@BMWM3GTRLOVER , nop Britain was part of the Horizont project and then leave it, the Type 45 is the British copy of the Horizont programm, BAE didn't even know how to build stealth ship's until french DCNS teach them. i think BAE leave because each partner wanted a different radar but not sure about this.
The UK had sought to procure the ships in collaboration with seven other NATO nations under the NFR-90 project which later collapsed. The UK then joined France and Italy in the Horizon CNGF programme; however, differing national requirements, workshare arguments and delays led to the UK withdrawing on 26 April 1999 and starting its own national project....
Same History with our common programm of aircraft carriers....
@WelcomeToAss sorry but i don't think the uploader thought they were as advanced as these ones. i like a lot of russian ships if that gives any comfort
An appeal to every member of the US/UK/EU Security Forces, without whom we are truly lost. Are you aware that your efforts are being directed by an Alien Lifeform which has infiltrated and commands the highest levels of government throughout the world. They are taking control through your efforts. The humans they control are misguided at best, the Aliens themselves are ruthless and, if unchecked, will kill all of us. You are being used; you are their teeth and we need you to be ours.
we have defeated 7 nation in Gallipoli and defeated the most powerfull naval force too.no nation has entered and won battles as many as us in men kind history.We are Turks.we can be defeated but cannot be destroyed.wait us we are comig to rule the world for second time.this is silence before storm.wait us!!!
@Schaneification and you do know your wrong? The European Union's combined naval force consists of over 600 commissioned warships, this number does not include auxiliary, survey or support ships. The European Union possesses 6 aircraft carriers, Britain are also building 2 New QE Class and Other countrys are either building or planning to build more. countrys which include France,Spain,Italy and I Believe Germany. Need 2 post another coz running out of characters :P
@Trig0r actually,we barely got shit help in the Pacific during World War 2.did you notice how before december 7th,1941, france had been defeated,europe was crumbling,russia was on it's knees,and britain was by itself? looks to me like you should ask how many world wars the allies have won without Americas help.or better yet, how bad were the allies getting thier tails whooped WITHOUT american help? uff said :]
@LetsPlayTrollBattle You had help from the Royal Navy in the pacific....while the Royal Navy was battling the Italians and Germans in the Med and Atlantic Ocean and won.
America done fuck all in WWI YOUR TROOPS WERE POORLY TRAINED AND HALF OF THEM ARRIVED WITH OUT HELMETS SO THE BRITS ISSUED YOUR SOLDIERS THEM..YOU WAS WERE ONLY WWI FOR 8 MONTHS. The Brits and French were the the ones defeated the Germans,.
@LetsPlayTrollBattle lol granted you helped, but dont get it twisted up. Britain totally nailed the luffwaffe and his navy in the battle of britain. France and everyone else rolled over like dogs after a treat.You forget that we meaning the UK, was on our own 4yrs before you even got involved. Fucked them up, took out their biggest war fleet, held the western front and when we did faulter, still inflicted huge damage and still didnt get owned. sooo, yeah your NUMBERS helped. You lost alot of men
@LetsPlayTrollBattle yes obviously the British, the Australians, Canadians, eventually the soviets and other commonwealth countries did nothing in the Pacific at all fool. WW1 was won by a British naval blockade starving the Germans out of resources and food and America needed Britain just as much to defeat Germany in WW2, ever read a history book? look at D-Day and which armies took on the SS panzer divisions while the USA took on the regular German army, that's right it was Britain and Canada.
@Reverbful you sir are rite about america needing britian they helped with the launches let us use there country to launch from helped quite alot in ww2 with not only man power but inteligiance.
with that being said without america stepping into ww2 the uk would have fallen to the germans dont beleive me? looking up the churchhill letters he doesnt just say a few times he says 49 times that without america the uk would have fallen.
@with33 Churchill was a great man, but he was just one man, and not even a military one at that. So he could say a thousand times that without America the UK would have fallen, but it would not necessarily make it true.
In fact, the Russians beat us to Berlin, so it is entirely possible that the Russians would have defeated Germany even if we had not got involved at all.
@ScabeiathraxUK again read the churchill letter he doesnt just say he thinks it he clearly states that all his generals are telling him britian will fall within a month if america does not enter the war to help them.
and took russia a ear and a half more then what anyone who knows shit about ww2 would tell you it would of taken uk to fall now with the uk out of the way germany could of put all of its forces on the eastern fronts and who knows what could of happened.
@with33 Within a month? From not invaded at all, to conquered? That's obviously BS.
The Germans had no good plan of attack, they'd been trying for five years, and had not captured a single inch of our soil. We had repelled their airforce, their navy and decoded their transmissions. We had radar, they did not.
Our military was still strong enough in the last year of WW2, to be a big part of D-Day and the ensuing battles.
@ScabeiathraxUK 2 things one they had destroyed britians means to defend themselves they were breaking them down peice by peice for when they invaded again read the letters.
@with33 1) You said "2 things" and then only listed one.
2) The letters were nothing but the opinions of men, who could have been ill-informed, compared to us with our vasty information regarding the eastern front. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.
3) How were our means of defending ourselves destroyed? We still had a fully functioning air force, we still had our AA guns, radar, our navy and even if they landed on our shores, our army. All they destroyed was civilian buildings.
@ScabeiathraxUK you just called your countries generals during ww2 imcpmpitent then said that you would of been able to fight off the germans lol?
anyways they were destroying your airfields you had 3 large ones left out of the 74 you had before you were being starved to death by german sub blockade and you were not able to produce enough weapons to keep on fighting.
and you should probly look up what the germans destroyed you seem to not understand.
@ScabeiathraxUK you called your generals men who were ill informed ie incompitent.....
second america was 57% of your food suply in 1941 sooo again just proving my point.
and as i said before im not saying the uk didnt do anything if it wasnt for the uk we wouldnt have been able to beat the germans or atleast not beat them within the timeline we did it would of taken alot longer if at all.
my point is the uk would have fallen without america,america saved the uk and themselves.
@with33 If you think Ill-informed and incompetant mean the same thing, you need a dictionary.
Like I told the other guy, world wars involve allies helping each other. If America had been getting the bombing the UK was getting, you'd have needed just as much help as we did.
And I dispute your point, still, there is good reason to think that the Russians could have still won the war, in which case, they would've saved us. I call it a 55/45 split, between Russia and America, saviourwise.
@ScabeiathraxUK you are saying that the genrals whch entire job is to lead your forces and fight a war didnt know what they were doing because there job is tobe informed ie you are saying they were incomptent.
and idk why you hate america so much i mean 55-45 russian 55 im assuming because you said russia first i mean common get your head out your ass they gave you little no none suplies they didnt fight over your skies i mean common dude.
@with33 Seriously... A general's job is not to know *everything*. If a general is ill-informed about a war that has little to do with them, half way across the globe, that doesn't mean they're incompetant. It means they're ill-informed. Stop trying to link the two, they are not the same thing.
You didn't fight over our skies either. The battle of britain was fought by us, and us alone.
Russia got to Berlin before the allied forces. Enough said. No hate for America needed to see that.
@ScabeiathraxUK didnt know outside there houses was half a world away.
russia didnt start to push the germans until america entered the war and after d day when germans started to pull there forces off the eastern front to fight on the western.
america was sending pilots over the the uk before we even entered the war to help fight over the uk so again.
honestly kid you are stupid you are ignorant just accept the facts and fuck off....
@with33 You are being deliberately obstinate. I wasn't aware the British general's houses were in Stalingrad.
The germans didn't pull forces from the Eastern front to fight the Western one, the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the war on the Eastern front, and that was in 1942, two years before D-Day.
Until you entered the war you sent nothing but supplies, otherwise, you'd be in the war.
