quality of videos vs quality of comments section on this channel is astounding.

@Balrog2005

10 ай бұрын

Best comment.

1. The RN does not rely only on RAF planes. The F-35B is jointly operated by both the RAF and the RN. 2. The UK has 33 F-35B currently in service, not 30 as shown on your graphics. 3. According to the MoD, FC/ASW is due to be operational on T26 in 2028, not in 2030. 4. T26 can handle 2 Merlin or4 Wildcats by using the RR mission bay. (T26 will almost always carry Merlin over Wildcat since Merlin has the dipping sonar)

@seand485

11 ай бұрын

Only a couple of notes on this: 2 - There are 3 F35s based in the US for testing and evaluation. I'm guessing they may have been excluded from the total used here? 4 - While the T26 will technically be able to carry 2 helicopters, my understanding is it would be a bit difficult to deploy the 2nd one due to the hangar + mission bay configuration.

@dc-4ever201

11 ай бұрын

@@seand485 Having looked at the bay on the back of the Type 26, it's a single door because of the sloped in stealthy back, which then provide mounts for CIWS or DS30M RWS. Unless they are playing Tetris moving stuff round inside I'm not sure how you'd get a Wildcat past a Merlin or each other, there doesn't look like enough room. So I think you're right in that respect, maybe if they are carrying one Helo and a couple of drones as they are much smaller.

@garywalling4341

10 ай бұрын

Ok so you know your stats but, the relevance to the point/subject is what ???????????????????????

@user-hu1yi8ox9z

Ай бұрын

It doesn't matter if they are RAF, as long as people can fly them off the carriers is the main thing.

There is a manpower drain in the RN, just as there usually is in the army and RAF. The reasons are very similar: That people want out is the inevitable result of too few ships and crews being stretched by long deployments and too high an operational tempo, with less and less time for shore jobs/family/personal and career progression. The solution is a combination of more hulls to spread the load, more people retained to man them (by improving pay and conditions) and/or the UK reducing its international commitments to a level the funding will actually support. I don't currently see any of this happening, although the concept behind the procurement of Type 31 shows that someone is thinking about more hulls with smaller crews for less money, to free up the bigger hulls with bigger crews to do the more important tasks, and maybe get deployment durations down to 6 months or less.

@kdaltex

11 ай бұрын

How about thr antiwhite policies theyre pushing

@dc-4ever201

11 ай бұрын

@@kdaltex Yes in particular the RAF and they had a nerve to run a recruitment ad the other week on TV.

seeing 6 destroyer leave the British port in: 1940: sir, they are sending out a reconnaissance force 1980: sir, the 1st fleet has left port 2020: sir, the entire Royal Navy has departed.

@Chips-Dubbo

11 ай бұрын

Our escort fleet in 1982 was pretty shite compared to today.

@tetraxis3011

10 ай бұрын

@@Chips-Dubbo Both the Argentine and British navies can testify to that.

@TheThundertaker

10 ай бұрын

Of course, the difference is a 2020 RN destroyer is more powerful than every RN destroyer of 1940 combined.

It's honestly really sad to see the whole UK military decrease in size year by year. Despite this happening since WWII, They still had quite a formidable force for a country their size during the late cold war. They even demonstrated their ability to retake an outlying territory on the other side of the planet. Now their naval power appears doubtful if they were to take on one of several other world powers without the help of NATO or other allies.

@MrTangolizard

11 ай бұрын

I’m not sure there are many country’s that can take on peer country’s on there own the uk is still on of the most powerful forces in the world it’s also 1 of only about 5 true blue water navy’s in the world and has the ability to build its own ships including nuclear subs

@Scraps_Underscore

11 ай бұрын

@@MrTangolizard That's true. There really isn't a country that they plan on having one-on-one beef with, and compared to the rest of Europe they still seem on par with Navy size, but their procurement process the past couple decades has just felt... a little disappointing for some reason. I mean, when it comes to the Navy the only point I can recall is how Type 45 procurement was cut from 12 to 6, but that makes me a little afraid of possible cuts that will come to the three classes of frigates succeeding the Type 23. The rest of it comes from the Army and RAF. I just feel like I've seen a common trend of newer pieces of hardware replacing preceding classes/variants in lower and lower numbers, in amounts that, to me, seem less than optimal. There were real numbers for this somewhere, but I can't remember so I'll make up my own scenario: The UK wants to replace its 300 Challenger 2s. Newer technology is expensive, so I would understand if they can't replace them one-for-one. I'd guess they would end up with 250 Challenger 3s. In reality, they only get a ridiculous amount of 100.

@brunol-p_g8800

11 ай бұрын

@@tomgunton not anymore, Brexit got in the way..

@dc-4ever201

11 ай бұрын

They can't fill vacancies in our forces anymore due to low prospects for promotion because of the small size. That and the constant erosion of our country by left wingers in Universities making people feel ashamed to be British or patriotic by spreading their poisonous ideology among younger students. People have also changed, the vast amount of young people don't care about what goes on elsewhere, they are focused on the here and now and how many likes they get on Facebook/Tik Tok, they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

@kimjonglongdong3158

10 ай бұрын

@@tomgunton no they haven't. In terms of wages in pounds yeah they've gone up, always do. But in terms of what that money is worth, practically every job is now paying worse than it was 2-5 years ago (but that's the same in many many countries atm)

I just looked up the fact that the UK has 40 Admirals including vice and rear admirals and 70 commissioned ships (Apr 2023) that’s an incredible ratio! 😮 what do they all do? The bureaucracy is stunning…

@davidadiwego4608

10 ай бұрын

there's naval offices to fill

@tanyard

10 ай бұрын

That stat is a commonly claimed one but doesn't take into account that there are senior naval officers based on land at shore establishments, not just at sea.

@pritsingh9766

10 ай бұрын

They do keyboard fighting for the British empire in the comments 😂

The Royal Navy opted to go for power over quantity. An aircraft carrier costs around £3.7billion, while a frigate costs around £250million. If the RN didn't build the 2 aircraft carriers, it could have built around 30 frigates instead. This was the sensible option, as no navy in 2023 can call itself a serious navy without carrier strike groups. And there are only 4-5 navies in the world who can operate theirs globally (the Royal Navy being one). But the small size of the escort fleet can definitely be felt. It is on track to be larger in the early 2030s - but we need those numbers YESTERDAY. 2030s is a distant future, especially with all the problems happening in the world today.

@josephdowey1302

11 ай бұрын

3,700,000,000/250,000,000=30?? 🤔😭

@jenkz16

11 ай бұрын

Aircraft carriers are outdated. They are useful in a war on terror scenario. But they’d be the first targets for a wave of hypersonic missiles at the out break of a conflict. They’re basically useless in a modern war.

@Armoure10

11 ай бұрын

​@@jenkz16um except for future energy weapons, basically outmatching any missile technology 🤷‍♂️

@nobodyherepal3292

11 ай бұрын

@@jenkz16hypersonic weapons so far have shown to be either a) ineffective against even static structures b) overpriced cruise missiles that can be destroyed by existing air defense, or c) only exist on paper. And if aircraft carriers were obsolete, why is China trying to build and field close to 6 of them right now? I’d say, The aircraft carrier is here to stay.

@Joesolo13

11 ай бұрын

I think RN might've been better served taking notes from the Italian Navy, and building 3 or 4 ships similar to Cavour, with more of a focus on Air operations. In theory they could afford 5 but that's assuming equivalent costs. Building 3 frees up a few solid billion pounds for other parts of the navy, while ensuring 1 ship's always operational. 4 gives added flexibility for the carrier fleet(You could surge 2 at any time without much fuss) and would still have likely been less expensive by some margin, perhaps enough for another couple frigates.

French and British making an anti ship missile together. Oh the irony.

