what britian spends on military expenditures. And thats saying something....
what in gods name makes you think britain would even be standing IF the u.s. ever went away??? we're growing FASTER than britain.
@andrewm153351 I think you will find that Britain can quite comfortably stand on its own 2 feet. You are clearly an idiot as you spend twice as much as a percentage on your GDP than Britain on military and that your nation is about 5 times as large as ours, of course you spend more than us you fucking twat. You go past patriotism into clear stupidity with your words, I think if you were to ask any US personell on their thoughts about my country's troops, they'd tell you we've got top blokes.
First of all, yes, we do spend about 2x more % of our GDP on military expenditures. Thats what happens when your the guardian of free will. Thats also what happens when your in TWO major wars thousands of miles away.
And i find it funny how we only spend 2x more % of our GDP yet we have almost 10x more of an expensive military.
Oh, and the u.s. only has 1.6x more coastline than the uk yet we have 7x larger navy. So stop playing the "we're small" card.
@andrewm153351 , size of the land has little to do with it, size of the tax paying population does you arsehole, all your points are invalid because all the while you forget that its coming down to this vital point. Oh have fun when China overtakes you as world #1, luckily your government is cosying up to Europe because they realise our value, luckily you're not the president otherwise the USA with all its wonders and good people would well and truely be up shit creek
haha first of all, china has a bubble economy. Over half of its population still lives in villages. Second of all, despite china having over 4x as much people as the u.s., we still make 3x as much as them.
We still have a greater/greatEST military force this world has ever seen.
@fairman3456 U asked me to show u links on what I was saying ,so I did .there British newspapers and not rags,the reason I sent u those instead of industry ones is so u could see from ur own papers .they are general about the current state of the rn now if some are 6 or 7 years old and some are 1year old it just shows a steady decline in the funding .if u want me to go to the mod site and get a link ur dreaming cos it's full of fluff and everyone knows it ,except u lol
@fairman3456 U don't understand my point I'm saying how can u trust what a website run by politicians says .u saw recently how they are ,moat cleaning and morgages paid for by taxpayers .there is a site called defenceoftherealm which is written by one of the uk s top military experts .just take a look around on there and believe me it will open ur eyes
@andrewm153351 I know Europe isn't a country and quite frankly the people of Britain don't want it to be. It is still a joint power and the UK is still part of that. We work together so that we can compete with larger countries. remember the steel fiasco? GW Bush wanted to raise imports on European steel, so when we threatened to put higher import tax on US products the US governments plan crumbled and they gave in. Thats what the EU is about, not super armies and being a country you dick
@andrewm153351 no china 9 trillion a year us 14 trillion bye 2020 china would of took over US 3 years ago china was on around 4 trillion and over doubled in 3 years
@fairman3456 I think he was quoting personnel numbers, but don't worry about him, i think the twat has forgotten that we're on the same side, let him have his moment, it will make the disappointment so much worse in the long run
@andrewm153351 u no fuck all do u look at britian very easy to defend at sea we can get anywere around britian in about an hour now to get from florida to washington it would take weeks get there by sea and US navy is 2 times bigger not 7
@fairman3456 well firstly it was meant as trivia.so onto your numbers ,the rn facing drastic cuts is now at 86 total ships ,7 destroyers 13 frigates .according to the bbc and sky, associated press almost half have been put in mothballs or low rediness state .low rediness it says put them at about 18 months from being in active service again
@marks9591 the rn facing drastic cuts is now at 86 total ships ,7 destroyers 13 frigates
bliemy i new u was thick but blimey , the RN has got 17 frigs and 6 destroyers
as for 86 ships if ur going to post a comment at least get ur facts right the RN website says it has a total of 104 ships.
and no wonder ur infromation is so wrong reading news lool and even then THE BBC dosent say that , do u want a link from what the BBC said about THE RN that it has 104 ships
@fairman3456 well i doubt the rn website as a recruitment tool would say listen half our fleets in mothballs and weve only really got six destroyers left .also just so u know i far from thick little fella .the piece also goes on to say that the replacement for the type 22 and 23 has had to be put off now indefinatley and by most estimates they are looking to be around 2028 to 2030
@fairman3456 as of today if u wanna go reserves to the us military active is 1.472.900 reserves 1,458.500 so around 3.000,000. so i dunno if ur trying to convince yourself of your superior power and might or me but i for one read alot about the different mil.itarys around the world and i diont go to there official sites to get there spin .if you want a good one for uk forces go to defence of the realm dot com
do u even no how old the british type 23 and 22 wil be by then , VERY old thats why they need to be replaced and start coming into service by 2020 when the first lot need to go off,
as i said how is it been put off when the goverment has givien the go ahead of the desgins of them and has been brought forward to this years budget
thats why the UK is only getting 6 type 45 destroyers instead of 8 it was for this,
@fairman3456 there not being mothballed cos there old its because you cant afford to run them .lol im glad im making you laugh cos so is your manpower .the 191.ooo is active duty personel not ta or reserves lol .the reason it is that number is cos they wernt able to recruit right now uk army 109,000 rn 38.000 raf 41.000 which comes to191,000 lol
@fairman3456 ill give you the link fool .also active service is 109,000 as i said not including the ta .which are part time soldiers not full time active personel
Not anti-American but the difference between these two classes of ships is the British one actually works, the San Antonio class are dismal, a US admiral remarked he'd rarther keep the previous 50 year old Austin class in service as these were more capable, i'm sure that the Yanks are in the process of sorting out the issues but still makes you smile that 21st century $1.4 billion warship is less capable than a design over half a century older lol!