If I'm ignorant, why are you imagining false "facts" to argue? You are simply lying.
@ScabeiathraxUK i have no doubt in what you are saying is 98% correct and yes the defeat of the german 6th army in stalingrad was a massive turning point in world war 2 however the SS Leibstandarte was pulled off the eastern front to refit and then concentrated on the western front ! good comment though well done !
@buchanjay I was not aware of the movement of the SS Leibstandarte, thank you for informing me. When were they moved? Do you know if it was before or after the Battle of Stalingrad?
@ScabeiathraxUK and dont forget germany was not far off from a nuke they were closer to anyone during ww2 if they would of been able to last a year maybe 2 more ww2 could of gone alot different.
@with33 There is a distinct possibility that Churchill and his generals did not know how badly the war was going for the Germans on the Eastern front. The Russians would've beaten them without our help. Within a year, the Russians pushed them all the way back to Berlin, the likelyhood that they could've provided any meaningful resistance while attempting to conquer the UK, and then redirect forces is near enough to nil. Once they landed on our soil, we would've fought harder, not weaker.
@ScabeiathraxUK. Russia was only kept in the war in 1942 by substantial aid in terms of strategic raw materials and tanks, warplanes,trucks and so on from Britain and America.Much of the military equipment used by the Russians in the initial defence of Stalingrad came from this source, without which they could well have been overwhelmed.
@mr9396 In world wars, countries get aid from their allies. So what?
If America had been under the same heat Russia was, you'd have required just as much bailing out as the Russians did, because whoever you would've been fighting would've had the support of all their allies.
It's how world wars work. Germany would've been steamrolled, if they didn't have the support of most of Europe.
@ScabeiathraxUK: Churchill was in fact a military man; he served in the Army in his younger days. Not that I think he was the greatest strategist ever, but he did have a military background.
@blertdrax He was the First Sea Lord during the First World War but he was sacked for making a mistake and so he enlisted into the British Army and went to the Front Line straight away which is why he was such a good PM, during war time.
@Schaneification i'm starting to think you're crazy :O United States specifically encouraged NATO (and EU) to expand thier Navies.US has the biggest Navy in the world but compared to the entire EU?not by a long shot.
@Schaneification. You know that you live in a country where you can spend billions on weapons thinking you are under threat, and yet many of your citizens are living in third world poverty. Obesisty and debt have rocketed, and what you want is a war with Europe. Well thats just spiteful, considering many European countries have come to help to in Iraq and Afganistan, and lost hundreds of soldiers, in your war. Charming person you are.
@mr9396 Its not "our" war, if I remember correctly European countrys have also been terror bombed. So just because we took the first step in fighting back does not make it "our" war. Terrorism is an evil that needs to be stopped.
I'm not an america's fan but the Zumwalt class is the most powerful ship on the seven sea's , the one ho's made this video is a fake , Type 45 is equal to an Horizont no more no less...
I wonder why this video has loads of dislikes, then I realise it's because one of our ships is Number 1 on the list, I can imagine the dislikes are all coming from racist patriotic Americans who think their country is amazing.
The Dutch were not defeated by UK on his own, it was defeated bij the French & UK. I agree why would fight alone if you have allies, but you talking like UK is a world power, while they not.
The capabilities of the type 45 sound unreal multiple targets the size of cricket balls HMS dauntless will keep the argies off the falklands. But we still need the Queen Elizabeth class and prince of wales to hurry up so we can park them right on argentinas coast the greasy slime balls ...Rule britannia
@SILVERCLOUD141 Argentina, Brasil y toda sudamerica los bloqueara y terminaran negociando. Tu pequeña isla decadedente y llena de musulmanes y negros se cae a pedazos, tu economia esta destrozada. Argentina triunfara!!! MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!!
@Superalexmarket Cállate pedazo de ignorante sudaca,anda que te has ganado a pulso ser el más estúpido. La roquita esa argentina?.CALLA BORREGO, SI NO GANAIS NI AL FÚTBOL.sudaca estúpido.
@63pajaroloco JAJAJA!!Lo que faltaba, que un español mugriento y muerto de hambre se venga a meter. Vete a hacer colas con los otros parados de tu pais de mierda para que te den un subsidio para comer.Son la escoria de Europa, ya ni Alemania ni Francia los quieren mantener mas... a joderse. Unos años atras les mandamos alimentos cuando se mataban como animales en la guerra civil, quizas les mandemos de nuevo algo, para que se saquen el hambre, JAJAJA!!! Pobre gallego infeliz!!
@Superalexmarket No sé, pero...os veo un poco tensos. Tanto a ti como al pajarraco loco ese. Aunque claro, viniendo a ver estos vídeos que se ponen para pavonearse de lo-magnífico-que-es-mi-ejército-y-ya-verás-cuando-haya-una-guerra-mundial-y-te-invadamos-y-entonces-te-vas-a-enterar; quizá me lo merezco. Hay que ver las ganas que tienen los países de pelearse. Entre los chinos y EEUU pasa lo mismo. qué odio se tienen.
@Superalexmarket Empezó el memo pajarraco loco ese, pero tú ya estabas caliente cuando le decías al inglés la derrota que va a sufrir su país cuando invadáis las Malvinas. Y el capullo del inglés salía con el el 'Rule Britannia'. Hay que ver lo malo que es el aburrimiento. Es tan malo que he acabado escribiendo aquí, asi que fíjate. ¿Habéis probado con ansiolíticos? Yo los tomo. Mano de santo.
@63pajaroloco De español a español...Eres un capullo. Y lo del fútbol no va a durar siempre. Además, han ganado varios. ¿Quién te crees que eres para ir por ahí insultando a la gente? Claro, el argentino, que no es tonto, te ha dado donde más duele, sacando lo de la presente crisis económica. ¿Por qué no insultas a tu vecino el que hace pesas y sabe taekwondo, o a tu profesor o, a tu jefe, a ver lo que pasa? Me ponéis de los nervios.
@SILVERCLOUD141 If UK is stupid enough to keep militarizing the island is not only Argentina but the entire Latin America Region that will we angry, is a growing country like Brazil decide to put sanction, you will be surprise how quickly Brittan presence in Malvinas could deteriorate.
@Bupalumpa Think again the island has been militarized since 1982 and will always be protected along as the people wish to be british them argies can not be trusted like they proved in 1982.
@SILVERCLOUD141 This is not the same Argentina of the 80 that was under a military dictatorship, they will find peaceful resolutions, maybe the people in the island want to remain British and maybe they will, but keep bringing more and more weapons to the islands is a stupid move by the British that will cause them troubles in the future.
@Bupalumpa The weapons ships and sub won't be used if argentina keep away There is always a ship down there but it seems the argies have just decided it's a "provocation". I think if you lived on the falklands you would have a different view after what they went through in 82 they now have peace of mind.
@Bupalumpa It's not stupid at all. The islands are pretty much impenetrable with the current defences. The British military would be unable to recapture the Islands if they fell, so our tactic has to be to make them undefeatable in the first place. Argentina have made all sorts of political postures in recent months, I really wouldn't put it past them to try and snatch the Falklands back if we left them undefended.
British & U.S. doesn't kick nobody asses on marine war, they not even a beat nobody in any war, they only go in war against countries which far smaller than their amount of people, read your history and find out when the last marine war was, there are these days no marine wars anymore, you will think that the British & U.S. marine will beat a marine war against China? Dont think so!
@SILVERCLOUD141 In history, yes we did, i remind what happened between de Dutch and the English in the first, second and third sea war. However, nowadays The Netherlands kicks nobody ass, as same as the Brittish or U.S. Give me one example when they did.