@carlitosway2487

11 ай бұрын

It's, becuase what they been able to learn in WW1 and WW2. That It's in Europe's and free worlds interests that they are united.👍🏾

@joestendel1111

11 ай бұрын

So ironic to make a weapon system with one of your most reliable allies

@carlitosway2487

11 ай бұрын

Specifically, during WW2. The nazi party traumatized Europe in way, that when the Allied nation won WW2. They void that Europe stay united to avoid another Hitler type of caracter.

@ellisgreen1479

11 ай бұрын

Remember the uk hold the biggest arms company! I has its hand in most/lots of European and NA company's!

@User-he6zd

11 ай бұрын

Allows UK to veto export to Argentina

There’s approx 40 Admirals vs approx 17 active combat ships…hmmm..what’s wrong with this ratio 😮?

I like it when the UK and France make stuff together. It's like the perfect mix of engineering culture.

@frogfichtrlustr369

11 ай бұрын

​@@WiegrafFollesnobody asked

@Chips-Dubbo

11 ай бұрын

@@WiegrafFolles Herman Goering. "I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked"

@dwaynehicks6838

11 ай бұрын

​@@WiegrafFollesfrench and British , not just the English , Scots , Welsh , northern Irish and any other places in the world that consider themselves British, Like the Falklands or Gibraltar.

@Janoip

11 ай бұрын

As a German we only have problems with the french multinational projects almost all have problems, cost more take longer etc. but with norway, sweden, netherlands and italy the projects work good.

@kimjonglongdong3158

10 ай бұрын

@@dwaynehicks6838 if we're going to be technical then British doesn't include Northern ireland. Strictly speaking Britain is the main island, comprising England, Scotland and Wales, while only "UK" comprises Northern Ireland and other smaller islands and territories. But nowadays like you say British is interchangebly used just to refer to people from the UK. Guess it does sound better than "UKish"

The big issue is the government ordered a lot more ships (still being designed and built) and then twice now cut the number of people that can be employed to work on the vessel. Even without the new ships being built thus expanding the hull numbers... the Royal Navy has to dock other ships to take out an aircraft carrier! Even then they have to ask NATO to make up the manpower numbers on the ship and other ships for support. When working outside NATO areas they have to call on the Americans to help out.

@1IbramGaunt

11 ай бұрын

Well yes but a big part of that is as you say the damn Conservative government we currently have, it's why the sooner there's a General Election the better as Labour WILL win in a landslide, and while that probably won't make things much better for the UK military right now it sure as hell can't make them much worse

Type 26 looks like a great ship, we just need them faster, at least the Type 31 is coming along nicely and with the announcement that they will have mk41 vls it gives them a real boost in firepower.

@brunol-p_g8800

11 ай бұрын

It looks like the mk41 means that we are going to have to replace our entire stock of weapons, and it’s not cheap..

@dc-4ever201

11 ай бұрын

@@brunol-p_g8800 Nah they are fitting current weapons to Mk41, apparently they can quad pack some SAM's into the mk 41 so that should increase missile numbers compared to the "Shroom Farm" arrangement they currently have.

Need to double the Frigates and Destroyers.

We need a good 100 billion to modernise our whole force. This will be expensive but not impossible to get

As a brit, i really dont know why we dont have a massive push to use our military as free higher education for the public sector. We have a distressing lack of nurses and doctors, one because the pay isnt great and two because training isnt paid and it takes minimum of 3 years... well we have military nurses and doctors that are trained in the military to the same standard as our health service, why are we not creating a corp that is somewhat dedicated to peoples future prospects after military service? 🤔 Civilian policing, fire brigade, teaching, healthcare, social care, construction and engineering all can be taught alongside military service, instead of learning at the cost of the individual in civilian life, its paid for in short service to the military that comes with an actual wage. If taxes were upped for this approach purely to bolster our military with a consistent flow of young people, i would actually vote for a tax rise.

@vMaxHeadroom

7 ай бұрын

I think that is a great idea and how benificial that would be to our nation as a whole. I have to admit, that for the first time, I am worried about the country I love, as it seems people have forgotten what a great country this is and yes I would happily pay higher taxes for this approach as not only would it be great from a training perspective giving the young much needed skills when they hit work but also give them a sense of what it means to defend your country as we owe so much to those men and women who are in the armed forces defending us.

@wheelie_1988

7 ай бұрын

It's where we let so many in, we don't know who we can etc trust etc.

@ashvandal5697

6 ай бұрын

I’ve been wondering this for the USA for some time too. Would be a great pipeline for people. Would make the military competitive against industry for non-rich people. Of course, the complaints will flood that the rich are getting more ahead while the poor have to “waste” their lives as slaves to the government.

The UK government has no real idea how to run a country, let alone maintain a military, besides this military spending is rarely popular.

@Tannhsr

4 ай бұрын

With the world and Europe in a more volatile state than at any stage since the 1930’s, public opinion on military spending has shifted. A potential third world war is now daily news again for the first time since the height of the Cold War. Any cuts in military spending or capability will be seen negatively by the general public.

@user-js4mi8vw6q

4 ай бұрын

Yes that's true but let's not forget the people who conquered 3/4 of the lands mass they were not cowards.. I agree the population is cowards now and will get destroyed in any battle

Money isn't the only issue, new members have been dropping every year, especially on how they do recruiting now (more focused on diversity politics). At the moment only 1 Vanguard is active while 3 are docked for repairs due to lack of specialists but there is supposed to be 2 active at all times.

As an island nation, a strong Navy is indispensable to Britain. Japan knows this and they are building their Navy accordingly.

@tritium1998

10 ай бұрын

Because their islands need foreign resources their navies need to get? Countries that aren't islands can still have large navies for whatever reason so some island nations aren't so special.

@krishanrathi9119

9 ай бұрын

Japan is bigger in all aspects (economy, population, size and 6th longest costline) as compared to UK, they have strong adversaries (china and russia) around, UK has none , so it's natural it should have a bigger navy and military.

@TheThundertaker

9 ай бұрын

Things can change unexpectedly. A Trump administration or similar populist could pull out of NATO and since Russia is being pulled into China's orbit, they could post a threat to Britain's Eastern flank. It might seem far fetched now but unfortunately, major military projects can take up to 20 years to go from drawing board to entering service so we have to prepare for sudden changes in the UK's geopolitical situation. Even as things stand, Britain would inevitably get drawn into any conflict with China. Britain's economy depends heavily on those trade routes in the Indo-Pacific and would suffer catastrophic economic damage if they were cut off by China.@@krishanrathi9119

@MCLegend13

9 ай бұрын

@@tritium1998they are tho when you actually think about it they need a large navy to protect their maritime trade as most of their resources are imports so require a strong fleet to protect. Strong Navy’s for Islands are more important so your wrong.

@MCLegend13

9 ай бұрын

@@krishanrathi9119still Russias now a European rival again and now with Brexit us no longer in the EU (thanks to the Tory scumbags) we are no longer part of a union of multiple countries so are by ourselves and we need a fleet equal to Japans or atleast not far behind. Get rid of the Tory’s and we could actually get one

Great article. You've actually got a great grasp on the numbers and funding issues face by the RN. Factual, unbiased and accurate. Highly recommended watch

C. Northcote Parkinson, in his book 'Parkinson's Law', has written a very interesting chapter on the Royal Navy. It seems that after WWII, UK's Navy has faced a steady decrease of war vessels, but this decrease is accompanied with an equally steady increase in their non-combatant administrative staff. He jokes that RN may not be able to deploy many vessels in a war, but they sure can flood the enemy with memorandums and telegrams.

British steel industy collapsed because the royal navy stopped ordering ships from the ship building industry. Ordering ships adds to the UK economy.