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359, That should read less reliable not less capable.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
The BPE-LHD of Spain - Australia is the most modern, with major capacity both of personnel and of aircraft and you prop account with skyjump with which it can operate planes STOL-VSTOL besides helicopters. IT IS WHAT EXISTS
VITOLLFOTOGRAFIA 1 month ago
@VITOLLFOTOGRAFIA I agree, and it only requires 250 to crew the thing.
Baseshocks 1 day ago
THIS 2 ships are very nice and great,but it's shame you don't show the french ship BPC MISTRAL CLASS is great too, i think this 3 ships are the best of the world in them specialities .
esprit83990 2 months ago
@esprit83990 They are all great but what i do not understand is why the Americans do not make more automated ships. the Mistral class only need 160 to crew the ship. Comparing that to these two 325 and 350 to crew...
Maybe their are things i do not know about why these ships need more of a crew but still...
Baseshocks 2 months ago
I live in San Antonio and I didn't even know there was a San Antonio class. Lol
minion6500 2 months ago
we all one force when it comes to fighting terror man.us navy or royal navy or french all fighting for NATO..end ex.
saylahboi 2 months ago
propaganda :D
eikkkN 4 months ago
America Baby!!! The US Navy has the best ships than any other Naval in the world. At least were not the ones who have ramps on the aircraft carrier. We dont need it, n we know its not that supportive for the carrier bc the wind pushes in n it makes it slower for their carriers
invizz0ninja 4 months ago
@invizz0ninja u realise it was the british who first used angled flight decks?
numba1danman 3 months ago
@invizz0ninja Hahaha me laughing at how wrong you are, British has the best anti-air destroyers in the world, the Type 45`s, and also the Astute class sub than is the most deadly nuke sub in the world, better than any US sub.
Elitepoosniff 2 months ago
@invizz0ninja Thats why the U.S went ape shit when the Swedish made "Gotland class submarine" maneuvered behind a carrier in war games and sunk her without so much as a blip on the escort ships. The U.S demanded that they have a look at the sub, Sweden said sure you can rent her out for a while. Diesel subs with AIP systems are far quieter then anything else in the ocean.
Baseshocks 2 months ago
@invizz0ninja hey, i had to snoop your profile, and yes, YOU DO NEED RAMPS on an aircraft carrier, i dont give a fuck if you are american the jets still need something behind them to BOOST them off of the carrier, i suppose that since your american that your f18's can land on an aircraft carrier without the needed assistance of a pull line, and a hook break? you have no fucking idea what you are talking about when it comes to naval battle ships and air craft carriers..
alexmini123 1 month ago
@alexmini123 You're right, planes do need assistance to take-off from carriers. But you don't have to have ramps to do so. All US carriers use steam catapults to do that. Of course it also helps they have longer flight decks than most other countries' carriers.
Mind you that I'm not saying whether a ramp or catapult is better for take-off, but I am saying there are different methods of doing so
GPrunner2000 1 month ago
@invizz0ninja Take it from me, canada has one of the best air force, and im not saying that because im canadian, my whole family is an air force family, my grandfathers have all been in the royal canadian air force, and my grandpa has flown an cf-18, take it from me... you need a ramp for lift off on an aircraft carrier, and you need a pull line and hook for landing...
alexmini123 1 month ago
nato!!!
88ABRAMS88 4 months ago
Albion....IT'S A GUNDAM!!!!!
Joep5465 5 months ago
Navy is mad gay yo.
Anathema1984 6 months ago
@Anathema1984 Too bad both of those ships are used by USMC and Royal Marines
BSheehan0011 6 months ago
@Anathema1984 why? do you have any idea how many women serve in the navy...........
Baseshocks 5 months ago
Clearly this video incited a bucket full of testosterone to be thrown in the air. Puberty hits hard when you're talking about warfare. Douche.
phangix 6 months ago
@rb21122b they arent nuclear powered as it isnt enconomically viable to fit nuclear powerplants to smaller ships such as the San Antonio (SanAntonio class are approx. 24900 tonnes vs Gerald R Ford class at approx 101000+ tonnes). Diesel engines provide enough power at relatively cheap installation and running costs for this class whereas nuclear power is very expensive.
pquinn448 6 months ago
Why aren't the San Antonio's nuclear-powered like our modern super carriers?
rb21122b 7 months ago
@NuclearG00se Dont forget about the SBS who many would say are the deadliest of all
pquinn448 7 months ago
@jonnywormy
1) United States is not the best at amphibious warfare, compared to the British Army for we have Royal Marine Commandos, the Gurkhas, and the SAS.
2) Albion Class carries more and better tanks.
3) Albion class carries more troops.
4) Due to the Albion's ability to carry more troops and tanks, it is better at it's role as an amphibious assault ship.
5) Learn how to spell Navy.
NuclearG00se 7 months ago
san antonio wins :D
jancens23 8 months ago
this is called NAVY!
the red alert song make me install my red alert hehe get it
zocom009 8 months ago
For God's sake. 'My Dady can beat up your daddy!' WHEN do you leave that sort of stuff behind?