@1981mmn Yes the british was defeated by the dutch a few times but beat them in the end and took there colonies. But this is not about history though is it it's now these days it's more for defense and the royal navy is more than capable like now with argentina it's just when you said the UK and USA doesn't kick any bodies ass i thought maybe you thought you're country could.
@SILVERCLOUD141 The Brittish not defeated the Dutch, it was the French who did, and no, the Brittish didn't took any colonie from the Dutch, know your history. Theres no country who go alone on war.
@1981mmn The battle of camperdown after that the british took control of the dutch colonies and left them one or two. Yes UK and USA go to war together thats what allies are for. But Like the falklands the last war in 82 the british traveled 8000 miles to go to war on it's own that was for defense.
@SILVERCLOUD Kamperduinen was just a small sea battle compairing with the others, and no, UK still not took the Dutch colonies, i remember that finally we had more of them near 1800's than the UK.
@SILVERCLOUD141 U.S. would never go on war alone with UK, they would go with Europe and with maybe other allies like Canada or Australia, but never with UK alone,
@1981mmn Lol the british took over the dutch colonies after it defeated them and left them dutch east indies. Im not saying UK wuddn't have allies why go to war on you're own if you have allies?
@1981mmn And once the Queen elizabeth class and prince of wales is completed and our type 45s and with the astute class subs the navy will be great again Rule britannia ;)
@SILVERCLOUD141 keep dreaming pal.. RN will still be a littoral sea power. You can't rule the oceans of the world like the USN does,with two conventional carriers with 8000 nm limited range and few new destroyers and submarines ! You would need at least 5 more carriers preferably nuclear powered with 300 F-35's on the deck , at least 40 Type 45's with additional SW and land attack capabilities and 30 Astute's and also crew to operate these force ,far beyond the capabilities of the UK !
@barracuda7018 Did i say rule the waves ok we get it the US of A Has the best but we are improving we desperately need to we spend no were near the USA but we still in the top navies in the world and chill out we are allies no need to get alarmed.
@SILVERCLOUD141 They Try To Drag Us Down Just BEcause they Stuck Up For Us In One War. WOW I've Frickin Lost Count Of How MAny Times We Get Invovled In Your Problems. For example In Lybya Gadaffis men were firing at the us airship and then the royal navy comes along and blows the shit out of them for the us
@barracuda7018 You need to keep dreaming america is shit scarred of russia and china maybe you lot need a good arse kicking to bring you down a peg or two belive me i would rather the yanks had power than China but you lot are far to arrogant.
@barracuda7018 Nuclear powered aircraft carriers still need to go into port for food....the British will need food and fuel..nuclear power is pointless.
@SILVERCLOUD141 In other words, U.S. would never go on war alone, as same as brittain, it always would be The U.S. and the N.A.T.O, and believe me, it's not about humanity or warefare.
I and american and I have served in the navey for 5 years and I will say the type 45 is posibly the best destryer but in all of the types of ship prity much every larger class of ship will beat it. for example the any Iwoa or pennsylania class battle ships could easly use that ship as target practice, or a Nimitz class aircraft carrier could just have a radar jammer target the type 45 and then an other aircraft could just drop bombs, or a submarine could lanch a nuclear tiped torpido.
@mgibilterra So your five whole years of experience have made you the expert? Haha Laughable. You have no idea what you are talking about. People might actually give your comment some credit if you didn't have the spelling and grammar skills of a 9 year old. Oh and one other thing....do you know what a nuclear torpedo is used for and how it actually works? I doubt it.
German Sachsen class is also identical to Dutch Zeven Provinciën Class. Doesn't matter, I'm Dutch and I'm very proud that we have four of these high-tech nice looking stealthy frigates! Royal Dutch Navy FTW!!
Lol, has no one read naval history, its not the number of ships, its the tactics and commanders. The greeks with only 300 ships wiped out the entire persian navy which had 2500 ships after the battle of themopoly. Naval warfare is totally different to anything else, 1 ship could sink 20 if well commanded. The US rules the waves with numbers. Granted it counts for alot these days, but UK navy are badass. hundreds of years of EXP. combined we are be undefeatable by any other combined on earth.
@koalab100: While I'm the last person to say history doesn't matter, you can't compare naval warfare between navies made of wood and powered by oars with modern high-tech warfare in the missile age! Yes, tactics count for a lot but so do numbers and technology.
@MrCutsteels matter of opinion,just because the pieces and weapons have changed, still exactly the same, you find a target ,get in range and fire your weapons. missiles dont mean shit with all the anti missile and anti air projectiles they have. The principles are pretty much the same. Boat water,enemy,kill. If One destroyer gets a counter attack on a fleet, he has the ability to sink everyone with the suprise factor, If he fires 6 shells before you know hes there then ur fleets fucked. Tactics
@koalab100 To be a powerful naval force, you have to have both numbers and tactics in a battle, because there is no point in having huge numbers and shit tactics because you will get slaughtered, you need a combination of both
@markhammill1995 not really, numbers can be your biggest downfall.Brains will always outmatch brawn. Would you rather have 1 destroyer thats sunk 30 ships with 40yrs XP or 10 ships that have no EXP? Its exactly the same as oon land, depends on the place of conflict aswell. your house or theirs? I would much rather have 5 destroyers and a couple of frigates over a huge fleet of carriers and everything else. just much easier to manage and much more effective, easier to counter attack/suprise.
@GeneralArrow I didn't go back far enough in the conversation to see if you were the Brit or the Yank, I'll assume you're the Brit. I don't remember too much about the naval actions of 1812, except for England sailing unimpeded up the Potomac river! We (the U.S.) did get our butts kicked in that war (which we kinda started, big surprise) but since then the U.S. and Brits have been busy kicking everyone else's ass all across the globe. Thanks UK for being there for us.
@GamingBrosproduction I'm American and there's no shame in saying that we got our butts whipped in 1812. Now, Korea was a draw, sure. Most of the wars we fight we win (one way or another). But, we picked a fight with the British in 1812 and they whipped us. (Also, I seem to remember them burning our capital! That doesn't paint a pretty picture for us if we won.)
@1981mmn I honestly can't tell what you mean by your statement. It's a bit ambiguous. If you were trying to admonish me by stating that the U.S. doesn't fight wars by itself (without support from other nations), then you're right. I did mention in a past comment that the U.K. has militarily supported the U.S. quite a bit (and so has many other nations). It would be fair to say, though, that in any conflict the U.S. is involved in the that U.S. provides many more troops than any other nation.
@youdoitillwatch Yes, this was what i mean, i just tell, because you wrote :'' Most of the wars we fight we win (one way or another)'' Of course they have many more troops, because they have many more people. I remind that in the ww2 Russia had more troops ;)
@koalab100 and I agree, nothing can withstand the combined might of the UK and US navies...China and Russia cry them selves to sleep each night thinking that lol.
@ahgoon69er i swear some people are born without a brain. You think when a great naval commander comes along and does amazing things and uses new tactics. that his methods are thrown out when he dies? Or do they get added to the next generation of naval commanders training........hmmmmmmm Toughie..... The British navy has over 550 years of naval commanders experience packed into our arsenal. Think before you try and be a smart arse. You only end up looking even dumber then you clearly are.
the best warship in the world isn't a Nimitz class carrier? 1 could wipe out the navies of most countries but like u said you are British so its gotta hurt admitting the USA rules the waves now but hey on the bright side of life we are allies:) prolly always will be. God save the Queen:) heheh
@gawaine05: Without other ships protecting it, your mighty Nimitz could be sunk in five minutes by a cheap submarine belonging to a fourth rate navy.