@TrangleC

10 ай бұрын

The steel industry died all over the western world, even in the USA, where they still built a lot of military ships and other stuff out of steel and in places like the Netherlands and Germany, where they still build cruise ships and large yachts, on top of cars, trains and other such products. Pinning the demise of the British steel industry just on that one factor is myopic. Even if the Royal Navy would still be as big as it was before WW2, or even bigger, they probably would still source their steel where it is cheapest, like everyone else. Military spending adds to the GDP, but not that much to the actual economy. Look at Russia at the moment. Their GDP rose during the war and the Russia trolls and shills celebrate that as the Russian economy booming despite the sanctions, while in reality this rise in GDP is just them spending lots of money on military hardware that then gets blown up without benefiting the Russian economy or the people at all. There is this old saying among economists: "If you want to raise your GDP by a billion Dollar, just build a billion Dollar bridge to nowhere." You can also look at other places where the government spends lots of money on big "White Elephant" projects, like Turkey for example, where they built the world's biggest airport and some crazy big presidential palace and lots of skyscrapers and other stuff and what good did it do their economy as a whole? It tanked and inflation is through the roof and the government pumping lots of tax payer money and borrowed money into big projects with small ROI (Return On Investment) made inflation all the worse. Buying stuff a country can't afford just to create a hand full of jobs in the construction or industrial sector is always a bad idea. The reason why the United Kingdom once could afford to have a huge, powerful navy was that that navy created a Return On Investment. It was part of a actual Empire, which funneled resources from around the world into the British economy without really having to pay for them. Those times are over. Now the Royal Navy is just an expense, just like Turkey's giant presidential palace. It doesn't create a ROI anymore and the same would be true for a otherwise unprofitable steel industry that only exists to build those ships the state can't afford. The reason why the USA can still afford a huge navy is mostly the "Petro Dollar Cycle" and the unique position at the heart of their own world wide Free Trade Order, which is a new kind of Empire. By enabling world wide free trade and everyone profiting from it and those rich people around the world then buying US Dollars so they can buy oil with them and investing their money in the USA, the US Navy still creates a ROI and thus is an investment instead of just an expense. As long as the USA exists, the Royal Navy can never be what it once was again, not even if the UK would try to emulate and replicate what the USA are doing.

@aitorbleda8267

10 ай бұрын

​@@TrangleCThe US can get a return on their army/navy, by imposing their will and selling cloth for goods (dollars). We in the uk no longer have that privilege.

@tomfahey2823

10 ай бұрын

​​​​​​​@@TrangleC I think your analysis is spot on. I would argue the unpopular truth is that, the only reason the UK spends what it does on military procurement, is to maintain its defence industry. Having a defence industry can be a useful *political* asset to a country, as the products which they manufacture can be used as bargaining chips when it comes to influencing countries that don't possess such industries - the UK's relationship with the Middle East being a prime example. Of course, the problem is that the *economic* value of weapons exports alone is often insignificant compared to the investment costs for weapons manufacturers - hence the need for large domestic purchases to make ends meet. This means large amounts of public spending on defence assets that, more often that not, aren't needed, or even useful. Such industries are therefore only really practical for economically ascendent countries (such as China), or economically/politically/militarily dominant countries (such as the US). Of course, politicians in the UK will never accept that the UK is a declining power, as to do so would be political suicide, nor will they want to forfeit their primary political asset (the MIC), even when it is economically prudent to do so. A rather amusing consequence of this is all of the enormously expensive weaponry that has been donated to Ukraine in the last year and a half, at absolutely no cost whatsoever, whilst national militaries face budget cuts and downsizing across the board. I'm sure many politicians were positively rubbing their hands in excitement, when they saw the opportunity to get rid of large amounts of expensive-to-maintain, but functionally useless military equipment, in exchange for (the promise of) political leverage.

@he1ar1

10 ай бұрын

@@TrangleC The EU is still the largest steel manufacturer in the world. UK today produces less than Austria. The biggest buyer of ships was the royal navy. Like 50 shipyards built ships for them.

Ruled the waves for more than a couple of centuries.

@petrsafranek5725

10 ай бұрын

Well, they are close to the first century of ruling...

@TheJuggtron

10 ай бұрын

150 years...

@andywilliams7323

10 ай бұрын

A couple of centuries is right. The UK was the top dog Navy from the late 1700s till a little after WW2. So just under 200 years.

@SuperJibulus

10 ай бұрын

Empires rise and fall, this is just how things are. The Chinese know all too well about that.

@ajx9747

10 ай бұрын

America is the greatest country on earth. You are just a lapdog of it

Are you really including the Admiral Kuznetsov in a carrier fleet comparison? Comic relief?

Great vid as always! Thanks Binkov 🤗

a report titled ‘We’re going to need a bigger navy’, which concluded the British fleet was not large enough to fulfil the objectives laid out in the Integrated Review. While total displacement has grown, the number of hulls - which provide the Royal Navy with the means to foster presence (the prerequisite for both sea control and denial) - has been decreasing at an alarming rate and will only increase slightly by 2040. Presently, in terms of major combatants, the Royal Navy has two large aircraft carriers, two amphibious vessels, four ballistic missile and six nuclear attack submarines, six destroyers, and 10 frigates . It plans to procure eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates. Other programmes - such as the Type 32 frigate and Type 83 destroyer - remain up in the air; . How the mighty have fallen

Atleast we still have the song to comemorate their more than 350 years of Britania Ruling The Waves.

make a video abaut the modernization process of the Greek armed forces, the possible problems and its strategic goals💪

Trying to have every capability means the defense budget gets spread too thin.

No. It doesn’t even have enough escorts for the carriers. It’s sad how much the politicians have damaged a once great service.

@dravenvea2605

11 ай бұрын

it's not the politicians. it's the britain itself. it's doomed to fail after WWII.

British Army 40 years ago. It was already clear then that the Navy wasn't getting the investment it needed. It would have been even worse if Argentina hadn't invaded the Falklands.

Great video. I like your take and I found this very well explained.

Love you Binkov keep up the good work:)

Would be realy interesting to have a video, much in the same way as this one, but going over the french's recent military programing law, looking at the state of their military and their plans to ramp up their spending for the 2030s.

Bit of an essay, so: Generally good and agree, but the Royal Navy's strategy is not Indo-Pacific-centric. Navy leadership (Radakin, Key) have been clear in saying that the North Atlantic is the RN's centre of gravity. The carriers will visit the Pacific every couple of years as opposed to frequent sightings around Europe. The patrol ships we've sent to the Pacific and Indian Ocean are there to keep a modest presence, as a point of contact and engagement when the carrier group isn't visiting, that way there's a consistent engagement with allies instead of us randomly showing up every so often. The Type 32s are an interesting one to pin down, as they began to be mentioned within a year of the Stena Impero tanker crisis, where only one RN ship was available to cover the whole Stait of Hormuz. This is speculation, one wonders if the embarrassment of that gave the RN enough of a case to argue for more escort ships. Boris Johnson being the Churchill-fan would have probably understood the historical parallels. Good points about dollar-pound exchange rates, which will continue to be an issue. Fortunately, one of the very few things that has gotten better in the last 5 years is investment in shipyards in the UK, as well as the UK having a good complex weapons infrastructure (MBDA) to arm what we build. Now there's more to a warship than just that (sonars... 'we need more sonars' could be on our national tombstone if we're not careful), but the long term investments in infrastructure will at least offset that part of the cost (one desperately hopes). Amphibious shipping's current state breaks my heart: in the 2000s we probably had the most capable landing force outside the USA, with supporting logistics. Even when we gutted the carriers back then it was still capable. Now we're going in the other direction. I know the Royal Marines are focusing more on raiding rather than mass-landings, but it's a bloody hard capability to rebuild. The Multi-Role Support Ships would probably keep it alive if imperfect. Here in the UK we'd all love a 2-3 LHDs like the Trieste or Juan Carlos but the personnel costs would make that a battle. Even with a growing number of loud voices at Parliament wanting a larger armed forces, the Treasury can be a bit fickle at times with defence.

