(Click on Image to Enlarge)
The carrier weighs 72,000 tons and is 932 feet long, making it the largest Royal Navy ship ever built
Daily Mail: Enemies will 'think twice' about war with Britain when biggest ever Royal Navy ship sets sails in 2020, says the captain of the 72,000-tonne vessel
* Aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth weighs 72,000 tons and is 932 ft long, part of a £6.2billion international project
* Captain Simon Petitt says it will be the most 'potent' weapon against ISIS when it finally goes into service in 2020
* Next year it will take F-35B Lightening II stealth fighter to Gulf in trials, where they can mount attacks from carrier
Britain's enemies will 'think twice' before they start a war after watching the biggest ever Royal Navy ship coming over the horizon, its captain said yesterday.
Speaking aboard aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth - which is 72,000 tons and 932 feet long - Captain Simon Petitt said he was standing on the most 'potent' conventional weapon against Islamic State.
Next year it will deploy for sea trials before most likely heading to the Gulf, where it will take the most advanced stealth fighter jet in the world - the F-35B Lightening II jet - to the fight.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This is a puff-piece on Britain's newest aircraft carrier. What's my take .... against weaker enemies it will be formidable .... against Russia or China .... just a big target.
13 comments:
"Just a puff piece..." My thoughts exactly and not to be ugly but it seems a rather stupid one at that. Against enemies like Russia and China "a very big target..." Again here I think you've nailed it. To top off the stupidity, it's not going to be available ubtil 2020?!!?
While challenges faced by the UK are not as serious as those faced by the United States, it does face serious challenges nonetheles. As such, the natikn may not exist by 2020. Then what comes of this ridiculous waste of resources?
An aircraft carrier of this type will have only limited utiljty against an enemy lkke ISIS. Besides ISIS is a VERY formidable enemy. As such, I would not underestinate their ability to either acquire anti ship weapons similar to those Russia, China, and Iran possess or to use swarming techniques similar to what Iran would use to sink an aircraft carrier.
When confronted with the likes of Russia or China the world's strongest military powers who are armed with the world's best ant-ship weapons, an aircraft carrier has negative utility at best and st worst they are floating death traps.
To make such statements, the British captain is either a complete idiot, a poliitical hack, kr some combination. British enemies are thinking twice alright. They ard laughing hysterical!! Keep in mind the money wasted on this thing is no longer available to spend on things that do make sense.
The British leadership has A LONG WAY to go to be as stupid and incompetent as American leadership. I do find it interesting that America doesn't seem to have a monoply on incompetent and stupid leadership.
Each "western" country has different interest and faces unique challenges. As such, there defense policies will be different and in many cases radically so.
Not being a Briton, I cannot say for certain what approach they should take. As a friend, I'd suggest the following. 1.)Expand the nuclear arsenal 10 fold and upgrade it including the delivery systems. 2.)Secure the borders placing a moratorium on all immigration until such time as the system can be fixed while placing an idefinite ban on immigration from Islamic countries as it makes little sense to invite people into your house who wish to harm you. 3.)Actively and agressively seek out ways to add value to Russia.
With all of this said the UK may be getting on track. BREXIT while long overdue seems on track and America may be getting on the right track to. A sizeable portion of Americans seem willing to consider a sensible leader with a proven track record in the person of Donald Trump. While this does NOT mean he was the best that ran, that he does not have flaws (he does), or that he is likely to win, the fact that Americans in any real numbers are willing to consider such a candidate is an improvement. Lerhsps there's hope for America, Britian, and the "west" after all!!
The posts that constantly keep calling Russian and now China the most powerful militaries in the world, individially or even combined, have me questioning the intelligence of many posters here. Russia and China are regional powers. The US is the only superpower, just facts. NATO is a force multiplier for the US. I also question the effectiveness of the modern aircraft carrier on the modern battle field, but no weapons system now exists that provides such a level of force projection on a world wide level. Till a cheaper or more conventionally efficient option presents itself. If there is a fight with the US and Russia or China, it will be on there home field. They lack the ability to send a meaningful amount of conventional forces outside thier region. That is what a number of aircraft carriers, with their battle fleets provides the US and their by NATO.
OV: If someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that person is unintelligent. It means they interpret things differently based upon available information.