Yes, the USA rules the waves. But that's because the USN has a lot of quality ships of all kinds - not just carriers! Like I keep saying, it takes a mix of different kinds of ships to make a fleet. There is no one warship that does it all. Not carriers, not destroyers, not submarines!
the type 45 is the best air defence ship in the world, it can track dozens of targets and destroy them all, i think that the RN will use them to protect the new supercarriers (or supercarrier) when they are commisioned
@markhammill1995 they will when the 2 new aircraft carriers come out in 2015 4 type 45s,2 type 23,2 nuclear classed submarines and 2 other ships forgot what there called sorry but they will be protecting the ships those numbers i said are for each aircraft carrier not together its gonna look amazing when they all come into port together
@hardnut451 they always have two protective rings around an aircraft carrier, underwater defence, air defence, missile defence and protection against hostile ships as these aircraft carriers are the most valuable asset in the RN at £3bn each
@FoxUNSC Depends how you define 'supercarrier', but at 70,000 tons the QEs will be a fair old size. Not as big as a Nimitz (around 100,000 tons) but dwarfing the Invincibles (22,000 tons), the Cavour (30,000 tons) and even the Charles de Gaulle (around 45,000 tons).
@xilium: Lol, yeah, those are the full armaments specs, but I was talking specifically about the anti-air role. The reason I say Type 45 is better in that role is mainly because of the SAMPSON radar - though as I say, none of us are in a position to know just how good it really is because the details are classified.
@MRjlouis3131: Closely related, uses the same missile system, but Type 45 uses the SAMPSON radar which is generally believed to be more capable. Just how much more capable none of us really know, since the details are classified.
@MRjlouis3131 The RN navy was originally going to go with the horizon destroyer but they pulled out and contracted BAE to design a ship which on paper is about the same power but it has the more powerful SAMPSON radar
i don't understand how a top 10 of best warships doesn't include any dutch ships? they have the most advanced weapons,sensor and RADAR systems.. maybe not as big as the good old iowa but still pretty neat ;)
Got to admit, even though I'm British and very proud of the Type 45, it's not the best warship in the world because it's too specialised. It is however possibly the best anti-air destroyer with the highly sophisticated VIPER air defence system making-up for fewer missiles and I recall recently one American officer on a joint war games exercise been very impressed by its capabilities. So whilst it could call itself the best anti-air destroyer it struggles to deserve best warship title.
@tbatallen The best warships in the world are the NIMITZ CLASS carriers..This is just another BAE Marketing propaganda aimed at gullible British public to justify the exorbitant price..She is a very advanced air defence destroyer no doubt but she is hopelessly underarmed vis-a-vis Arleigh Burke destroyers which can carry twice the number of missiles and has also excellent land attack capability as well as ASW .
@sidewinder188: Again, there's no such thing as a 'best warship'; different warships do different jobs. Your mighty Nimitz could be sunk by a relatively cheap submarine. Is the submarine 'better' than the carrier? No, because it can't do a carrier's job. But it takes lots of different types of warships to make a fleet; there is no one warship that does it all.
@sidewinder188 Firstly the BAE did not make the NIMITZ CLASS because it is made in the USA,secondly it was build by Newport News Shipbuilding Company and thirdly BAE don't own Newport News Shipbuilding Company .
hms gobshite
BAWBAG222 18 hours ago
ive not watched the vid in full yet im at number 7 ,, i bet you english pricks make english number one
BAWBAG222 18 hours ago
not real
DarthIrving 2 days ago
wowowow, NO Fridtjof Nansen? those frigates rule the seas
magnus2906 2 days ago
lol!! No Bismarck? :P
TeamCGS2005 3 days ago
@TeamCGS2005
That should be in the best Submarine top 10 video, don't you think?
sk1llblack 2 days ago
@sk1llblack lol I meant the warship Bismarck from WWII. Sorry for the confusion.
TeamCGS2005 2 days ago
@TeamCGS2005
I know you ment the warship, but it also turns out to be a great submarine, i mean its already underwater for 71 years now.
sk1llblack 1 day ago
@sk1llblack Ahh indeed haha :)
TeamCGS2005 23 hours ago
@sk1llblack It would end with the Akula ( Typhoon) class sub. In terms of sheer firepower nothing beats it.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
Yeah btch netherlands on the 3 !
snuffie205 4 days ago
hms daring :D what a ship
ixVertiGOxi 4 days ago 7
No LCS?
skipalitevandango 5 days ago
Type 45 is an air defence destroyer
Longs81 5 days ago
have the french and italians copied OUR Type 45's?!
BMWM3GTRLOVER 5 days ago
@BMWM3GTRLOVER , nop Britain was part of the Horizont project and then leave it, the Type 45 is the British copy of the Horizont programm, BAE didn't even know how to build stealth ship's until french DCNS teach them. i think BAE leave because each partner wanted a different radar but not sure about this.
XBotticelli 4 days ago
@BMWM3GTRLOVER
The UK had sought to procure the ships in collaboration with seven other NATO nations under the NFR-90 project which later collapsed. The UK then joined France and Italy in the Horizon CNGF programme; however, differing national requirements, workshare arguments and delays led to the UK withdrawing on 26 April 1999 and starting its own national project....
Same History with our common programm of aircraft carriers....
eepartners 3 days ago
Where Russian warship???
WelcomeToAss 6 days ago 15
@WelcomeToAss sorry but i don't think the uploader thought they were as advanced as these ones. i like a lot of russian ships if that gives any comfort
BMWM3GTRLOVER 5 days ago
@WelcomeToAss. Off drunk in a bar somewhere, about to start a fight with another drunk
ElDiabloWhoppo 2 days ago
@WelcomeToAss Probably rusting somewhere in the black sea lol
devontown 1 day ago
where is Saar 5?
2shahar 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An appeal to every member of the US/UK/EU Security Forces, without whom we are truly lost. Are you aware that your efforts are being directed by an Alien Lifeform which has infiltrated and commands the highest levels of government throughout the world. They are taking control through your efforts. The humans they control are misguided at best, the Aliens themselves are ruthless and, if unchecked, will kill all of us. You are being used; you are their teeth and we need you to be ours.
evsupp2011 1 week ago
Get ready for the USN Zumwalt class.. gonna be a game changer
brakanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
aircraft carrier
japcarsuck 1 week ago
Lol this is in no way near right!!
martinadel1997 1 week ago
we have defeated 7 nation in Gallipoli and defeated the most powerfull naval force too.no nation has entered and won battles as many as us in men kind history.We are Turks.we can be defeated but cannot be destroyed.wait us we are comig to rule the world for second time.this is silence before storm.wait us!!!
sahtekar1000 1 week ago
love how number 2 aint even built yet..
AJAnewage 1 week ago
You guys do know that all the navies of the EU put together is smaller than the US navy ?
and Do you know the US navy has a bigger AIR Force than all of the EU ?
So Get real
Schaneification 1 week ago
@Schaneification and you do know your wrong? The European Union's combined naval force consists of over 600 commissioned warships, this number does not include auxiliary, survey or support ships. The European Union possesses 6 aircraft carriers, Britain are also building 2 New QE Class and Other countrys are either building or planning to build more. countrys which include France,Spain,Italy and I Believe Germany. Need 2 post another coz running out of characters :P
PyrrusOfEpirusTW 1 week ago
PyrrusOfEpirusTW 1 week ago
@Schaneification just out of interest how many wars has the US won on its own without help from its Allies?
Trig0r 1 week ago
@Trig0r actually,we barely got shit help in the Pacific during World War 2.did you notice how before december 7th,1941, france had been defeated,europe was crumbling,russia was on it's knees,and britain was by itself? looks to me like you should ask how many world wars the allies have won without Americas help.or better yet, how bad were the allies getting thier tails whooped WITHOUT american help? uff said :]
LetsPlayTrollBattle 1 week ago
@LetsPlayTrollBattle You had help from the Royal Navy in the pacific....while the Royal Navy was battling the Italians and Germans in the Med and Atlantic Ocean and won.