@Chips-Dubbo

11 ай бұрын

the ships in the pacific are a tripwire force.

@TheThundertaker

10 ай бұрын

By the time this business between Russia and Ukraine is concluded Russia will be broken and irrelevant. Even as things stand now, their navy has been exposed as a paper tiger that can't even control the seas around a neighbouring country that doesn't even have a navy without losing its own flagship. China on the other hand, is going to continue to be a rising threat, and that is the naval threat that Britain needs to consider in the longer term. China might be on the other side of the world, but our vital trade routes go through the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific and we can't afford to just ignore a potential threat to those trade routes.

6 out of 10 top ship builders are Korean and Japanese. Shame they dont have a Nato interoperability yet.

@SilvanaDil

11 ай бұрын

With decades of US presence in both Japan and South Korea, interoperability won't be much of an issue.

Making their own designs is part of the problem. They can save money by using more joint venture projects with more standardized designs for better economies of scale. Also use more more multifunction platforms instead of specialized role platforms.

@clmk28

11 ай бұрын

or buy Chinese frigates and destroyers like the Russians :)

@warzik5910

11 ай бұрын

The aircraft carrier design was a joint venture between UK and France when back in 2000s, France planned to build a second aircraft carrier.

@1IbramGaunt

11 ай бұрын

It was this or let our entire infrastructure for building our own warships and submarines at all completely disappear, far from not doing enough joint stuff with other countries we've done far too much of it to the extent we can barely make or do anything ourselves without them anymore, and if you don't know why Britain being entirely militarily dependent on France and America is a bad thing, read a f*cking history book

@tetraxis3011

11 ай бұрын

@@clmk28The Russians have bought exactly 0 Chinese ships.

@JollyOldCanuck

11 ай бұрын

@@tetraxis3011 The Russian Navy primarily consists of old Soviet cruisers and destroyers that are becoming more difficult to maintain over time, a handful of modern combat capable frigates, and many small corvettes that can realistically only operate safely in littoral waters where air support is guaranteed. The Russian Navy's power is almost completely reliant on its submarine fleet.

F35 is set up as a joint force between RN and RAF. Squadrons are assigned to carriers or land as required, so there is no specific allocation of airframes to either RN or RAF separately.

@lestermay5878

5 ай бұрын

It's utterly absurd that the RAF is involved at all in naval aviation. Maritime Air should be the business of the Fleet Air Arm not the RAF.

Inflation on military equipment usually is higher than inflation on consumer goods. That means that the Royal Navy is even farther behind. It could be worse, they could be the Royal Canadian Navy.

As much as I hate to say it, but one of the main problems I see with UK procurement (also applies to US as well) is they do not leverage cooperative spending on new platforms and prefer to go solo in many cases which is huge financial burden to have. If they could cost split between either 2 or several nations on a specific platform, it would like do much in the term of cost savings in both R&D and manufacturing. I suppose the AUKUS sub design is a step in the right direction however, it is not exactly a F-35 of seas like I'm thinking of and granted every nation is going to have its own tweaks are specifications that are going to need to be met, but I think at the very least a common hull design can be achieved and I can see a benefit in terms of interoperability with said approach as well.

You forgot to mention that the UK have lost their advanced alert and surveillance capabilities, after retiring their E-3D AWACS in 2021, which the E-7 Wedgetail should have replace, 5 in total, but which will end up being 3 (even though the MoD has paid for 5 MESA radars... ), and not before 2024/2025.

@kimjonglongdong3158

10 ай бұрын

plus the lack of enough P-8s to boot.

Make a video like this on Indian Navy too.. ❤❤

Nice summary. It was well thought out and well organised. In fact, I think this was one of your best videos in recent months!

you sure open our eyes sir, thank you for your continuous efforts!!!

The UK has managed to have so many old, expensive systems that it's "champagne tastes, beer money". The UK should focus on having a highly skilled Marine force and ditch Imperial fantasies.

@Chips-Dubbo

11 ай бұрын

China and Russia should ditch imperial fantasies

@VTUGYT

11 ай бұрын

​@@Chips-DubboChinese and Russian navy are much stronger than royal navy

@aidan-4759

11 ай бұрын

@@VTUGYT The same russian navy which had its capital ship destroyed by Ukraine, a nation with barely a navy?

@CrispyPratt

11 ай бұрын

​@@VTUGYTthe russian navy barely floats 😂

@hiteshadhikari

11 ай бұрын

@@aidan-4759 u mean the nation supplied intel and weapons by nato and the ship which was floating with half its systems non functional with log book showing it had issues

to be fair, any large conventional war the UK might find itself in would be a team affair. the Royal Navy only really needs to be able to field one good battle group and help with support actions. it's not trying to secure a giant empire anymore

@AverageAlien

10 ай бұрын

Shame. We should be.

@Jake_5693

10 ай бұрын

We still have a fair few areas that are strategically important to us. The North Sea, the English Channel, the Falklands, the Gibraltar strait. It’s all well and good saying we’d have backup, but we’re an island and these are major shipping routes as well as home to thousands of British citizens. I’d feel far more comfortable knowing we have the ability in more than one place at any given time without any help.

@TheThundertaker

9 ай бұрын

@@Jake_5693 most of our seaborne trade comes through the Malacca strait and the Suez Canal. We definitely have an interest in securing those.

Binkov, I love your videos. The pronunciation for AUKUS = OR CUSS

That’s what happens when the government keeps slashing away the size of the navy and neglecting what’s left. Moreover the army’s now what’s being prioritised despite being an island nation, where it’s actually more crucial to focus more on the navy, Fleet air arm and airforce.

The Royal navel deprived of financial resources is heading to a fleet size sustainable by a very small island. It survives right now on the financial industry in London but with the US dollar in decline and alternative currency for world trade coming into operation this will reduce significantly.

@seaofenergy2765

10 ай бұрын

Or they could you know, tax the energy companies, multinationals and ultra-rich parasite class properly... Seeing as they run things though, thats not very likely

@ourpetsheadsarefallingoff6654

10 ай бұрын

@@seaofenergy2765they would simply leave worsening the situation

@mattia8327

10 ай бұрын

Alternative currency 😂😂😂

@seaofenergy2765

10 ай бұрын

@@ourpetsheadsarefallingoff6654 the energy companies will leave? 😂😂😂 i mean that would be good, we could transition to renewables and have cheap clean energy. Multi nationals and ultra rich will leave? They rely on dodgy londons financial sector for their offshoring activities so i somehow doubt that. Nice typical right wing brainwashed response btw. The daily mail or rees mogg couldnt of said it better 😂 i guess because they say that exact bs thing you are parroting

@dsdgdsfegfeg

10 ай бұрын

Someone develop a chrome xtension to remove all BRICS, Currency, Crypto, Gold, colonization, imperialist rubbish talk from my Internet. Thank you

I have no doubt that today's Royal Navy displays the confidence and professionalism that it always has. However the fact is that the fleet is now a hollowed out force and would not be able to sustain the kind of losses it did during the Falklands campaign. There are far too few destroyers frigates and attack submarines to build a task force around the new carriers. Promises of new ships are seldom kept by a government with no commitment to security and defence. As an example it is now 20 years since a new frigate was commissioned.