I'm pretty sure you've seen my other posts here on what I tnink seems likely to happen in a war with Russia. Tbe only way to "know" is to actually go to active war which hopefully we agree in praying it won't come to that.
As for NATO being some sort of "force multiplier", frankly I'm not seeing this. This seems to be more of a "force sapper/drainer" as precious resources are devoted to people and areas that don't serve our national interests. Poles, Lithuanians, Gernans, Britons, and other assorted NATO members are NOT coming to America to fight alongside us when we are invaded nor are they going to offer us any assistance should Russia decide to nuke us. NATO sounds more like an "entangling alliance" of the type our founders warned us against.
Besides where do we multiply our force to? America's forces are so worn down and depleted at present that basic defense of the American mainland is going to be problematic at best. As such, the best approach would be to deploy our military assets to positions off our coasts and along our borders that would give us a fighting chance of defending our country.
Donald Trump is absolutely correct that NATO needs to be renegotiated. I recignized this 20 years ago. I'm pleased to see someone with wealth and possible influence has finally caught on.
I think we can agree on the questionable utility of aircraft carriers in modern war. As such, I was shocked to read the UK is building one of these and a British Navy captain actually might believe this concerbs the nation's enemies or potential enemies. They could build a vast number of patrol boats and staff them with the proper crew for the amount of money spent on thi. That might havd actually made a difference and had positive marginal utility. Now the money tbat could have been spent on that is gone.
Isis is not a formidable foe and has not can not and will not have access to swarming techniques of anti ship missiles even many advanced members of wetern alliances would have difficilty planning and executing such an attack
These vessels are not unarmed are not sotting ducks as they do not operate in isolation
Your assumptions re china tussia etc are correct.
BP: Read what I said. The constant posts from people here calling Russia the most powerful military in the world is what I call unitelligent. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a facts that they are no where close the US military except on the nuclear end. They are a regional power, not a super power. That's just a fact.
As for Trump, he is a flim-flam. Tells you what you want to hear, but knows little to nothing g about what he says. He knows nothing about the military, our enemies, our friends, or any real international issue at all. He proves this everytime he is asked a question on foriegn affairs and dares to give any answer outside his stump answers. Will he get better at it, not likely, he doesn't appear to be intellectually inquisitive at all. Seems just interest in himself. Will he follow advise from more knowledgeable people? Well when last asked about the subject he state he is his adviser on foriegn affairs, gets his info from "the shows," has a good brain, will be naming adviser (still waiting on that), and as for ISIS he isn't going to tell us his plans (like he is an expert, he has no idea what he would or could do). Fortunately, after November we won't have to worry about it anymore.
The day of the big ship is over, anti ship missiles have changed everything. The world is in for a shock once war commences.
Fazman,
I see we agree on Russia and China at least as far as what they would do to aircraft carriers. Russia and China are the two most pkwrrful nstions on earth. All nations including the United States need to act accordingly.
As for ISIS, I respectfully disagree. Given how quickly they arose and captured territory, I respectfully think the facts back me up.
A better approach to this might have been to negotiate a withdrawl agreement from Iraq whereby we remained until the Russians, Iranians, and their allies would have agreed to a US force continuation in Iraq until they cohld have sent in the appropriate replacements, paying for the US deployment, and compensating the families of US men and women who die during this time. During the process our people should have been b treated with dignity by the top powers. In such a situation, perhaps the arise of ISIS could have been prevented.
Right now, the QE Class is defenceless.
While it's scheduled to get F-35's in two years time, ( right now, it has no fighter aircraft, Harriers were retired years ago),
They are scheduled to be compliments of US Marine Air, ( if the US Marines meet the current schedule, which they won't), Royal Navy F-35's won't be deployable until 2021 at best.
So, an Aircraft Carrier with no aircraft, is going "operational", that's quite the joke.
Objective Voice,
"Except on the nuclear end..." this is quite a doozy especially when we aren't even sure ours would work if needed and the morale and traing among our personnel are responsible for these is poor. Additionally, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Russian and Chinese, especially Russian, cyberwarfare capabilities far exceed us.