America done fuck all in WWI YOUR TROOPS WERE POORLY TRAINED AND HALF OF THEM ARRIVED WITH OUT HELMETS SO THE BRITS ISSUED YOUR SOLDIERS THEM..YOU WAS WERE ONLY WWI FOR 8 MONTHS. The Brits and French were the the ones defeated the Germans,.
Tommyfungun 1 week ago
@LetsPlayTrollBattle lol granted you helped, but dont get it twisted up. Britain totally nailed the luffwaffe and his navy in the battle of britain. France and everyone else rolled over like dogs after a treat.You forget that we meaning the UK, was on our own 4yrs before you even got involved. Fucked them up, took out their biggest war fleet, held the western front and when we did faulter, still inflicted huge damage and still didnt get owned. sooo, yeah your NUMBERS helped. You lost alot of men
koalab100 1 week ago
@LetsPlayTrollBattle yes obviously the British, the Australians, Canadians, eventually the soviets and other commonwealth countries did nothing in the Pacific at all fool. WW1 was won by a British naval blockade starving the Germans out of resources and food and America needed Britain just as much to defeat Germany in WW2, ever read a history book? look at D-Day and which armies took on the SS panzer divisions while the USA took on the regular German army, that's right it was Britain and Canada.
Reverbful 1 week ago
@Reverbful you sir are rite about america needing britian they helped with the launches let us use there country to launch from helped quite alot in ww2 with not only man power but inteligiance.
with that being said without america stepping into ww2 the uk would have fallen to the germans dont beleive me? looking up the churchhill letters he doesnt just say a few times he says 49 times that without america the uk would have fallen.
with33 1 week ago
@with33 Churchill was a great man, but he was just one man, and not even a military one at that. So he could say a thousand times that without America the UK would have fallen, but it would not necessarily make it true.
In fact, the Russians beat us to Berlin, so it is entirely possible that the Russians would have defeated Germany even if we had not got involved at all.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK again read the churchill letter he doesnt just say he thinks it he clearly states that all his generals are telling him britian will fall within a month if america does not enter the war to help them.
and took russia a ear and a half more then what anyone who knows shit about ww2 would tell you it would of taken uk to fall now with the uk out of the way germany could of put all of its forces on the eastern fronts and who knows what could of happened.
with33 1 week ago
@with33 Within a month? From not invaded at all, to conquered? That's obviously BS.
The Germans had no good plan of attack, they'd been trying for five years, and had not captured a single inch of our soil. We had repelled their airforce, their navy and decoded their transmissions. We had radar, they did not.
Our military was still strong enough in the last year of WW2, to be a big part of D-Day and the ensuing battles.
So really, it's hogwash. The UK was fine.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK 2 things one they had destroyed britians means to defend themselves they were breaking them down peice by peice for when they invaded again read the letters.
with33 1 week ago
@with33 1) You said "2 things" and then only listed one.
2) The letters were nothing but the opinions of men, who could have been ill-informed, compared to us with our vasty information regarding the eastern front. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.
3) How were our means of defending ourselves destroyed? We still had a fully functioning air force, we still had our AA guns, radar, our navy and even if they landed on our shores, our army. All they destroyed was civilian buildings.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK you just called your countries generals during ww2 imcpmpitent then said that you would of been able to fight off the germans lol?
anyways they were destroying your airfields you had 3 large ones left out of the 74 you had before you were being starved to death by german sub blockade and you were not able to produce enough weapons to keep on fighting.
and you should probly look up what the germans destroyed you seem to not understand.
with33 1 week ago
@with33 I didn't call them incompetant, I said they were not omniscient.
We weren't being starved to death. We had the rationing system, and enough supply transports were still making it by to provide food for rations.
They hadn't done nearly that much damage, we won the Battle of Britain, if you didn't realise. Our airspace was mostly safe.
And we contributed 25% (500,000) of the soldiers to Operation Overlord in 1944.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK you called your generals men who were ill informed ie incompitent.....
second america was 57% of your food suply in 1941 sooo again just proving my point.
and as i said before im not saying the uk didnt do anything if it wasnt for the uk we wouldnt have been able to beat the germans or atleast not beat them within the timeline we did it would of taken alot longer if at all.
my point is the uk would have fallen without america,america saved the uk and themselves.
with33 1 week ago
@with33 If you think Ill-informed and incompetant mean the same thing, you need a dictionary.
Like I told the other guy, world wars involve allies helping each other. If America had been getting the bombing the UK was getting, you'd have needed just as much help as we did.
And I dispute your point, still, there is good reason to think that the Russians could have still won the war, in which case, they would've saved us. I call it a 55/45 split, between Russia and America, saviourwise.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK you are saying that the genrals whch entire job is to lead your forces and fight a war didnt know what they were doing because there job is tobe informed ie you are saying they were incomptent.
and idk why you hate america so much i mean 55-45 russian 55 im assuming because you said russia first i mean common get your head out your ass they gave you little no none suplies they didnt fight over your skies i mean common dude.
im done with you your hate for america blind you.
with33 6 days ago
@with33 Seriously... A general's job is not to know *everything*. If a general is ill-informed about a war that has little to do with them, half way across the globe, that doesn't mean they're incompetant. It means they're ill-informed. Stop trying to link the two, they are not the same thing.
You didn't fight over our skies either. The battle of britain was fought by us, and us alone.
Russia got to Berlin before the allied forces. Enough said. No hate for America needed to see that.
ScabeiathraxUK 6 days ago
@ScabeiathraxUK didnt know outside there houses was half a world away.
russia didnt start to push the germans until america entered the war and after d day when germans started to pull there forces off the eastern front to fight on the western.
america was sending pilots over the the uk before we even entered the war to help fight over the uk so again.
honestly kid you are stupid you are ignorant just accept the facts and fuck off....
with33 6 days ago
@with33 not all true mate
TehGodLord 6 days ago
@with33 You are being deliberately obstinate. I wasn't aware the British general's houses were in Stalingrad.
The germans didn't pull forces from the Eastern front to fight the Western one, the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the war on the Eastern front, and that was in 1942, two years before D-Day.
Until you entered the war you sent nothing but supplies, otherwise, you'd be in the war.
If I'm ignorant, why are you imagining false "facts" to argue? You are simply lying.
ScabeiathraxUK 6 days ago
@ScabeiathraxUK i have no doubt in what you are saying is 98% correct and yes the defeat of the german 6th army in stalingrad was a massive turning point in world war 2 however the SS Leibstandarte was pulled off the eastern front to refit and then concentrated on the western front ! good comment though well done !
buchanjay 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buchanjay I was not aware of the movement of the SS Leibstandarte, thank you for informing me. When were they moved? Do you know if it was before or after the Battle of Stalingrad?
And thank you for being so respectful.
ScabeiathraxUK 3 days ago
@ScabeiathraxUK and dont forget germany was not far off from a nuke they were closer to anyone during ww2 if they would of been able to last a year maybe 2 more ww2 could of gone alot different.
with33 1 week ago
@with33 There is a distinct possibility that Churchill and his generals did not know how badly the war was going for the Germans on the Eastern front. The Russians would've beaten them without our help. Within a year, the Russians pushed them all the way back to Berlin, the likelyhood that they could've provided any meaningful resistance while attempting to conquer the UK, and then redirect forces is near enough to nil. Once they landed on our soil, we would've fought harder, not weaker.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK I agree: the war was won on the Eastern Front and had been already won in 1944 by the Soviets when the Allies landed in Normandy.
JulianGardna 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK. Russia was only kept in the war in 1942 by substantial aid in terms of strategic raw materials and tanks, warplanes,trucks and so on from Britain and America.Much of the military equipment used by the Russians in the initial defence of Stalingrad came from this source, without which they could well have been overwhelmed.
mr9396 1 week ago
@mr9396 In world wars, countries get aid from their allies. So what?
