Popular Mechanics: Britain's Biggest Warship Finally Sets Sail
With "four acres of sovereign territory," the HMS Queen Elizabeth will launch U.S. F-35Bs during its first years of service.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain's biggest warship ever, set sail for the first time today, three years after the U.K. decommissioned its last carrier, the HMS Illustrious, in 2014. The Royal Navy calls it "four acres of sovereign territory, deployable across the globe to serve the United Kingdom."
At 65,000 tons and 920 feet, the Queen Elizabeth is a giant compared to the Illustrious, which weighed barely one-third as much and was only 690 feet long. She's also bigger than the 45,000-ton HMS Vanguard, Britain's biggest battleship launched toward the end of World War II.
Read more ....
More News On The HMS Queen Elizabeth Setting Sail For The First Time Today
HMS Queen Elizabeth sets sail from Rosyth for sea trials -- BBC
British Navy’s aircraft carrier sets sail for first sea trials -- Defense News
Royal Navy’s new £3bn aircraft carrier sets sail for first time -- Financial Times
HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier sets sail for sea trials -- The Independent
New British carrier enters sea trials -- UPI
UK's New Aircraft Carrier Sets Sail for First Time -- Military.com/AFP
Controversial £3bn aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth finally set for sea trials -- RT
The Carrier That's Supposed To Revitalize The British Navy Is Finally Going Out To Sea -- Foxtrot Alpha
Britain Launches Biggest Warship Ever - HMS Queen Elizabeth -- Newsweek
All You Need To Know About The Royal Navy's New Carrier And Its Maiden Voyage -- The Drive
2 comments:
The main threat to the UK is not external, and this aircraft carrier will do nothing to deter it.
Caecus,
With regards to the UL you may be largely right. Recklessly welcome any and all people into your home/country with eyes closed and arms open without bothering to vet them in any way shape or form is bound to create problems. The British may be reaping the bitter fruits of this.
Unfortunately the USA is not much better in this regard. The so called "travel ban" advanced by DJT does not go nearly far enough and is a bit like trying to put a small band aid on a gaping wound. Additionally, the US has added to its external enemies by a number of reckless policies.
The main threats to the US are as follows. 1.) An all out nuclear attack by Russia. When the poor training of our nuclear personnel, low morale among the personnel, aging nuclear arsenal infrastructure, lack of maintenance of the systems, and Russian cyber attacks against the infrastructure are combined any kind or response may be problematic. In such a scenario, America would be completely destroyed. 2.) An Islamic terrorist attack against the American mainland involving the use of suitcase nuclear weapons and some combination of dirty bombs all detonated simultaneously across multiple metropolitan areas at the same time. In such a scenario, millions and perhaps 10s of millions of Americans would die very quickly. 3.)An invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, Russia and China, or Russia and China and some combination of their allies. In this scenario, millions of Americans would die and the remaining population would likely be sold into slavery.
While scenario 1 is the most dangerous, scenario 2 is the most likely to occur in the near term, however, continue with the current reckless policies toward Russia and scenarios 1 and/or 3 will become more likely.
In none of the most acute national security threats to America are aircraft carriers of any value. In fact, they are of negative utility as they drain resources away from the areas where they are needed that might actually enhance our national defense.
As for the UL, it is a different country than America with a different culture and different interests. As such, its defense needs and the threats it faces will likely be different. With that said I don't see how aircraft carriers are going to advance their national defense.
Finally, in any of the scenarios of greatest threat to America, we might actually "win", however, the costs would be enormous. 1 and 3 should be relatively easy to avoid by simply curtailing any number of reckless policies and the risks of scenario 2 can be mitigated by proper immigration policies and proper monitoring of certain groups known to be likely combatants. In other words, we may need to "profile."
Post a Comment