WinterBornActual 8 months ago
@WinterBornActual NEVER! lol
joek0617 8 months ago
the San Antonio class has the space to launch and receive 4 sea knights to the Albion classes 2. also we have 5 ships built and 5 ships in production to the Royal naives 2 ships. plus United States Marines are the absolute best at amphibious warfare.
jonnywormy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnywormy haha, 'United States Marines are the absolute best at amphibious warfare.' are we basing that on facts or just speculating?
Mil3sIJ 9 months ago
@jonnywormy please tell that last part to a royal marine commando and watch the smirk ;)
gringodamanx 9 months ago
@gringodamanx ive met plenty of Marines and Recon Marines and trust me i would MUCH rather tell it to a Royal Marine than a Recon Marine. i have alot of respect for the Royal Marines, but Recon Marines are THE best.
jonnywormy 9 months ago
@jonnywormy Track record, Testimonials and history show us that the United State is -not- better than the United Kingdom at amphibious warfare, Your barking bloody mad if you think so
1MagicAndMayhem1 7 months ago
@1MagicAndMayhem1 HISTORY? How about the Marine Corp in the pacific in world war 2?! Thats the fuckin history of amphibious warfare or how about D-Day? Where the US encountered the 2 toughest beaches. You need to check your facts.
jonnywormy 7 months ago
@jonnywormy If you ARE as stupid as you sound, then pity on you
If your going to take TWO examples out of the whole of history, Then your history must be very narrow indeed, There are hundreds of other examples dating back longer than the United States has even been around, It's a child compared to many other countries,
You are obviously a hollywood cultish with very little knowledge or experience of either, The United States was not the first nor the only army in those theaters
1MagicAndMayhem1 7 months ago
@1MagicAndMayhem1 you say track record then reference to before the united states even existed? Thats absurd. To say the United States is bad at amphibious assaults because other countries can also do it if a terrible way to compare countries. As far as the pacific was concerned yes the British made a short appearance but it was the majority of the pacific was the Marine Corp. They are masters of amphibious assault. Plus we actually have the manpower/technology to still do it properly.
jonnywormy 7 months ago
@jonnywormy The two toughest beaches, or the two most poorly executed amphibious assaults?
Vot63 6 months ago
@Vot63 nope they were actually the two most heavily defended beaches on d-day, but don't worry your welcome. your welcome for us making the germans quit bombing you and destroying your capital.
jonnywormy 5 months ago
@jonnywormy It was nice of you to "give" the genocidal Stalin eleven sovereign nations as a gift after WWII. I bet they'd all like to say thank you USA, and thanks for your betrayal in Suez and the Falklands. America only fights for Israel, your country is owned, bought and paid for, you need Ron Paul to rid the temple of money lenders, but you probably vote Republican or Kenyan.
Vot63 5 months ago
@Vot63 well as i see it stopping the most prolific genocidal leader of all time and in turn letting another one rise is not a bad trade off maybe the 6 million dead jews would like to thank the US for saving what they could of their people? Also I'm going to be voting for Perry and I have NOT voted for Obama for obvious reasons. Also you must realize there will always be evil people we can't stop them all we must at the least however keep them in check Stalin was a good example of this.
jonnywormy 5 months ago
@jonnywormy Stalin and Mao were more genocidal than Hitler. Your assertions are based on factual inaccuracies, also, the genocide of the Jews was a consequence of the expansion of the war, and was never a fundamental aim of the Nazis generally, or of Hitler specifically. If Germany had been left alone to destroy Stalin, America could have had the German Jewish population. More AIPAC, more PNAC, an even bigger menorah on the White House lawn.
Vot63 5 months ago
@Vot63 6 million Jews killed is not a factual inaccuracy but just a fact. Also Hitler did aim to eradicate the Jews because when Germany surrendered during WWI Hitler and many other veterans of the war did not feel as though they were losing and blamed it primarily on the Jews. I would like to have seen how WWI had played out if Russia had remained neutral seeing that the US military was 9 Million strong by wars end while only losing 300k men. I think it would have been a more interesting fight.
jonnywormy 5 months ago
@jonnywormy Even Jewish experts don't claim that Hitler expressed an intention to physically exterminate the Jews. If the German's had unleashed the forces used in Barbarossa westward, Britain would have been beaten into submission. America would have had no viable deployment route, so it's hard to see how America could have defeated Germany. It's even less likely that Germany could have defeated America. It's a moot point because Stalin always intended to invade Europe.
Vot63 5 months ago
@Vot63 I'm sorry but you don't just have 6 million people of a specific race sent to concentration camps and murdered in mass without having people of another race murdered in the same way and it be a mistake or just a byproduct of war. Hitler meant to kill the Jews It's not as if they were leading a resistance force and Germany and having them killed made sense Hitler had to tie down vast resources to have them shipped in from all around Europe.
jonnywormy 5 months ago
@jonnywormy Discussion of the fate of Jewish Europeans during WWII is illegal in my country, so I cannot discuss this.
Vot63 5 months ago
@Vot63 Where on earth do you live where they would make the discussion of history illegal? That's the main reason I love the USA we may not have the best country but we do have our freedom of speech.
jonnywormy 5 months ago
@jonnywormyThe Soviet Republic of Europe! I agree, America has more freedom than any country in the world. Hold on to that freedom my friend.
Vot63 5 months ago
ALBION FTW!!!!!!!!
mwillis1000 9 months ago
Man i bet the Chinese love watching stuff like this to gather intelligence on us.