If America had been under the same heat Russia was, you'd have required just as much bailing out as the Russians did, because whoever you would've been fighting would've had the support of all their allies.
It's how world wars work. Germany would've been steamrolled, if they didn't have the support of most of Europe.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 week ago
@ScabeiathraxUK: Churchill was in fact a military man; he served in the Army in his younger days. Not that I think he was the greatest strategist ever, but he did have a military background.
blertdrax 1 day ago
@blertdrax I misspoke. I meant to say that he was not a general at the time.
ScabeiathraxUK 1 day ago
@blertdrax He was the First Sea Lord during the First World War but he was sacked for making a mistake and so he enlisted into the British Army and went to the Front Line straight away which is why he was such a good PM, during war time.
MrXray2011 19 hours ago
@Schaneification i'm starting to think you're crazy :O United States specifically encouraged NATO (and EU) to expand thier Navies.US has the biggest Navy in the world but compared to the entire EU?not by a long shot.
LetsPlayTrollBattle 1 week ago
@LetsPlayTrollBattle us has most advanced though
kylewest100 1 week ago
@Schaneification. You know that you live in a country where you can spend billions on weapons thinking you are under threat, and yet many of your citizens are living in third world poverty. Obesisty and debt have rocketed, and what you want is a war with Europe. Well thats just spiteful, considering many European countries have come to help to in Iraq and Afganistan, and lost hundreds of soldiers, in your war. Charming person you are.
mr9396 1 week ago
@mr9396 Its not "our" war, if I remember correctly European countrys have also been terror bombed. So just because we took the first step in fighting back does not make it "our" war. Terrorism is an evil that needs to be stopped.
whiteyak5 6 days ago
@whiteyak5. yes it is your war because you started it by invading Iraq and Afganistan. That was the decision of George Bush.
mr9396 6 days ago
I'm not an america's fan but the Zumwalt class is the most powerful ship on the seven sea's , the one ho's made this video is a fake , Type 45 is equal to an Horizont no more no less...
XBotticelli 1 week ago
@XBotticelli no type45 i think has a 3d radr, le orizzonte no
Embrarer 1 week ago
I wonder why this video has loads of dislikes, then I realise it's because one of our ships is Number 1 on the list, I can imagine the dislikes are all coming from racist patriotic Americans who think their country is amazing.
Exilninja 2 weeks ago
The Dutch were not defeated by UK on his own, it was defeated bij the French & UK. I agree why would fight alone if you have allies, but you talking like UK is a world power, while they not.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
The capabilities of the type 45 sound unreal multiple targets the size of cricket balls HMS dauntless will keep the argies off the falklands. But we still need the Queen Elizabeth class and prince of wales to hurry up so we can park them right on argentinas coast the greasy slime balls ...Rule britannia
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago 21
@SILVERCLOUD141 Argentina, Brasil y toda sudamerica los bloqueara y terminaran negociando. Tu pequeña isla decadedente y llena de musulmanes y negros se cae a pedazos, tu economia esta destrozada. Argentina triunfara!!! MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!!
Superalexmarket 1 week ago
@Superalexmarket Speak English pirate.
SILVERCLOUD141 1 week ago
@Superalexmarket Cállate pedazo de ignorante sudaca,anda que te has ganado a pulso ser el más estúpido. La roquita esa argentina?.CALLA BORREGO, SI NO GANAIS NI AL FÚTBOL.sudaca estúpido.
63pajaroloco 1 week ago
@63pajaroloco JAJAJA!!Lo que faltaba, que un español mugriento y muerto de hambre se venga a meter. Vete a hacer colas con los otros parados de tu pais de mierda para que te den un subsidio para comer.Son la escoria de Europa, ya ni Alemania ni Francia los quieren mantener mas... a joderse. Unos años atras les mandamos alimentos cuando se mataban como animales en la guerra civil, quizas les mandemos de nuevo algo, para que se saquen el hambre, JAJAJA!!! Pobre gallego infeliz!!
Superalexmarket 1 week ago
@Superalexmarket No sé, pero...os veo un poco tensos. Tanto a ti como al pajarraco loco ese. Aunque claro, viniendo a ver estos vídeos que se ponen para pavonearse de lo-magnífico-que-es-mi-ejército-y-ya-verás-cuando-haya-una-guerra-mundial-y-te-invadamos-y-entonces-te-vas-a-enterar; quizá me lo merezco. Hay que ver las ganas que tienen los países de pelearse. Entre los chinos y EEUU pasa lo mismo. qué odio se tienen.
longibando 6 days ago
@Superalexmarket Empezó el memo pajarraco loco ese, pero tú ya estabas caliente cuando le decías al inglés la derrota que va a sufrir su país cuando invadáis las Malvinas. Y el capullo del inglés salía con el el 'Rule Britannia'. Hay que ver lo malo que es el aburrimiento. Es tan malo que he acabado escribiendo aquí, asi que fíjate. ¿Habéis probado con ansiolíticos? Yo los tomo. Mano de santo.
longibando 6 days ago
@longibando La verdad tienes razon, uno de los pocos cuerdo que he leido por aqui ultimamente.
Superalexmarket 6 days ago
@63pajaroloco De español a español...Eres un capullo. Y lo del fútbol no va a durar siempre. Además, han ganado varios. ¿Quién te crees que eres para ir por ahí insultando a la gente? Claro, el argentino, que no es tonto, te ha dado donde más duele, sacando lo de la presente crisis económica. ¿Por qué no insultas a tu vecino el que hace pesas y sabe taekwondo, o a tu profesor o, a tu jefe, a ver lo que pasa? Me ponéis de los nervios.
longibando 6 days ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 If UK is stupid enough to keep militarizing the island is not only Argentina but the entire Latin America Region that will we angry, is a growing country like Brazil decide to put sanction, you will be surprise how quickly Brittan presence in Malvinas could deteriorate.
Bupalumpa 1 week ago
@Bupalumpa Think again the island has been militarized since 1982 and will always be protected along as the people wish to be british them argies can not be trusted like they proved in 1982.
SILVERCLOUD141 6 days ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 This is not the same Argentina of the 80 that was under a military dictatorship, they will find peaceful resolutions, maybe the people in the island want to remain British and maybe they will, but keep bringing more and more weapons to the islands is a stupid move by the British that will cause them troubles in the future.
Bupalumpa 6 days ago
@Bupalumpa The weapons ships and sub won't be used if argentina keep away There is always a ship down there but it seems the argies have just decided it's a "provocation". I think if you lived on the falklands you would have a different view after what they went through in 82 they now have peace of mind.
SILVERCLOUD141 6 days ago
@Bupalumpa It's not stupid at all. The islands are pretty much impenetrable with the current defences. The British military would be unable to recapture the Islands if they fell, so our tactic has to be to make them undefeatable in the first place. Argentina have made all sorts of political postures in recent months, I really wouldn't put it past them to try and snatch the Falklands back if we left them undefended.
Pablosammy1 11 hours ago
British & U.S. doesn't kick nobody asses on marine war, they not even a beat nobody in any war, they only go in war against countries which far smaller than their amount of people, read your history and find out when the last marine war was, there are these days no marine wars anymore, you will think that the British & U.S. marine will beat a marine war against China? Dont think so!
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@1981mmn I suppose the Netherlands could?
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 In history, yes we did, i remind what happened between de Dutch and the English in the first, second and third sea war. However, nowadays The Netherlands kicks nobody ass, as same as the Brittish or U.S. Give me one example when they did.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@1981mmn Yes the british was defeated by the dutch a few times but beat them in the end and took there colonies. But this is not about history though is it it's now these days it's more for defense and the royal navy is more than capable like now with argentina it's just when you said the UK and USA doesn't kick any bodies ass i thought maybe you thought you're country could.