@nicholasong2760

10 ай бұрын

If they as less woke they might perform even better

@impguardwarhamer

10 ай бұрын

While you are right, on the plus side the Royal Navy is much more suited to a falklands-style conflict now than it was in the past. The Royal Navy of the 80's suffered heavily from being entirely focused on countering soviet submarines, to the point that it was really not fit for purpose when Argentina invaded. Those losses shouldn't have happened

Thank you 🙏 AGAIN Comrade Binkov, top shelf as always 🏆👏👏🍺 BTW who's the Blonde we'd like an introduction 😉

Good video, that 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Personally I think the UK should have a token amount of land forces ( 10,000) keep the tanks and armous but use the saved funds and pump it into the navy and airforce,

Please do similar videos on other countries, e.g. Poland, US, France Sweden, India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, etc.

It’s important that an island state has suffice forces to protect its imports..such as oil and good which happen to pass through regions of conflicts (Iran). Just recall how Germany almost starved the UK during the war and more recently, oil tanker captured by Iran gunboats..

10:00 for comparison of aircraft carrier displacement a Nimitz class carrier displaces around 100,000 times. Hence the name supercarrier.

Possible mods to existing and projected vessels Type 45- 16 Sylver A70 instead of 24 'mushroom farms' , 2x3 324 torp tubes, 2 phalanx swappd out for 2 millenium guns, martlet module (also fitted for starstreak) on the 2 ds30 mounts Type 23- Not applicable due to imminent decomissioning, nsms on as many vessels as possible Type 26- Oto 127/64 for Mk 45 127mm gun, self defence weapons as envisaged on type 45, use of exls for 48 camm-er , 32 instead of 24 mk41, envisaged missiles FC/ASW, Rn should put out a competiton for missile launched torpedo- Candidates- Milas, VL-Asroc, SMART, Type-07, K-Asroc. 16- 24 FC/ASW for anti shipping and land strike, 8-16 asw missiles Type 32 (AAW Arrowhead 140/Iver Huitfeldt - 32 cell Mk 41 or Sylver for Aster 30, 6X4 Exls for 24 camm er, 16 cannister launched missiles, initially NSM, later cannister launched fc/asw, hull and bow mounted sonar, full aaw radar suite (apar, smart-l), raft mounted machinery and 2x3 324 top tubes, 1x57 with madfires or 1x76 with strales, 2x35 millenium gun likely the second batch (type 32). Type 31- (Gp arrowhead 140/ Iver Huitfeldt)32 Mk 41 reserved for 32 FC/ASW, for but not with asroc, no raft mounted machinery (to be specified when layed down, now not possible), NS 110 only(Topweight problems otherwise), 2x3 torp tubes, 57 with madfires or swapped out for 76mm with strales if not available, 2x35 millenium guns instead of 2X 40mm l70, the best sonars that can still be fitted, ffbnw another 24 sea ceptors in the space where the iver huitfeldt has harpoon cannisters (stanflex allows 48 essm instead of 24 essm and 16 harpoons, sea ceptor is smaller than essm, just needs exls instead of mushroom farms to make enough space availabke QE Class- 7 millenium guns for 4 ds30 and 3 phalanx, 32x4 sea ceptor in exls, cats and traps for AEW , aim for 138 f35b RN and RAF F35A order of between 35-65 Albion Class- 4 millenium guns, 8x4 sea ceptor in exls (can be guided by type 997) River Class batch 2 only- 57 or 76mm main gun, 2x(starboard and port) ds30 martlet/starstreak mount, 12-16 sea ceptors, 4-8 nsms/ cannister launched fc/asw, type 997 'artisan radar', sonars if possible, 2x3 324 torps RFE- All 7 Replenishment ships, 3 LSD and argus- 4 Millenium guns each, Sea ceptor definitely on fort victoria (fitted ffbnw sea wolf 1994), explore on other vessels Subs- Little can be done with current vessels, ensure all future subs (Aukus) launch tomahawk/ hopefully sub launched fc/asw out of vls tubes rather than torpedo tubes, continue to modernise lethality and survivability of nuclear delivery systems but mantain 'miniumum credible deterrent' levels in terms of warheads, develop a replacement for spearfish Future Type 83- 112 'full cells', preferably a mk 41 successor or sylver 'a90' for sm-6 or aster 30 future blocks, fc/asw, an asroc, 32 x4 exls for CAMM-Mr in development currently, aranged port and starboard on the superstructure due to minimal deck penertration, s 2x3 324 torps, full sonar suite, extremely large hangar space, 1x 127mm/64 oto centreline fore, 2X 76MM strales/57MM madfires facing fore in a horrizon clas layout, 1 or 2 aft 4 millenium gun amidships, probably 2 on port and 2 starboard side, competitive aaw radar suite Minimum tonnag 13,000 tons, suggested 16,000 tons, maximum around 18,000 tons Reasoning- Type 32 AAW/ Asw -Frigates- The type 45 is not going to be replaced for a considerable ammount of time, its 6 hulls need to be supplemented in this time frame by the frigates, the type 31 and projected type 32 if using an arrowhead 140 hull originats from a capable and affordable aaw frigate hull which has had success in tracking ballistic missiles in Danish tests and this can be leveraged into an affordable aaw interim solution, adding camm er to type 26 also enchances the self defence of carrier strike groups further and the current 'mushroom farm launcher can accomadate this. Adding torpedos and sonars as the 140 design allows for is also useful in 'second rate asw roles, reducing dependance on type 26 Land attack/ Anti shipping type 31 The type 26 will be needed for predominantly anti submarine warfare despite currently being projected to have a land attack role and is an expensive, specialised ship to do this, a good use of the type 31 hulls that have already been layed down, and cannot be wholly reconverted into aaw frigates is to use the large 32 cell mk 41 launcher for packing a lethal ammount of fc/asw both for anti shipping and land strike. The space the iver huitfeldt uses for its 24 essms and 16 harpoon launchers is freed up, there will be no need for cannister launchers and this can therefore have as many 'self defence' sea ceptors as needed, according to the danes, they can have 48 essms in their 'stanflex module, sea ceptor is a smaller missile but 'mushroom farm' launchers take up more space per missile than the mk 56 dual pack for essm. The exls is a great solution, being used on the canadian variant of the type 26 (6 cells, 24 sea ceptors), and accomadates soft launch strength of sea ceptor Millenium Gun- With pre programmable ammunition for use against supersonic mssiles, a variable fire rate up to 1,000 rpm (more than 3x that of the basic 40mm l70 bofors mount proposed) and designed from the ground up to be just as deadly against surface targets, the millenium gun should never have been removed during the redesign of the iver huitfeldt to create the type 31. Phalanx is getting long in the tooth, doesnt have the same range against surface targets and is heavier than a millenium gun mount. If a 40mm l70 bofors deriavative is used, i would want a breda version, either the single or double barelled 'fast forty', 450 and 900 rpm respectfully, rather than 240-330 on the mk 4 BAE/ Bofors Question mark over the 57/70 The 57mm l70 mk 3 gun definitely has some significant advantages over the 76mm oto, in muzzle velocity, rpm and better 'explosive per second fired' than the 76mm/62. However though it has some sophisticated airburst ammuniton, it lacks a guided dart like the 76mm which has turned it into a true ciws or a long range land attack projectile (the miniturized Vulcano round for the 76mm gun is effective to 40km). If the 57mm was to receive a guided dart such as 'Madfires' then this debate becomes a bit more even. The type 31 should rightly get closer to enemy shores than the valuable and expensive type 26 and their is an argument to be made that it should have a 'big gun' and the type 26 a more ubiquitous one rather than the other way around. The 76mm gun provides both solutions, i wouldnt want to close in to the range of a 57mm gun for shore bombardment Insisting on an Asroc- Its a nobrainer for any serious ASW focussed ship. The type 23 has been a stalwart and is still seriously cutting edge in its sonars and acoustic quietness, but to rely on its helicopters and especially its deck torpedo mounts would be a death trap in a scenario like the south china sea with dozens of chinese submarines, if you are having to use your deck torpedoes, you are yourself in danger. Having a dozen or more asrocs means less chance of running out of weaponry, and a standoff weapon Why no tomahawk, LRASM- The fundemental mission of the FC/ASW was to get a missile than can do both roles, be incredibly surivivable through speed, stealth or both, to free up deck space from cannister launchers without having to use more vls cells than would have already been used for tomahawk. It remains by all reports to be on track for service and integration into strike length mk 41 and a70 sylver cells by the end of the decade. Having a kirov like ammount of deadly missiles on a frigate also sounds seriously cool right. Even if the aircraft carrier is still king Mk 45- The mk 45 is nearly 50 years old and the only reason its going to be on a 2030s british vessel is because BAE is responsible for it it and wants uniformity across western and nato allies. The Oto Melera 127/64 has a higher rate of fire, muzzle velocity, range both with and without extended range ammunition (120 km with vulcano), higher elevation, rotation speed and general aa performance Somebody try and cost this all for me. Aiming for 8+ Type 83. I think the UK can do this within 15 years or so on between 2.5 and 3% of GDP (us spends 3.5%). Wish more could be done for the other services but RN is most likely to be in a shooting war which involves a majority of its assets rather than the army or RAF