PherociousPanda 10 months ago
Nice work on the film... But, the SAN ANTONIO can carry 800 US Marines, and is less than 700 ft long, and has a 105 ft beam, with a displacement of 25,000 tons.
YN2Gauthier 1 year ago
Comment removed
YN2Gauthier 1 year ago
both are bad news if they show up on your shores. and i'm sure both will share the same waters in a joint operation in the future.
MrBubonicChronic 1 year ago
@MrBubonicChronic
well, they'll be excellent news if they show up on my shores, I'll give a party for crew, I feel a bit lonely now. And they'll certainly share my waters for next "Destined Glory" exercise
vaxiawval 1 year ago
i went aboard HMS Albion last October and it is rely nice and the gun on the front is amazing ho it follows aircraft when you can only see blue sky Albion for the win
ashley118118 1 year ago
the us ship is on a whole different level and is the cutting edge of this type of ship
marks95911 1 year ago
@marks95911 Not true. It's stealth technology doesn't work. It's a failed design.
ryanramsey 11 months ago
how can these be amphibious?
nguyentuan1990 1 year ago
@nguyentuan1990 They launch landing craft and helicopters. The ships themselves don't go on land...
BertrumPantyshield 1 year ago
Albion looks outdated in particular with regards to radar signature compared with that of the San Antonio's
ririshow 1 year ago
@ririshow, alboion was onlly launched in 2003 and bulwark 2004
citizenerased1992 11 months ago
If nelson commanded the british one, i think it would be better. JK The american ship looks a beast god bless our navies!
DodgyIdeot 1 year ago
agibbs98, the guy has METALLICA in his name, what did you expect?
kitchenaut 1 year ago
RA2 ftw :D
unnoon 1 year ago
@agibbs98 Are you fukin stupid or just being plain dumb? READ my comment and you will see that what you just wrote has absolutley nothing to do with what i said,I said RED FLAG IS FOR ALLIED AIRFORCES ONLY,NO ARMY,NAVY OR MARINE DETACHMENTS , UNDERSTAND ? how old are you? agibbs98 ( 1998? if so that makes you12-15depending on when you made your account and have yet to have even finished schoolif so then dont speak about stuff your not familar with,and again what year did 200 uk troops go there?
METALLICA3077 1 year ago
@METALLICA3077 And if you think the US only allows for fellow allied NATO countries to join in, you're wrong. Sweden and India are just some examples of countries that have joined in and are not a part of Nato.
wellerocks 1 year ago
@agibbs98Do i even know what happens,yes and most probley a lot more than you do,RED FLAG IS FOR AIRFORCES ONLY!you said 200 soldiers from the Uk went up against 200 soldiers from the Us,load of shit because there has never been any other service other than the RAF to operate over there, you say sailors also go there? what is that in the deep oceans of the nevada desert where its held?! Iv kept track on the last 6 red flag events,you wont kid me!. What year did our 200 SOLDIERS go there then?
METALLICA3077 1 year ago
i went on HMS Albion and what a ship she is we went out and did live firing with 2 other ships thanks to rn recognised sea scouts and the royal navy
ashley118118 1 year ago
@agibbs98 Red Flag is a co-operative military exercise for NATO allied airforces, cut the crap mate please
METALLICA3077 1 year ago
@RAG1994 Frank Klepacki - Hell March
KC253 1 year ago
i think the american one looks pretty-er
OnionPhobia 1 year ago
I wonder where the Limeys go the idea to make an amphibious ship that balasts down from? Ohhhh, right... their former subjects. That's got to sting!
122756ABC 1 year ago
ok i'll admit that the yanks ship can hold more equipment, veichals and helicopters
lairyboy101 1 year ago
You call that a hovercraft It can fit on my LCAC. You might want to read a little more on the specs of the US NAVY LCAC, you are just a little off.
joneslc42 1 year ago
@joneslc42 - it's so funny, that little boat. It looks they put a ramp on the front of a Florida airboat. Classic. (I will say this is no slight to the Bootys that go ashore on them; those guys are fantastic)
122756ABC 1 year ago
Comment removed
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
Lol the last people to think quality is better than quantity was germany, and you remember how that turned out....
And besides, you don't have the most advanced sub. Thats what your government tells you but its far from the truth. The same with ships. You have THREE type 45 ships and we have 47 arleigh burkes that are not only faster, but carry more weapons.
And by the way, who has the f-22? The f-22 is by far the most advanced flying thing ever created.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 if you were to put 200 US soldiers against 200 British soldiers in a combat situation, without air support or any UAV's or anything, who do you think would win?
stuart556 1 year ago
HMS Albion is better, yes the american ship may be larger, and carrys more troops and equipment, however, HMS Albion is able to deploy more troops faster, which in battle term is better.
camokid01 1 year ago
Take it easy lads their both on the same side and both are great ships
pquinn448 1 year ago
i think albion Class wins bye miles because its the royal navy abd there are royal marines on it
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc If u say so Wuhan lol .if the rn had that kinda tonnage you'd be spouting off n saying the same thing and acctually it's just meant as trivia and here's another the USN has more officers with college degrees than the total manpower of the whole rn
marks9591 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc yes u are but when u get them they are retiring the type 42 but until then they gotta figure out how to get that missile system working
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591 the sea viper is working but not sure if thay have tested it yet
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
haha we are both wrong. The u.s. navy is actually 11x bigger than the british navy.