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 The Brittish not defeated the Dutch, it was the French who did, and no, the Brittish didn't took any colonie from the Dutch, know your history. Theres no country who go alone on war.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@1981mmn The battle of camperdown after that the british took control of the dutch colonies and left them one or two. Yes UK and USA go to war together thats what allies are for. But Like the falklands the last war in 82 the british traveled 8000 miles to go to war on it's own that was for defense.
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
@SILVERCLOUD Kamperduinen was just a small sea battle compairing with the others, and no, UK still not took the Dutch colonies, i remember that finally we had more of them near 1800's than the UK.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 U.S. would never go on war alone with UK, they would go with Europe and with maybe other allies like Canada or Australia, but never with UK alone,
their army it's to small.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@1981mmn Lol the british took over the dutch colonies after it defeated them and left them dutch east indies. Im not saying UK wuddn't have allies why go to war on you're own if you have allies?
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
@1981mmn And once the Queen elizabeth class and prince of wales is completed and our type 45s and with the astute class subs the navy will be great again Rule britannia ;)
SILVERCLOUD141 2 weeks ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 keep dreaming pal.. RN will still be a littoral sea power. You can't rule the oceans of the world like the USN does,with two conventional carriers with 8000 nm limited range and few new destroyers and submarines ! You would need at least 5 more carriers preferably nuclear powered with 300 F-35's on the deck , at least 40 Type 45's with additional SW and land attack capabilities and 30 Astute's and also crew to operate these force ,far beyond the capabilities of the UK !
barracuda7018 1 week ago
@barracuda7018 Did i say rule the waves ok we get it the US of A Has the best but we are improving we desperately need to we spend no were near the USA but we still in the top navies in the world and chill out we are allies no need to get alarmed.
SILVERCLOUD141 1 week ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 I don't get why americans always try to drag the Uk down we are one of you're best allies very strange.
SILVERCLOUD141 1 week ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 They Try To Drag Us Down Just BEcause they Stuck Up For Us In One War. WOW I've Frickin Lost Count Of How MAny Times We Get Invovled In Your Problems. For example In Lybya Gadaffis men were firing at the us airship and then the royal navy comes along and blows the shit out of them for the us
MrMonsterTutorials 1 week ago
@barracuda7018 You need to keep dreaming america is shit scarred of russia and china maybe you lot need a good arse kicking to bring you down a peg or two belive me i would rather the yanks had power than China but you lot are far to arrogant.
englishforeverr 1 week ago
@barracuda7018 Nuclear powered aircraft carriers still need to go into port for food....the British will need food and fuel..nuclear power is pointless.
Tommyfungun 1 week ago
@SILVERCLOUD141 In other words, U.S. would never go on war alone, as same as brittain, it always would be The U.S. and the N.A.T.O, and believe me, it's not about humanity or warefare.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
Yeah yeah... we all know who was flying aound the seas in history ;)
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
A very odd listing ... not single class of aircraft carrier or submarine in the top ten ...
semichdom 2 weeks ago
The last photo was so cool.
Ridliman 2 weeks ago
i think its unhealthy to serve aboard these ships.
theres just too much radar, radio...radiation you are exposed to.
makes brain-cancer
MrSven3000 2 weeks ago
I and american and I have served in the navey for 5 years and I will say the type 45 is posibly the best destryer but in all of the types of ship prity much every larger class of ship will beat it. for example the any Iwoa or pennsylania class battle ships could easly use that ship as target practice, or a Nimitz class aircraft carrier could just have a radar jammer target the type 45 and then an other aircraft could just drop bombs, or a submarine could lanch a nuclear tiped torpido.
mgibilterra 2 weeks ago
@mgibilterra So your five whole years of experience have made you the expert? Haha Laughable. You have no idea what you are talking about. People might actually give your comment some credit if you didn't have the spelling and grammar skills of a 9 year old. Oh and one other thing....do you know what a nuclear torpedo is used for and how it actually works? I doubt it.
88Dinger 1 week ago
German Sachsen class is also identical to Dutch Zeven Provinciën Class. Doesn't matter, I'm Dutch and I'm very proud that we have four of these high-tech nice looking stealthy frigates! Royal Dutch Navy FTW!!
mpc007 2 weeks ago
italian version of fremm are the best, fremm gp carlo bergamini for example
Embrarer 2 weeks ago
Lol, has no one read naval history, its not the number of ships, its the tactics and commanders. The greeks with only 300 ships wiped out the entire persian navy which had 2500 ships after the battle of themopoly. Naval warfare is totally different to anything else, 1 ship could sink 20 if well commanded. The US rules the waves with numbers. Granted it counts for alot these days, but UK navy are badass. hundreds of years of EXP. combined we are be undefeatable by any other combined on earth.
koalab100 3 weeks ago 16
@koalab100: While I'm the last person to say history doesn't matter, you can't compare naval warfare between navies made of wood and powered by oars with modern high-tech warfare in the missile age! Yes, tactics count for a lot but so do numbers and technology.
MrCutsteel 2 weeks ago
@MrCutsteels matter of opinion,just because the pieces and weapons have changed, still exactly the same, you find a target ,get in range and fire your weapons. missiles dont mean shit with all the anti missile and anti air projectiles they have. The principles are pretty much the same. Boat water,enemy,kill. If One destroyer gets a counter attack on a fleet, he has the ability to sink everyone with the suprise factor, If he fires 6 shells before you know hes there then ur fleets fucked. Tactics
koalab100 2 weeks ago
@MrCutsteel Bigger fleets gives you more flexibility, but a hell of a lot more to lose. like you said, only takes 1 hit to fuck a ship these days!
koalab100 2 weeks ago
@koalab100 To be a powerful naval force, you have to have both numbers and tactics in a battle, because there is no point in having huge numbers and shit tactics because you will get slaughtered, you need a combination of both
markhammill1995 2 weeks ago
@markhammill1995 not really, numbers can be your biggest downfall.Brains will always outmatch brawn. Would you rather have 1 destroyer thats sunk 30 ships with 40yrs XP or 10 ships that have no EXP? Its exactly the same as oon land, depends on the place of conflict aswell. your house or theirs? I would much rather have 5 destroyers and a couple of frigates over a huge fleet of carriers and everything else. just much easier to manage and much more effective, easier to counter attack/suprise.
koalab100 2 weeks ago
@koalab100 Yet we still beat your Navy in the war of 1812 :)
GeneralArrow 2 weeks ago
@GeneralArrow I didn't go back far enough in the conversation to see if you were the Brit or the Yank, I'll assume you're the Brit. I don't remember too much about the naval actions of 1812, except for England sailing unimpeded up the Potomac river! We (the U.S.) did get our butts kicked in that war (which we kinda started, big surprise) but since then the U.S. and Brits have been busy kicking everyone else's ass all across the globe. Thanks UK for being there for us.
youdoitillwatch 2 weeks ago
@youdoitillwatch woah we didnt lose 1812 it was a draw also remeber england u guys got beat by farmers in 1776-1782
GamingBrosproduction 2 weeks ago
@GamingBrosproduction I'm American and there's no shame in saying that we got our butts whipped in 1812. Now, Korea was a draw, sure. Most of the wars we fight we win (one way or another). But, we picked a fight with the British in 1812 and they whipped us. (Also, I seem to remember them burning our capital! That doesn't paint a pretty picture for us if we won.)
youdoitillwatch 2 weeks ago
@youdoitillwatch The problem on your word is, The American doesn't figt wars on their own.