@lukeallison3713

10 ай бұрын

@@EmperorLionflame The thing is, I'm not even suggesting new ships, just stretching what we have already and are projected to build to the limits of what they are fitted for but not with/ hoping we don't buy outdated weapons. Unmanned vessels are definitely the future, and Type 83, 26 already are envisioning using directed energy weapons during their lifetime. We can't match china in shere number of ships nor tonnage in general but I'd like to think the type 83 as comparable to any surface combatant produced this next decade. The manned surface fleet obviously needs to grow, if we can get say unmanned Corvette sized vessels like the the taiwanese manned tuo chiang without worrying much about organic sensor capability, that would be great too for packing a huge punch

Could you do the same on French navy pls ? I feel like the upcoming plans are really not up to the task. They always mention the FDI but it will be quite small ship, and we will only have a few ...

Budget x year it has to be readed in the other way around. When a budget for a certain branch is low it mean that the branch is up to date at the state of the art, and it need only the budget for maintenance and other expenses. On contrary when the budget for that particular year will considerably be raised, it mean that the branch is under the way of being modernized in some way (new, up tondate, tech buying/building or tech replacement). This reading of the budget however is valid when the Government do not do cuts to budgets for economic reasons, but the up and down curve of the budget is solely dependant of the speech did above.

Very good video! What software do you use to make maps?

Royal navy's size and capability needs to commensurate with UK's economy size. At some point, voters have to choose between aircraft carriers and NHS.

@iamthecaptainnow546

10 ай бұрын

We dont have to chose between the too. We have enough for both and more

@AverageAlien

10 ай бұрын

NHS should be dissolved.

@TheThundertaker

9 ай бұрын

There are countries with public healthcare that don't have a huge and unwieldy state bureaucracy like the NHS providing healthcare. Singapore, France and Germany have far superior systems and if we could get over the fanatical religious cult that protects the NHS from reform we could actually have a better healtchcare system.@@calebjohnson6423

@looinrims

9 ай бұрын

@@iamthecaptainnow546is that why you don’t?

@iamthecaptainnow546

9 ай бұрын

@@looinrims yes…

The problem is not just the UK's economic woes (largely driven by the Bank of England's abject failure to control inflation), but a lack of appetite among sitting MPs to increase defence spending when they have other public spending priorities (health, welfare, education etc.). An unfortunate attitude has taken hold that in effect, spending more on defence will cost them votes. To compound this, during the past decade or so there have been bone headed decisions made, notably flip flopping over catapults for the CVs, before eventually opting for STOVL 🤦‍♂

@Clickathon

11 ай бұрын

Central banks don't control inflation, they CREATE it. Inflation means inflation of money supply, the price increase is just a symptom.

@TheBelrick

11 ай бұрын

sigh. Bankers and politicians CREATE inflation. Its a tax.

@guillermoelnino

10 ай бұрын

Printing more money is the only way to get more inflation. Nothing else is a contributing factor.

@-newuser-707

10 ай бұрын

@@guillermoelnino Purpose before profit works wonders.

The f35s are a joint operated force with raf and rn squadrons with mixed personnel

Short answer NO! But I also know that depends on a lot of things.

Definitely can't pull off the 3rd opium war anymore

@regarded9702

11 ай бұрын

certianly not with an attitute like that

@matthewbarabas3052

11 ай бұрын

they probably could. just call it something else.

@zackksfather5314

10 ай бұрын

can always find a new reason to start one though

@dsdgdsfegfeg

10 ай бұрын

China's Xi CCP virus is getting those results by itself, so it's not needed anymore lol, I feel bad for the Chinese, CCP needs to vanish 😞

Honestly, they should reduce their fleet and make it into something like this: 6-8 Destroyers 8000+ Tons 6-8 Frigates 5000+ Tons 8-12 Multi Mission OPVs / Corvettes 2000+ Tons 10-12 SSK Submarines 4-6 SSBN Submarines 2 Carriers

Would be very interesting to see one of these on future plans on Russian naval expansion

@guillermoelnino

10 ай бұрын

Im all for r ussian navsl wxpansion.

It would be interesting to compare this with the Japanese Navy and military in general. They have significantly more warships, more personnel, aircraft etc yet have a smaller defence budget than the UK. Why are they able to get so much more for their money?

@danstevenson8918

11 ай бұрын

No nukes

@ZaGaijinSmash

11 ай бұрын

I don’t think their budget is smaller. Their budget is a smaller chunk of gdp but the Japanese economy is considerably bigger so a smaller percentage of a bigger economy may yield similar or better spending power. Might be wrong though.

@ROTHSTEIN01

11 ай бұрын

Royal Navy is a joke compared to the Japanese might

I guess it´s fair to say that none of the big three in Europe - UK, France, Germany - is able to have a strong military and a good social system at the same time, that would include good healthcare system, social net and educational system. In these days all military systems like fighter planes, tanks, ships etc. became so expensive that none of these 3 can afford them in numbers we all were used to. That means we have to cooperate and combine our forces and don´t think in terms of national pride anymore. In the future we gotta think of European joint squadrons - apart from those in the NATO. This can be a successful concept, look at the cooperation of the Dutch and German army. And guys - please remember: there´s no empire anymore ................................... just saying.

@AverageAlien

10 ай бұрын

Scrap the "social system" and put all that money into millitary. That's the only correct option.

@darkshardshoots

10 ай бұрын

Both the Germans and the French have a far better purchasing bpower than the UK. A huge part of our problem here is we left the EU, we don't have an effective manufacturing base, and the idiots in charge genuinely seem to think that hiking interest rates and cutting spending is how you fix major economic instability generated by the fact taht you are a service based economy that cut off its single largest service market with Brexit. Like... I have so many opinions, and we could be doing so much better if the country wasn't run by a bunch of corrupt shitwits.

@TheThundertaker

9 ай бұрын

No they don't. Britain still cooperates with EU and other countries to produce common weapons systems. The Tempest is being built with Japan and Italy as partners, 15% of the F35 is manufactured in the UK and Britain profits from every overseas sale. The EU is irrelevant in this regard.@@darkshardshoots

@looinrims

9 ай бұрын

Yeah why you think they memed usa despite relying entirely on USA, hence their ammo situations, British army had 1-2 weeks, Germany had 2 days

Awesome.

Please, if my country can only do one thing right, let it be sending out Navy abroad to help people.