The british navy has 139 total naval units, and the u.s. navy has 1559 total naval units
This source counts ALL ships, including small landing craft and so forth.
globalfirepower. com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America
(remove the space before com)
haha you can't get to anywhere in england in an hour you dipshit, you still have to go around the whole island
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 hahhahahahaah lol 1559 hahaha funny u 284 u mean your onabout support vessels and that royal navy as around 1.500 with merchant navy and trhat royal navy as 139 major warships US navy as 284
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
like i said, overall naval units including landing craft and so forth. And no, you don't count merchant ships you fucking clown. in that case, the u.s. would be far more than 1559. And you are forgetting that all of our ships have more firepower and are much heavier than ALL of the british ships. The royal navy mostly has frigates which are useless in today's standards. We have more destroyers and CRUISERS.
The u.s. navy has more TONNAGE of ships than the next 12 largest navies COMBINED
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 wot the fuck dose tonnage mean lol americans always think bigger better hahahhahah royal navy type 45 destroyer can fire 48 missiles at once the US destroyers can only fire 1 every 3 sec big diffrence
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@andrewm153351
And at the end, to finish as in Vietnam...
An demonstration? With a silent submarine AIP or electrician I sink your splendid navy of thousands of millions of dollars. It is already demonstrated in military maneuvers
LordBuntaro 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
oh and according to global fire power, the uk's merchant marine strength is only 518 so you wouldn't have 1500 ships you idiot.
the royal navy has 11 destroyers while the u.s. has 50+.
We not only have 11 aircraft carriers to the royal navy's 2, but ours are literally 4x bigger. Remember, the u.s. only has 1.5x more coastline to protect, yet our navy dwarfs the royal navy
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 ye but britian is alot easy to protect royal navy can get any were in britian in a mtter of hours now the US navy it would take days even weeks to get round US to the over side
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
wow you don't even know what TONNAGE is??? LOLOL.
Its WEIGHT. So that means the u.s. has more weight in ships as well. Yes, weight means a lot. It means you can carry more firepower and armor.
Also, no, the arleigh burke destroyer can fire 1 round every 1 second, not every 3 seconds. And the type 45 destroyer is NEWER. We are getting the zumwalt destroyer that blows the type 45 out of the water.
Oh, and there are only 2 type 45 destroyers to our 57 arleigh burke destroyers
BIG DIFFERENCE
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 i no wot tonnage is u stupid cunt i was seying that dosent have nout do with how good a navy is it takes a 10kg missiles to sink a 100.000 tonnage carrier
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
hahaha you are so fucking stupid. Our aircraft carriers have FOUR engines and they can run full speed on just ONE. SO theoretically they can be hit 3 times and still function perfectly.
And you would never get a shot off at our aircraft carriers anyways.
We also have more missiles and torpedoes(by far) than any other country.
And you brits buy the tomahawk missile from US
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 it dosent matter about engines u stupid cunt u would just blow a big hole in the side of the ship so it sinks and HMS gotland sunk 22 US navy ships in exercise and US navy couldent even find it hahahhaha and russia as more missiles than US thay have 2 times more nukes aswell
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
you fucking idiot. The HMS gotland never even went near a carrier battle group, it was purely against single battleships. You don't even know what you're talking about.
ANY submarine can attack ANY battleship. The gotland isn't even a nuclear sub so ours are clearly better being that they can stay underwater far longer.
And they were SIMULATED sinkings meaning that they don't even account our extensive armor and anti submarine technology. It is purely a search and find mission
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 HMS Gotland managed to penetrate the massive defensive measures of a carrier battle group undetected and snap several pictures of the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against modern diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lackin
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc Calm down guys ! for a start the Gotland is not a nuclear submarine but a new type of deisel hybrid , she was asked to participate in litoral ( coastal ) exercises with the American fleet who now only use nuclear subs. This was to evaluate missions against this type of sub that say China or Russia might sell to maybe not so friendly powers.Gotland spent two years on loan from the Swedish navy and yes she was a hard target to find but thats why they asked for the loan! Be polite guys
thriftygit 1 year ago
No no no. First of all, any submarine can sneak up on a carrier or strike group, but it has to take an OFFENSIVE position before it can truly sink anything. Just because in exercises it was able to snap a picture doesn't mean it effectively sunk it.
And i bet you there wasn't any u.s. subs in that carrier fleet either. It was purely carrier and other battleships vs a rogue sub.
And by the way, ANY sub always has an advantage over all ships, thats why the u.s. has the most nuclear subs
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 and yes there was subs in the battle fleet it was united states pacific fleet which as about 10 subs in it
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 But if US subs can sneak up to a carrier, then Britain having the most advanced sub in the world will be able to do the same, or even better.
camokid01 1 year ago
And sure, there will always be occasions when our ships will lose a battle. NO war has ever gone on where there were NO casualties(at least for a fair fight)
At the end of the day, the u.s. has the greatest most powerful navy in the world. And you brits and other non-Americans just HATE to hear it. And if you deny it, then you are clearly wrong and you know you're wrong.