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@1981mmn I honestly can't tell what you mean by your statement. It's a bit ambiguous. If you were trying to admonish me by stating that the U.S. doesn't fight wars by itself (without support from other nations), then you're right. I did mention in a past comment that the U.K. has militarily supported the U.S. quite a bit (and so has many other nations). It would be fair to say, though, that in any conflict the U.S. is involved in the that U.S. provides many more troops than any other nation.
youdoitillwatch 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youdoitillwatch Yes, this was what i mean, i just tell, because you wrote :'' Most of the wars we fight we win (one way or another)'' Of course they have many more troops, because they have many more people. I remind that in the ww2 Russia had more troops ;)
1981mmn 2 weeks ago
@youdoitillwatch exactly :]
LetsPlayTrollBattle 1 week ago
@koalab100 and I agree, nothing can withstand the combined might of the UK and US navies...China and Russia cry them selves to sleep each night thinking that lol.
GeneralArrow 2 weeks ago
@koalab100 Wasn't most of that Persian fleet destroyed by a storm?
01000001011100100111 1 week ago
@koalab100 "hundreds of years of EXP" one man cant live hundreds of years
ahgoon69er 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahgoon69er i swear some people are born without a brain. You think when a great naval commander comes along and does amazing things and uses new tactics. that his methods are thrown out when he dies? Or do they get added to the next generation of naval commanders training........hmmmmmmm Toughie..... The British navy has over 550 years of naval commanders experience packed into our arsenal. Think before you try and be a smart arse. You only end up looking even dumber then you clearly are.
koalab100 1 week ago
number 9 and 8 is one and the same. It is not unusual for the Americans to pass on their old units to their allies.
talje 3 weeks ago
Стерегущий №1!!!!!!!!!!!!! тупые Янки и Бриташки
MaxZM1997 3 weeks ago
ой мудаки Россия лучшая только у нас могут быть лучшии корабли!!!!!!!!
MaxZM1997 3 weeks ago
type 45 is the best,good choice
broadband01 3 weeks ago
the best warship in the world isn't a Nimitz class carrier? 1 could wipe out the navies of most countries but like u said you are British so its gotta hurt admitting the USA rules the waves now but hey on the bright side of life we are allies:) prolly always will be. God save the Queen:) heheh
gawaine05 3 weeks ago
@gawaine05: Without other ships protecting it, your mighty Nimitz could be sunk in five minutes by a cheap submarine belonging to a fourth rate navy.
Yes, the USA rules the waves. But that's because the USN has a lot of quality ships of all kinds - not just carriers! Like I keep saying, it takes a mix of different kinds of ships to make a fleet. There is no one warship that does it all. Not carriers, not destroyers, not submarines!
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago
@MrCutsteel....but yes, we are allies and we have strong ties that go beyond any treaty of alliance. :)
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago
@MrCutsteel Гавно ваша америка Россия рулит!!!!!!!!!
MaxZM1997 3 weeks ago
Wish there'd be an updated version of these videos where the Type 45 is at the top. ;p
beechey145 3 weeks ago
f%^#ng fogbreathers ?
seanslingerland 3 weeks ago
the type 45 is the best air defence ship in the world, it can track dozens of targets and destroy them all, i think that the RN will use them to protect the new supercarriers (or supercarrier) when they are commisioned
markhammill1995 3 weeks ago
@markhammill1995 they will when the 2 new aircraft carriers come out in 2015 4 type 45s,2 type 23,2 nuclear classed submarines and 2 other ships forgot what there called sorry but they will be protecting the ships those numbers i said are for each aircraft carrier not together its gonna look amazing when they all come into port together
hardnut451 3 weeks ago
@hardnut451 they always have two protective rings around an aircraft carrier, underwater defence, air defence, missile defence and protection against hostile ships as these aircraft carriers are the most valuable asset in the RN at £3bn each
markhammill1995 3 weeks ago
@markhammill1995 rofl, super carrier
FoxUNSC 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrCutsteel 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FoxUNSC Depends how you define 'supercarrier', but at 70,000 tons the QEs will be a fair old size. Not as big as a Nimitz (around 100,000 tons) but dwarfing the Invincibles (22,000 tons), the Cavour (30,000 tons) and even the Charles de Gaulle (around 45,000 tons).
MrCutsteel 2 weeks ago
number 1 is spot on :)
ArThUrRbRiCk 3 weeks ago
type 45 has got a nice penis ;)
col0rfulflashOoll 3 weeks ago
Beside all the specifications, the Sachsen-class looks pretty impressive
Bazgatow87 3 weeks ago
It´s well known that today the navantia´s F-100 Alvaro de Bazan class are the best AWD.
xilium 3 weeks ago
@xilium: Well known by who? :) I think the Type 45 is better in that role myself.
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago
xilium 3 weeks ago
@xilium: Lol, yeah, those are the full armaments specs, but I was talking specifically about the anti-air role. The reason I say Type 45 is better in that role is mainly because of the SAMPSON radar - though as I say, none of us are in a position to know just how good it really is because the details are classified.
The F-100s are cool ships though.
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago
Type 45 = Horizon
MRjlouis3131 3 weeks ago
@MRjlouis3131: Closely related, uses the same missile system, but Type 45 uses the SAMPSON radar which is generally believed to be more capable. Just how much more capable none of us really know, since the details are classified.
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago
@MRjlouis3131 The RN navy was originally going to go with the horizon destroyer but they pulled out and contracted BAE to design a ship which on paper is about the same power but it has the more powerful SAMPSON radar
markhammill1995 3 weeks ago
1 Kirov grandaddy is enough to kill all these stealth babies combined...
topolm 3 weeks ago
NR 1+ Bismarck:=)
TheGamechrisi 4 weeks ago
Where's the USS Eldridge (DE-173)? Oh yeah...
Indogyearsimdead 1 month ago
i don't understand how a top 10 of best warships doesn't include any dutch ships? they have the most advanced weapons,sensor and RADAR systems.. maybe not as big as the good old iowa but still pretty neat ;)
cicadafan 1 month ago
@cicadafan Check 2:55 in , dumbass
OooowBabyBaby 1 month ago 2
@OooowBabyBaby dumbass? you mean yourself with that right?
cicadafan 1 month ago
@cicadafan number 3 is dutch
27tcar 4 weeks ago
Got to admit, even though I'm British and very proud of the Type 45, it's not the best warship in the world because it's too specialised. It is however possibly the best anti-air destroyer with the highly sophisticated VIPER air defence system making-up for fewer missiles and I recall recently one American officer on a joint war games exercise been very impressed by its capabilities. So whilst it could call itself the best anti-air destroyer it struggles to deserve best warship title.
tbatallen 1 month ago 14
@tbatallen The best warships in the world are the NIMITZ CLASS carriers..This is just another BAE Marketing propaganda aimed at gullible British public to justify the exorbitant price..She is a very advanced air defence destroyer no doubt but she is hopelessly underarmed vis-a-vis Arleigh Burke destroyers which can carry twice the number of missiles and has also excellent land attack capability as well as ASW .
sidewinder188 4 weeks ago
@sidewinder188: Again, there's no such thing as a 'best warship'; different warships do different jobs. Your mighty Nimitz could be sunk by a relatively cheap submarine. Is the submarine 'better' than the carrier? No, because it can't do a carrier's job. But it takes lots of different types of warships to make a fleet; there is no one warship that does it all.
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago
@sidewinder188 Firstly the BAE did not make the NIMITZ CLASS because it is made in the USA,secondly it was build by Newport News Shipbuilding Company and thirdly BAE don't own Newport News Shipbuilding Company .
gangstersteve1993 3 weeks ago
@gangstersteve1993: Uh, I think he knows that. I think you've misread his post; read it again.
MrCutsteel 3 weeks ago