Technology-wise the Royal Navy has so much potential to expand but the lack of monies and political will hold us back. Perhaps a Royal CANZUK navy could fill in the gaps which would give Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom more clout across the seas with frigates and carriers that span the entire globe, without going broke financially. #canzuk

@patthonsirilim5739

8 ай бұрын

a canzuk navy would be better serve in terms of protecting the member state interest giving member a global reach and a taskforce that can take the fight to any place on earth somthing like 3 supercarrier QE class with a catobar refit f35c variant with proper awacs and electronic warfare surport and 4LSD/LHD amphibous assult carrier 15 destroyer and 30 frigate as well as 10 nuclear attack sub 20 diesel electric sub and 8 balistic nuclear sub giving all member a nuclear deterent capability and navy so powerful its reach and power projection is only 2nd to that of the us navy and i belive all this could be achieve with 2 percent gdp budget by member nations not to mention the airforce and amry increase leathality just imagine uk royal armed force but is 3x bigger and better funded with more global bases.

@yeetus1398

7 ай бұрын

@@patthonsirilim5739 good ideas. Even if canzuk does not happen (which it wont lol) the UK should still aim to refit the QE class into catobar over the next ten years as the economic situation improves. The f 35b planes could then be deployed on two future America class type ships, while a naval variant of the Tempest and drones would go on the QE class.

@wheelie_1988

7 ай бұрын

​@yeetus1398 I'm in favour on CANZUK. But it ain't at the top of the government. If it did happen, it all depends on what's agreed.

@jus7addwater

6 ай бұрын

@@patthonsirilim5739 QE is not a super carrier lol.

@oudloek

6 ай бұрын

Why would the Canadian, Australian & NZ governments contribute in order to help solve UK defense problems? They’re not the colonies anymore.

It’s time for the British to accept their role as a middle power. They simply don’t have the resources or political will to intervene in far off places when domestic issues are so dire

@everydaydose7779

10 ай бұрын

The Brits finally going back to its real status as a second world country without its foreign colonies

@rossthomson1958

10 ай бұрын

@@everydaydose7779judging by your previous comments up you still perceive Russia as a great military power that can beat anything you throw at it, btw foreign colonies don’t make you rich, they were expensive and didn’t give us great value for the money and loss of life Britain spent on trying to protect it, but considering all major European powers were doing it we also had to do it, so we don’t get overwhelmed and invaded by another European power.

@rossthomson1958

10 ай бұрын

@@everydaydose7779Britain has one of the largest economies in Europe, still far bigger than Russia, France and Italy.

@rossthomson1958

10 ай бұрын

@@everydaydose7779Russia and china don’t see the uk as a threat nor a good country to invade for resources” like they could anyway? Stop speaking of Russia has a power, they are second best in a war they started, threatening to nuke Britain because of its leading role in supplying Ukraine with arms.

@silverhost9782

10 ай бұрын

​@@everydaydose7779Second world? You mean Soviet aligned then? Or maybe you just aren't smart enough to know what that term means. Best not to use phrases without understanding them first, makes you look daft

Good One

Should return to using oars and rowing, it's free and all the sailors will be super jacked

@CausticLemons7

11 ай бұрын

Just connect all the exercise equipment to the electrical system on the ship for a little extra team effort.

@rohitkothari3890

11 ай бұрын

😂😂✅️✅️

Your'e information on precument of the F35b is incorrect it's as follows ; As of May 2023 the UK has taken delivery of 38 F35b split between the squadrons of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, with a total of 48 to be delivered under the directive of Tranche 1. A further 27 under the directive of tranche 2 will take the F35 b to 74 split between the two services. Now hopefully by 2030/2035 the new aircraft Tempest will be available and a carrier version will be available as well, and also the two carriers are to be modified under the directive Ark Royal Profect.

@ashleygoggs5679

6 ай бұрын

Tempest is a very large aircraft its very doubtful we will have a carrier varient. More over its most likely the government will buy F35c for the RAF knowing that when tempest arrives the F35c can be handed RAF also knowing that future of the carriers will be catapults. The only way britiain gets tempest on a carrier is if we completely design a whole new carrier class with tempest in mind, just like how the QEC aws more or less developed around the F35.

the carriers are larger enough to operate 60 fighters the reason why this number has gone down to only 36 is purely financial

@goodputin4324

10 ай бұрын

Rubbish 😂 don't kid yourself, wanker 😅

@carwyngriffiths

10 ай бұрын

@@goodputin4324 Hes not wrong, other than the financial part. Theyre able to operate 72 aircraft at flood however they dont, just as the Nimitz is able to operate with a similar amount at flood. Its simply ineffective to do so.

TY 🙏🙏

Hello Binkov! Can you make a video about the current situation in Black Sea? In last weeks Erdogan made a huge turn around against Russia, accepting Sweden in NATO, saying Ukraine does deserve to be in NATO and saying that the Grain Deal could be carried on without Russia. Several news sources claimed that Turkish Navy would escort Ukrainian grain shipments. Ukrainian grain is essential to the mant Middle Eastern and African nations to feed their populace. Is Turkish Navy is capable enough to deter Russian Navy to attack Ukrainian grain vessels? How the other NATO nations in Black Sea would change the balance between Turkish and Russian Navies? Does enforcing the grain deal on Russia worth the risk? It seems like NATO nations are willing to be more brave against Russia after the Russian debacle in Ukraine, Wanger insurrection showed everyone that Putin's hegemony is not that firm on Russian State. How much can NATO try it's luck on Russia?

53 Billion pounds can buy a lot of superglue for patching up broken bits and pieces.

@joecater894

10 ай бұрын

yes roughly same as russia spends too.

Awesome vid - Cheers for sharing !!! :)

I don't know how a lot of us European militaries are struggling so much? Surely given the peace dividend from the ending of the cold war removed a lot of funding pressure? Or is it the usual case of, now you need less funding, we're going to take more away each year and forget about asking for a reasonable boost to face a very real threat" it's like that for every council in the UK when for years they had to fund a tonne of other stuff, budgets were cut and now they can't find even basic stuff. Id love to know where this cost cutting money goes? Cos the government keeps saying austerity is necessary but can gind a magic money tree for religious fundamentalists as long as they vote with the government on Brexit! The Tories, and most politicians, don't live in a world many of us would recognise, unless the houses of parliament have weekly barbeques with sterling as the only fuel i really dont understand how vast amounts of gdp disappears over the years?!?!

He said "But only peace can bring us together" again! I've missed it a little.

the best is the last sentence 🕊

Why is literally every western navy in dire straits right now, pun not intended

@Joker-yw9hl

10 ай бұрын

Because why invest billions into a huge navy when the United States controls the oceans

@Ihavpickle

10 ай бұрын

​@@Joker-yw9hlgenius

The best ship of the RN is the HMS Nostalgia 😂

I have to watch videos on Russia and China's aircraft carriers to cheer myself up after this

@tritium1998

10 ай бұрын

China has bigger carriers with bigger runways and planes, and it's not even trying as hard as other countries on the military as a share of economy.

@SmartSilver

10 ай бұрын

You are so easily pleased then.

@LolLol-pp7fk

10 ай бұрын

their @@tritium1998 their carriers are also dogshit believe it or not lmaooo

@johnnymatias3027

10 ай бұрын

​@tritium1998 diesel though. Might as well buy a couple air refuelers instead for all the extra range it gives them. Their current carriers are nothing more than trainers for when they can afford real, nuclear carriers. The British Isles are just that, isles. They don't need the same range to have more flexibility and capability in defending their homeland. China is a coastal continental power, they need thousands of miles of range for a carrier capability to be useful to them in national defense and especially in projecting power.

