🇬🇧😎👌

Let’s kick ass

Can we please stop this perpetual discussion on the nuclear question . Both conventional and nuclear have advantages and drawbacks but surely the finish of the discussion is sure,ly this if the M.O.D. had held out for nuclear none would have been built . As it is the Navy struggles with a purity of qualified engineering officers . Two good carriers recognized as such are better than none plus gradually we are getting the frigates . I would suggest the Royal Navy has come out pretty well plus new tankers dry stores ships and the submarine programmed intact including a seventh Astute . Forget nuclear and hope for electric catapults at the next upgrade .

@DrawnInk1

7 ай бұрын

Totally agree. If you have to replenish for food, ammo and aviation fuel then it’s not a problem to refuel the ship at sea either. Can’t wait for catapults on a diagonal flight deck and maintain the ski jump.

@vMaxHeadroom

7 ай бұрын

Well said! I absolutly hate how we seem to constantly put ourselves down as we fight way above our weight class. The two QE class Aircraft carriers with 5th Gen F-35's are just fantastic, coupled to our magnificent Type 45 Destroyers and the new Type 26 Frigates finally roling of the production line, things are looking so much better. Also with the Astute's now near on full strenght and the new Dreadnaught class subs not far of, coupled to the Type 31's and the 4 new support ships on the horizon, I think we are in a far better place. I only hope we keep the pace up as the world is getting more and more nuts and I salute all those that serve...

All the jealous bots on here think the UK can't fight a war, just look at our history and mess with the Brits and find out.

We can only need what we can afford common sense tells that.

Watching the Ukraine Drones destroying tanks and ships at minimum cost. Is it worth keeping two massive targets? And where and in what type of war will it be safe to use them? Do we have the capability to defend them?

What a dainty takeoff 😂

Has a built in stoppage, it’s not Nuclear, so has to keep refuelling, and that exercise is costly, and a high risk target …. Tanker & aircraft carrier alongside each other. Glad to see it afloat … shame it took so long ….. the USA shipyard built 6 per month during WW2 It took government 10 years to agree & issue construction contract.

@richardsalisbury496

7 ай бұрын

The refueling isn't a disadvantage it fills up the aviation fuel just like any other carrier with the engine fuel at the same time

@rickhughes954

7 ай бұрын

@@richardsalisbury496 The most successful carriers in the World are all nuclear, that is not coincidental. I agree that our pocket sized carrier with no catapult launch, and no British planes is better than nothing.

@mattatherton6969

7 ай бұрын

True, but it can refuel in almost any friendly port and is better than nothing. If one goes down there's another one anyway which wouldn't have been affordable with nuclear or would require diverting funding from the T26 or T31 and T32. They will always be protected by an AD destroyer, an astute and a frigate or 2 as well as other nato allies own AD vessels. The royal navy needs mass, not necessarily the cream of the crop.

@Benjd0

7 ай бұрын

Sounds a bit like you're just jumping on a bandwagon here considering you're still harping on about having no aircraft on a video which shows aircraft taking off from the carrier. Plus calling her a pocket carrier, considering she's the largest outside of the US with a deck area 90% of the size of the new Ford class, it just sounds like you're parroting the same stuff that other randoms comment without actually knowing the facts. I'd be interested in what metric you're using for 'most successful carriers' considering most have seen little to no actual combat in decades. There's also only a single operational aircraft carrier outside of the US which is nuclear powered, despite multiple countries using nuclear powered subs. The advantages of nuclear on a surface warship are often simply not worth the additional cost and maintenance. The decision to go nuclear power on their carriers has left France with the sole nuclear powered carrier outside of the US for decades, as they decided they couldn't afford a second carrier after building it. It takes around 15 months of maintenance to refuel her, which leaves them without a carrier for long periods of time. The UK could have easily ended up in the same situation, spending the same money on one carrier as two and having less availability in that one carrier. Also not sure what the point of comparing WW2 US carrier build rates to the UK today? This isn't WW2, the US took even longer to get their latest carrier operational.

@SuperCymru

7 ай бұрын

I used term pocket carrier - compared to US Nimitz class as an example ..... which is more than 110' longer and almost 3 times the displacement, plus of course the benefit of being nuclear which was point of my post. that is not parroting, it's facts. There are loads of other facts relating to range, armament, carrier battle group size etc. I'm sure when they get them working these 2 carriers will be useful. Just a pity we are reliant on US planes & software, which hardly makes us self sufficient.

UK 2 Russia 1

Yes it creates a task group because the Royal navy can't create her own. Weak royal navy

Is it sinking yet? A piece of antique in the sinking empire!

@robertwillis4061

7 ай бұрын

Ours only needs a tow when a Foreign part breaks, yours needs towed all the time

@lopesh.4431

7 ай бұрын

@@robertwillis4061 Dream on. . .

@seniorslaphead8336

7 ай бұрын

Britain hasn't had an empire for 70+ years so wft are you talking about? Grow up.

@lopesh.4431

7 ай бұрын

@@seniorslaphead8336 Are you British? Your British empire is going down the tube. Get out of your cave!

@davidturnbull310

7 ай бұрын

More modern than any 💩 you have. 😂😂😂😂