By the way, the u.s. has always had FASTER, MORE COMPACT and LONGER RANGE missles than the soviet union.
watch?v=8d2ehahN880
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 your wrong again because it was russia wot first made a missles wot could reach US it took US a year after to make 1 ye US as the most powerful navy but thay need 1 there is alot of countrys out there wot hate US
but britian as the best trained military and most advanced warship and sub
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 your right... the united states navy is larger then the next 14 largest navys in the world puttogether... and 11 of these countrys are US allies... without a doubt they possess the most advanced naval technology... i bet they will have railgun capable warships operational in the next 10 years... i know they are designing the ddx warships now
101andrewj 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 well we may hate to hear that you have the most powerful navy, however remember, Britain ruled the waves once, and we still can, also are you forgetting that Britain made America. So in that sence, all of Americas victories and power is all down to Britain. so i think that we'll take the credit thank you.
camokid01 1 year ago
@camokid01Iv just read all your comments to andrew and you are a fukin embaresment mate!its all in your user name, your a kid,who knows nothing except how to play cod and eat the meals his mummy prepares for him , seriously stop with the"were the best bullshit"i used to believe that we once was a world power but look at the fukin state of us,having to share aircraft carriers with the FRENCH, never ending cuts,were a tiny defence force,thats all
and im british so dnt bother calling me a "yank"
METALLICA3077 1 year ago
@METALLICA3077 ok 1) that account wasold and made when i was kid, 2) i dont play on COD. 3) that comment i made before the SDSR, so things change.
also i wouldn't call an american a "yank" because i regard it as offensie towards them.
TaylorC011 1 year ago
@TaylorC011 Well im glad you think that buddy , bottom fact is we are not the same country we used to be , and i fukin hate that more than anyone, my great grandfather and yours too would would be turning in there graves at the state of this multi-cultural lazy , bankrupt shit hole that we live in today , the only thing i like paying my taxes for is for the military , yet we are currently cutting it ( they say its for a leaner fighting force, BULLSHIT )and increasing oversea aid!Fuk this country
METALLICA3077 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And you're wrong. The u.s. PURPOSEFULLY has less nukes because we have lowered our stockpile ON PURPOSE over the years. We have more uranium reserves than any other country so we can build more if we want.
And no, the u.s. has more land-attack, anti-ship, and anti-satellite missiles than russia AND anyone else including the puny uk.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 hahahah no russia as aways had more nukes and bigger 1s aswell
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 well i do believe that if we are "puny" then why does our Royal marines have the longest and toughest basic infantry training in the world, the most advanced sub and ship in the world, and the best special forces in the world. our SAS could take down an entire country and no-one would know about it. so you think Britain is "puny" still, well i think you should look at the facts, in areas, the UK beat the US. remember its not quantity its quality, and we have quality.
camokid01 1 year ago
@camokid01
At the end of the day, the u.s. is the sole military superpower of the world. Britain, russia or china does NOT rule the seas the way the u.s. does. We are basically the world's police force.
And yeah, we came from britain 300 years ago. Just like everyone in the world came from africa eventually.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 ok then "world police". isnt the job of the police to keep peace (the UN's job, which is a collection of all the worlds powers) and to stop wars (America started Iraq and Afghanistan and dragged Britain and the rest of NATO into it).
camokid01 1 year ago
@camokid01
yes, and we help countries that are denied by the un.
And all of this doesn't matter anyways cause the u.s. is still the strongest country in the world. Uk isn't even in the top 4. Go to global fire power . com
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 ok, so we may not be as strong as the Us, however Britiain has better training, you can give a soldier all the latest equipment, however everything comes down to basic training. also you may be suprised to hear, that US commanders in Afghanistan have praised British soldiers for their efforts and tactics out there. Power and equipment doesn mean everthing. take the taliban, AK47's and RPG's and still defeating NATO.
camokid01 1 year ago
@camokid01
lol what in GODS name makes you think the taliban is defeating NATO? lol that has got to be the dumbest thing i've heard all week. Stop watching so much t.v. and actually do RESEARCH. For every 1 American or NATO officer killed in afghanistan, there are at least 20 insurgents killed.
Name some battles that NATO has lost in afghanistan. You won't find many.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 ok then, explain why its been 9 years and the taliban are still here. im well aware of their fighting style and i know that style of fighting is hard to fight against, but surely with americas greatness and power, they would be defeated by now. after all, you are the most powerful country on earth as you say.
camokid01 1 year ago
@camokid01
First of all, afghanistan is by far the hardest place to fight in the world. The mountains make it hard to maneuver anywhere. But that still doesn't mean we're not winning.
Look at it this way, We've been there for 9 years and lost a little over 1,000 soldiers.
The soviet union was there for 10 years and they lost over 14,000 soldiers.
We are there to win over the PEOPLE of afghanistan as well as fight the insurgents. You can't do that in 5 years
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 yeah that is true, but what im trying to say is that not ever country is perfect and arn't the most powerful at everything or have everything the best. (sorry if i cause offense) its just seems that Americans think that they are the best at war and military, yet other countrys not just Britain have better things. your only the best in terms of numbers and size. however in 5 - 10 years time we could see china being the world superpower.
camokid01 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 well said. i wish i could make an argument as good as you
Magnedudewon2 1 year ago
@camokid01 - because they're human cockroaches. They are very hard to eradicate. But we have sure killed a lot of them trying.
122756ABC 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 'We are basically the world's police force.' - well I must say you're doing a sterling job of keeping the crimerate down my good chap.
maureenOWW 1 year ago
No, if the us only has 1.5x more coastline, then that means it doesn't take that much longer than going around britain. And you still have to go around the whole british island you moron.