@TheThundertaker

9 ай бұрын

The planes they have on their carriers are 4th generation though. Any 4th generation plane going against a 4th generation like the F35B is on a suicide mission.@@tritium1998

Binkov, I’d like to see a hypothetical history if imperial Japan didn’t attack Pearl Harbor but choosing to invade the Soviet Union instead in 1941

The Brits obviously don't expect to be in any kind of major war anytime soon 🙄

@QALibrary

11 ай бұрын

and they just cut the number of armed force head count the other week

@xxnightdriverxx9576

11 ай бұрын

What part about "massive ship construction program" have you not understood? The Royal Navy is literally in the process of replacing its entire fleet of old cold war era Type 23 frigates with the new Type 26 and Type 31 classes, replacing its ballistic missile submarines and has aquired the by today best aircraft carriers outside the US (thoug that will unfortunatly change when China launches its Type 003, but F35Bs are still superior to Chinas J15s).

Various government has stripped the armed forces to the point where it is not big enough to defend us 😢

Lol at 10:00 Russia "up to one" carrier.

@tetraxis3011

11 ай бұрын

The Kutznetzov took a while but it’s been recently returned to service. HMS Prince of Wales has to wait a bit more to return.

How are the releasing frigates without a ciws?

Those aircraft carriers will never sail in combat unless apart of a US task force, insane choice they made building those things without any real escort capabilities

@MrTangolizard

11 ай бұрын

How do the uk not have carrier escorts lol they have 6 of one of the most advanced destroyers in the world and is currently building replacements for its frigates

@N7-WAR-HOUND

11 ай бұрын

@@MrTangolizard 6… considering 2 of those destroyers are currently in a maintenance cycle and before the war it was four out of service, even if one carrier is down as well that’s not a force that can go into combat in the Atlantic Let alone the pacific

@Janoip

11 ай бұрын

I would no but like all in Nato its a collective security task, like swedish or german anti air frigates also escort us carrier groups (are part of it) yes the us can do it alone, but i most missions its a shared task, also because you need training to work together so. And what scenario that threatens british would be one where they would have to fight with no other support? Like what if china, russia, iran also others are involved, if some terrorist you dont need that much of an escort of you just be an lunch platform before the coast of some country. And what other scenarios you see?

@N7-WAR-HOUND

11 ай бұрын

@@Janoip good points on all but strange things happen in war. I can easily imagine a scenario we’re a British carrier is underway with 3rd party escorts, if British interests are in jeopardy but so are the interests of those 3rd party nations. Would they sacrifice the national security of their own nation to protect British assets protecting British interests?, simply. When the stuff hits the fan do you want questions like. Should we protect this carrier over our own national defense,

@LEric49

11 ай бұрын

@@Janoip What you said! There have been NATO carrier groups before , I seem to remember during Desert Storm it was the case that NATO allies had "mixed" carrier groups. I reckon we can still do that today. Even if the UK is short on frigates , there is bound to be nato allies willing to assist.

Britain is the Worlds 6th largest economy so I would imagine any spending cuts are temporary due to high energy prices. But Britain being part of NATO is not expected to fight alone. The Royal Navy usually operates with US super carrier battle groups. Having said that the Royal Navy has some of the most advanced ships and subs on the plannet. It is certainly capable of holding its own against the antiquated Russian navy for example. The fact is Russia is now considered a paper tiger and no threat to European security. The Royal Nave is being expanded with several new ship classes being introduced, but these will help counter the Chinese, the only serious threat NATO has.

@davidadiwego4608

10 ай бұрын

It is SO simplistic to put such significance to '6th largest economy'. First, UK, France and India are basically neck and neck in terms of GDP. There's little difference in GDP between India, UK, France or 5th, 6th, 7th. Second, "6th" hardly conveys the fact that the UK has roughly 1/10th the GDP of 1st place (USA) and 1/5th that of 2nd place, China. Fun fact: the 3rd largest economy, Japan, has a navy bigger than France and UK navy combined.

@billballbuster7186

10 ай бұрын

@@davidadiwego4608 The best fun fact is that Russia is 12th and going down as sanctions bite. India has hit issues and there are still Billions below povert level, 85% live on less than $6 per day!

@Myanmartiger921

10 ай бұрын

@@davidadiwego4608japan has more destroyers than all European navy’s combined

@davidadiwego4608

10 ай бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 Russian economy is doing relatively okay despite sanctions. And I don't know if Biden sabotaging Russian gas supply to Germany regardless of German concerns (nordstream 2) can be called 'sanctions'. BTW, Putin is a authoritarian dictator and liberal democracy should take over, lest I be accused of being a pro Russia bot.

@fredflintlocks9445

10 ай бұрын

​@@Myanmartiger921Japan labels alot of ships in the frigate weight class as destroyers

POW is back in service.

A good dose of Keynesian economics is needed.... At least 4 more carriers and the support vessels... And pay the crews a decent wage to attract recruits... The same goes for the army re pay....

Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧

@husted5488

10 ай бұрын

Yes, may the US its UK dogs

Fyi, AUKUS is pronounced aw-kus (or ore-kus), not you-kus.

probably not tbh, years of perpetual cutbacks and every time a new warship replaces an old the number is shrunk has left it woefully incapable of seriously tangling with china, whilst one might argue in the event of carrier loss the f-35b is a better choice if its short range lets you get to land, otherwise the f-35b is not particularly suited for naval warfare, it has less fuel, less payload and less time on station then the c, not to mention for the price they paid for those carriers it really ought to have been nuclear powered, and its just a little smaller then it really should be, but these are more minor issues, the carriers don't have enough planes to surge equip both either, it might struggle surging one. The destroyers may be among if not the best air defense destroyer around, but with just a paltry 6 of them, it has barely enough to cover its two carriers especially as the uk has no other way of dealing with beyond 100mile cruise missiles other then them, even the previous 13 frigates already low has ended up split into 7 like for likes, and 5 substandard cheap and cheerfulls, it would be have been fine to replace 13 with like for like then make 5 more cheap and cheerfulls but no yet more budget cuts that can go into padding tory companies pockets with contracts that tory mps will retire into associate board positions and board memberships of, and tax breaks for the 1%, most of which are tory, it already has no ships designed for ship to ship conflict as is which doesnt help, they just tacked on a little to their anti-air destroyers and a little less on their anti-submarine frigates. Britains navy (btw i am british) is indeed staffed with competent folk, but as for their equipment they've fallen into the traditional military trap of being very well prepared to meet the shortcomings of yesteryears wars with little thought given to tommorrows, its not just the navy, the army and airforce are also woefully short staffed, underfunded and underequipped, frankly if someone invented a proof positive against nuclear missiles tomorrow (not so likely in short term but 10-20 years from now quite likely) many countries could steamroll britain, oh sure they'd loose a fair few in the opening salvos, but britain just hasnt spend enough on defense to meet future threats.

Idea; Western Roman Empire (around roughly the first sack of rome,) with modern Italian military, transporting each airport in just Italy, but removing the Roman navy and army, to see if they could avoid collapsing from external invasions and skirmishes (and having the ideal best case scenario that it doesn’t just collapse internally as western Roman politics were quite messy)

@reheyesd8666

10 ай бұрын

Tbf they lived during a time of aggressive neighbours, we don't.

Why cant the Royal Navy convert dome Osprey tilt rotor aircraft to carry airborne radars they can fly higher and faster than the current helicopters and have a longer range and flight time Also the Navy badly needs the type 31 frigates quicky and more than the planned 5 warships [12 at least ] Along with more type 26 frigates and type 45 destroyers 10 to 12 of each Failing that the Navy should invest in Corvettes which are usually alot cheaper than frigates and can carry a big weapons load If the navy had 18 Corvettes they could station them around the world in the Perian Gulf- Singapore- South China Sea -and the Falklands ect This means the navy can then use its OPVs to deploy to the Caribbean for anti narcotics patrols or the North Sea and Atlantic for anti narcotic and anti illegal immigration patrols