As such, Ametican weapons would likely be rendered useless and VERY expensive paper weights or sink to the bottom of the ocean in the event of a Russian attack. Again, Russia is the world's most powerful military force and this isn't changing in the foreseeable future. Suggextion: ACT ACCORDINGLY!! If we can add value to them, perhaps they will allow us to survive. At the very least, if we could get them to communicate to the Iranians that "death to America" is not only unacceptable but will lead to dire consequences would be a vast improvement over our current situation.
Adding value to those more piwerful is mothing new. People have benn doing this sort of thing for centuries. Perhaps you want to risk war with Russia for ideological reasons. It seems unethical to place the survival of 300+ million Amdricans in danger in service of one's ideological outlook.
For starters I'd suggest addopting a position on Ukraine consistent with Russia's, doing all we can with every ounce of our strength and vigor to oppose sanctions against Russia acting to punish anyone who sanctions Russia with all our might, and calmly explaining to eastern European NATO "allies" that our relationship with Russia is VERY important and they are not to do ANYTHING to undermine that or there will be DIRE cosequences for them.
Of course the US could defeat Russia in war. The Red Sea once parted. To base foreign polucy on such things seems ubwise to say the least.
As for Mr. Trump, to reveal his strategies at this point to a mortal enemy unwise to say the least. He is absolutely correct in not doing so. Anyone who has real world managerial experience in America would understand this.
TWN,
You are quite correct about the era of the big ship being over. Very respectfully though the "world" will not be in "shock" though. Surely British military leaders ae not stupid. As such, iddological blindness must be the problem.
The stupid and the ideolgical blind will be shocked. As for you and me, we've known this for quite some time as have Russian and Chinese leaders likely known this as well.
As I understand it, you are from Canada. Your country seems to have had the good sense not to waste money and resources on building and maintaining aircraft carriers. I've long wished America would adopt a foreign policy more like Canada's. Americans do intuitively view Canadians as their best friends. Perhaps there is hope for America yet.y
Jay,
You're quite correct. This is a joke. British enemies are thinking twice alright. The first thought is the realization of just how stupid their enemy is and the second thought is hystrtical laughter.
I stated above better approaches. Unfortunately the money wasted on this ridiculous non sense is gone.
BP- Wow I don't even know where to begin with this. It's difficult to have a rational discussion on the subject, because your conclusion is so ridiculous. Russia is practically a third world country with a failing economy, and a repressive government. It's military is a decade or two behind the United States military. The United States Navy has no equal in the world, in numbers or and quality of vessels/crews. The United States Air Force has more aircraft than any other nation in the world, three to four times that of Russia. The quality of the aircraft and Pilots are vastly superior to Russia. Not to mention are top-of-the-line aircraft no more maneuverable and can't be seen on radar. As for the theory that they are trackable, has not played out in reality yet. I would put money on the morale of the combat trained soldier of the United States military, over the conscript Army of Russia or China.
NATO has fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan. Each country plays its own role. That makes it a force multiplier. I would prefer other NATO Nations pay more for the military contribution, but the European countries alone are superior to Russia conventionally.
As for Isis, it's a weak ragtag group of fanatics with some combat training and the desire to die. However, it is not an effective military force. Just because they took territory quickly in chaos ridden third world Nations, doesn't make them a formidable military. Particularly when compared to the United States, or any other major military power, even Russia. The problem with defeating Isis, is what happens the next day. Who would control that territory and if left a failed state, who would take advantage of that.
It is unbelievable that you could even put in print that we should cut a deal with Russia and Iran to give them Iraq, and pay for our withdrawal. They can barely even pay their own government salaries and pensions. And as for not being able to defend the United States homeland, and pulling back to defend our borders, I don't even know where you got that. How exactly is Russia supposed to invade the United States, they have no ability to do that. If War came between Russia and the United States, Russia would quickly have no Navy and soon after, no air force. And Russia has the best cyber warfare arm, maybe, but to think this will defeat the US military is so ridiculous it's not even worth addressing.
It's not worth having this discussion again, it is so ridiculous. Remember, Russia is a poor country, with a repressive government and simply a regional power.
Canada should get an all submarine Navy that stays submerged; all the time. That way no one will see us when we embarrass ourselves internationally.
As for the QE,
Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!
Oh Good Lord
Bullshit Baffles Brains
Post a Comment