Oh, and the type 45 doesn't even carry cruise missiles like our arleigh burkes do. AND our arleigh burkes have more armor, AND ours go faster.
And did i mention the fact that we have 57 compared to britain's 2 type 45 destroyers?
hahaha
Dude, just face it, the u.s. has the most powerful navy. period.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 no lol look at britian all you would need do is but warships at carndonagh Aberdeen and Penzance and you can protect all britian US is on 2 diffrent oceans North Atlantic ocean and North pacific ocean for ships to get from florida to washington it would take weeks even mouths and wots speed got to do with it even tho type 45 is 2mph faster and type 45 is a air defence destroyer but it can carry cruise missiles but thay dont need them on at the min
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
haha what a fucking joke. Thats why we have ships STATIONED all over the u.s. so we don't have to spend that time going from coast to coast you imbecile. And britian has the whole eglish channel and north sea to protect so stop downplaying it fool.
"even tho type 45 is 2mph faster"
HAHAHAHA the type 45 has a 29+ knot speed and our arleigh burke(which we have 57 of has a 30+ knot speed. SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
andrewm153351 1 year ago
HMS Albion is a great ship.. Long may she rule the waves.. :)
BasicModelling 1 year ago
This whole UK Vs America argument that always seems to descend and fester on military videos is petty and tiresome as it's the same regurgitated, mostly ignorant, comments designed solely to annoy a certain demographic on YouTube.
It is such a waste of time sifting through comments trying to find at least one objective and intelligent remark about the video.
It's a shame too because both Classes are worth talking about for so many more reasons.
TrenchMonkey31 1 year ago
haha thats sad. The san antonio class is faster AND bigger than the albion class. And we have 5 san antonios and the uk has 2 albions
andrewm153351 1 year ago
but you have a pop of 350 and we 60 so our 2 is better than your 5 : D
TotalWarLord 1 year ago
@TotalWarLord
no we have a population of 308 million you idiot. And britain has 62 million. You see, you idiots are always rounding down in your favor....
And by the way, we are going to have 12 san antonios total. while britian will have 2 albions.
AND ours weight more, AND they are faster....
andrewm153351 1 year ago
wow this game of whos country is better than who's is really getting old but tbh britain was a super power before there even was a usa and it will be tht way when usa has long passed.
TotalWarLord 1 year ago
@TotalWarLord
hahaha BULLSHIT. First of all, britain can HARDLY be considered a superpower anymore. Your the 6th richest country in the world(do i really need to say whos #1...)
We spend more on fucking healthcare than what britian spends on military expenditures. And thats saying something....
what in gods name makes you think britain would even be standing IF the u.s. ever went away??? we're growing FASTER than britain.
your theories are laughable.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 I think you will find that Britain can quite comfortably stand on its own 2 feet. You are clearly an idiot as you spend twice as much as a percentage on your GDP than Britain on military and that your nation is about 5 times as large as ours, of course you spend more than us you fucking twat. You go past patriotism into clear stupidity with your words, I think if you were to ask any US personell on their thoughts about my country's troops, they'd tell you we've got top blokes.
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@14th20thKRHkickass
First of all, yes, we do spend about 2x more % of our GDP on military expenditures. Thats what happens when your the guardian of free will. Thats also what happens when your in TWO major wars thousands of miles away.
And i find it funny how we only spend 2x more % of our GDP yet we have almost 10x more of an expensive military.
Oh, and the u.s. only has 1.6x more coastline than the uk yet we have 7x larger navy. So stop playing the "we're small" card.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 , size of the land has little to do with it, size of the tax paying population does you arsehole, all your points are invalid because all the while you forget that its coming down to this vital point. Oh have fun when China overtakes you as world #1, luckily your government is cosying up to Europe because they realise our value, luckily you're not the president otherwise the USA with all its wonders and good people would well and truely be up shit creek
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@14th20thKRHkickass
haha first of all, china has a bubble economy. Over half of its population still lives in villages. Second of all, despite china having over 4x as much people as the u.s., we still make 3x as much as them.
We still have a greater/greatEST military force this world has ever seen.
Again, europe isn't a country.
andrewm153351 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 Again, europe isn't a country
thank god the like of britian will never do that ,
even if france wants to have a EU as a nation like germany wants to
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 U asked me to show u links on what I was saying ,so I did .there British newspapers and not rags,the reason I sent u those instead of industry ones is so u could see from ur own papers .they are general about the current state of the rn now if some are 6 or 7 years old and some are 1year old it just shows a steady decline in the funding .if u want me to go to the mod site and get a link ur dreaming cos it's full of fluff and everyone knows it ,except u lol
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591 mod site and get a link ur dreaming cos it's full of fluff and everyone knows it
let me educate u for once here and send u the links
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 U don't understand my point I'm saying how can u trust what a website run by politicians says .u saw recently how they are ,moat cleaning and morgages paid for by taxpayers .there is a site called defenceoftherealm which is written by one of the uk s top military experts .just take a look around on there and believe me it will open ur eyes
marks9591 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 I know Europe isn't a country and quite frankly the people of Britain don't want it to be. It is still a joint power and the UK is still part of that. We work together so that we can compete with larger countries. remember the steel fiasco? GW Bush wanted to raise imports on European steel, so when we threatened to put higher import tax on US products the US governments plan crumbled and they gave in. Thats what the EU is about, not super armies and being a country you dick
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 no china 9 trillion a year us 14 trillion bye 2020 china would of took over US 3 years ago china was on around 4 trillion and over doubled in 3 years
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 uk yet we have 7x larger navy.
dont no where u get that from seeing as the usa navy as of 2010 has 293 ships in service and the UK has 114 ships
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 I think he was quoting personnel numbers, but don't worry about him, i think the twat has forgotten that we're on the same side, let him have his moment, it will make the disappointment so much worse in the long run
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 US spend more on military but still there no were near as good as are troops in training
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wiganerrmc acctually the usn has the same tonnage as the 17 next biggest navys combined
marks9591 1 year ago
@andrewm153351 u no fuck all do u look at britian very easy to defend at sea we can get anywere around britian in about an hour now to get from florida to washington it would take weeks get there by sea and US navy is 2 times bigger not 7
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc acctually the us navy has the same tonnage as the next 17 biggest navys combined
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591 and ur point is tonnage means nothing , the only reason it is that , is cus it has 11 carriers around 100,000 tons
the usa navy ships is only 282 in service and thats not alot really when u think the likes of UK 114 ships russia over 150 france 104 etc
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 well firstly it was meant as trivia.so onto your numbers ,the rn facing drastic cuts is now at 86 total ships ,7 destroyers 13 frigates .according to the bbc and sky, associated press almost half have been put in mothballs or low rediness state .low rediness it says put them at about 18 months from being in active service again
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591 the rn facing drastic cuts is now at 86 total ships ,7 destroyers 13 frigates
bliemy i new u was thick but blimey , the RN has got 17 frigs and 6 destroyers
as for 86 ships if ur going to post a comment at least get ur facts right the RN website says it has a total of 104 ships.
and no wonder ur infromation is so wrong reading news lool and even then THE BBC dosent say that , do u want a link from what the BBC said about THE RN that it has 104 ships
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 well i doubt the rn website as a recruitment tool would say listen half our fleets in mothballs and weve only really got six destroyers left .also just so u know i far from thick little fella .the piece also goes on to say that the replacement for the type 22 and 23 has had to be put off now indefinatley and by most estimates they are looking to be around 2028 to 2030
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591 only really got six destroyers left .also just so u know i far from thick little fella
right so u saying the british have 13 frigs and 7 destroyers and the fundings has been cancelled on the type 26 thats not being thick?
man u are thick , i would rather look at a RN website and the MOD than some NEWSPAPER. has had to be put off now indefinatley
see ur not being thick? is that why the goverment has giving the go ahead for the desgins of them is it lol what afool
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 as of today if u wanna go reserves to the us military active is 1.472.900 reserves 1,458.500 so around 3.000,000. so i dunno if ur trying to convince yourself of your superior power and might or me but i for one read alot about the different mil.itarys around the world and i diont go to there official sites to get there spin .if you want a good one for uk forces go to defence of the realm dot com
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591
whos talking about the usa milaity reseves why are u even bringing that up
i was simpley correct that its not 191,000
so god knows why ur bringing up the usa in numbers
e read alot about the different mil.itarys around the world
that made me laugh not very well if ur read BBC NEWS OR SJKY OR NEWS LOOL
AND EVEN then u still get the numbers wrong and STILL cant provide a link looool
fairman3456 1 year ago
@marks9591 nd i diont go to there official sites to get there spin
well its more relibale than reading newspapers haaaa loool
and still NO LINK
they put the figrues on the armed forces website for a reason u no
god
fairman3456 1 year ago
@marks9591 m be around 2028 to 2030
do u even no how old the british type 23 and 22 wil be by then , VERY old thats why they need to be replaced and start coming into service by 2020 when the first lot need to go off,
as i said how is it been put off when the goverment has givien the go ahead of the desgins of them and has been brought forward to this years budget
thats why the UK is only getting 6 type 45 destroyers instead of 8 it was for this,
newspapers reading again lol
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 there not being mothballed cos there old its because you cant afford to run them .lol im glad im making you laugh cos so is your manpower .the 191.ooo is active duty personel not ta or reserves lol .the reason it is that number is cos they wernt able to recruit right now uk army 109,000 rn 38.000 raf 41.000 which comes to191,000 lol
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591 there not being mothballed cos there old its because you cant afford to run them
lool well its funny the MOD and theRN dosent say that , and its funny u say that it costs a type 23 frig 11 million running cost , thats not alot
and where is the LINK lool there ant non,
the UK army is 109,000 LOOOOL CHECK THE BRITISH ARMY website loolf uck me what a joke u are haa so funny the british army is 150,000,
and the TA IS PART OF THE army u retard
fairman3456 1 year ago
@fairman3456 ill give you the link fool .also active service is 109,000 as i said not including the ta .which are part time soldiers not full time active personel
marks9591 1 year ago
@marks9591
where that link for 13 frigs and 7 destroyers and the rest being mothballed
then
fairman3456 1 year ago
@marks9591 where this source of newspapers ur making me laugh i want to see this
fairman3456 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marks9591 so a little more trivia the active uk forces army,rn,raf currently stand at around 194,00
that made me laugh so hard looooool are u being thick as a joke or?
cus ur wrong AGAIN , i think u better not even talk ur making ur slef looks o silly
THE british army is 152,000 as of 2010 alone!! the total manpower of the RAF RN british army and the TA IS 578,000 men
u want the link from the MOD website loool
fairman3456 1 year ago