• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers?

Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

As opposed to building smaller carriers, no carriers, amphibious warfare ships (like the American LHA's/LSD's) and/or equipping the QE's for the F-35B and not the 'C'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier


Thoughts?

They do seem to me a little expensive and would have thought getting together with the US might have made more sense. But to be a front line weapons manufacturer requires developing your own. Let's hope it works better than the eads military transport plane.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Well if they need to attack they can always do this:

 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Well, I think the British got it completely wrong.

First, their 'empire' is virtually non-existent. So building the largest warships in Royal Navy history when their economy is staggering along and the Cold War is long over is way overkill.

Second, as I stated, Britain is in no financial position any longer to build massive ships like this. SO much so that they have had to hugely delay deploying these things with full air compliments for years...which is ridiculous.

Third, they build these gigantic aircraft carriers yet then stuck them with V/STOL fighter/bombers. Why in God's name would you do such a thing? You don't need a gigantic deck when all your aircraft takeoff and land vertically.
So they are stuck with the 'B' model of the F-35. Which has far less range and armament capacity because it has to carry around a gigantic fan (for take-off and landing vertically) where a huge fuel tank would go on the 'A' and 'C' versions.
Apparently, they changed their mind and wanted the 'C' for the Prince of Wales...but then chickened out when the cost to fit the carrier with launching/recovery equipment for the 'C' skyrocketed.

Fourth - and this is extremely minor - it has got to be the ugliest aircraft carrier in history...by FAR.

Five - if they were going with the F-35C, why not just go with an America class-type amphibious warfare ship? Heck, maybe even ask the Americans to build them a couple and save a TON of dollars in development costs. The America's can still launch lots of F-35's (more then Britain will probably ever need), can deploy large numbers of troops and do all of it a fraction of the cost of these QE-class monsters.

Six - or why not just build another, more advanced, slightly larger class of Invincibles? Say one's that can carry 16-20 F-35's plus support aircraft? It would be 'all-British', probably more then larger enough to get the job done and cost GIGANTICALLY less then the QE class. Even if they built 3 or 4 of them.


No, imo, the British screwed this whole thing almost as much as you could possibly screw it.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Just my personal prediction - I'm gonna go ahead and say they'll get cancelled before long. If they don't cancel and divert funds to more important and efficient projects, then they lose their ass. Simple as that.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Just my personal prediction - I'm gonna go ahead and say they'll get cancelled before long. If they don't cancel and divert funds to more important and efficient projects, then they lose their ass. Simple as that.

To late to be cancelled, one is built one is in construction. They had planned on putting one of the two in mothballed status (or in my opinion selling to the French)

I doubt they will be able to afford to equip and operate two carriers at the same time
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Well, I think the British got it completely wrong.

First, their 'empire' is virtually non-existent. So building the largest warships in Royal Navy history when their economy is staggering along and the Cold War is long over is way overkill.

Second, as I stated, Britain is in no financial position any longer to build massive ships like this. SO much so that they have had to hugely delay deploying these things with full air compliments for years...which is ridiculous.

Third, they build these gigantic aircraft carriers yet then stuck them with V/STOL fighter/bombers. Why in God's name would you do such a thing? You don't need a gigantic deck when all your aircraft takeoff and land vertically.
So they are stuck with the 'B' model of the F-35. Which has far less range and armament capacity because it has to carry around a gigantic fan (for take-off and landing vertically) where a huge fuel tank would go on the 'A' and 'C' versions.
Apparently, they changed their mind and wanted the 'C' for the Prince of Wales...but then chickened out when the cost to fit the carrier with launching/recovery equipment for the 'C' skyrocketed.

Fourth - and this is extremely minor - it has got to be the ugliest aircraft carrier in history...by FAR.

Five - if they were going with the F-35C, why not just go with an America class-type amphibious warfare ship? Heck, maybe even ask the Americans to build them a couple and save a TON of dollars in development costs. The America's can still launch lots of F-35's (more then Britain will probably ever need), can deploy large numbers of troops and do all of it a fraction of the cost of these QE-class monsters.

Six - or why not just build another, more advanced, slightly larger class of Invincibles? Say one's that can carry 16-20 F-35's plus support aircraft? It would be 'all-British', probably more then larger enough to get the job done and cost GIGANTICALLY less then the QE class. Even if they built 3 or 4 of them.


No, imo, the British screwed this whole thing almost as much as you could possibly screw it.
Re Point 5


I believe the F35B can use a short take off rather then a vertical one and by doing so have a heavier load then otherwise. Not sure by a long shot
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Re Point 5


I believe the F35B can use a short take off rather then a vertical one and by doing so have a heavier load then otherwise. Not sure by a long shot

True, but it simply cannot carry nearly as much fuel as the 'C' - due to it's lift fan being where a major fuel tank is on the 'C' - and even with a short take off, I believe it still cannot carry as much ordinance.

But even with the short takeoff, why build a massive carrier if all you are carrying is vertical/near-vertical take-off and land aircraft?
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

The original idea was for them to be converted to catapult assisted in the future, hence the were "built for, but not with" the capacity.

Whether or not the UK can stomach the cost of conversion 20 years down the road remains to be seen.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

The original idea was for them to be converted to catapult assisted in the future, hence the were "built for, but not with" the capacity.

Whether or not the UK can stomach the cost of conversion 20 years down the road remains to be seen.

But why build massive carriers that you cannot afford to fully equip in the first place?

IMO, they should have built 3 larger, Invincible class-type ships that can easily carry 16-20 F-35B's plus support aircraft.

Not these ugly behemoths that they cannot even afford to properly equip.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Just MHO valued at precisely :twocents:

Well, I think the British got it completely wrong.

First, their 'empire' is virtually non-existent. So building the largest warships in Royal Navy history when their economy is staggering along and the Cold War is long over is way overkill.

Any conflict the British are likely to be involved in will not be at home. That means power projection and that means carriers. All of this is detailed in the 1998 SDR.

Second, as I stated, Britain is in no financial position any longer to build massive ships like this. SO much so that they have had to hugely delay deploying these things with full air compliments for years...which is ridiculous.

Britain just built two ships like this so,.... And remember, part of that delay is due to the F-35 program. So, unless you have another suitable option that would be available in less time,...

Third, they build these gigantic aircraft carriers yet then stuck them with V/STOL fighter/bombers. Why in God's name would you do such a thing? You don't need a gigantic deck when all your aircraft takeoff and land vertically.

So they are stuck with the 'B' model of the F-35. Which has far less range and armament capacity because it has to carry around a gigantic fan (for take-off and landing vertically) where a huge fuel tank would go on the 'A' and 'C' versions.
Apparently, they changed their mind and wanted the 'C' for the Prince of Wales...but then chickened out when the cost to fit the carrier with launching/recovery equipment for the 'C' skyrocketed.

STOVL combat aircraft do not take-off vertically. They use rolling take-offs. Also, British F-35B's will employ a rolling landing technique rather than vertical landing to improve their bring-back capabilities. That requires a large deck. Having a hangar big enough to carry a large air wing also at the very least implies a large deck.

CTOL operations require a catapults, arresting gear landing aids and other kit. In the old days steam catapults were used, steam being provided by the steam turbines that drove the ship. The QE's though aren't old fashioned and are not driven by ancient steam turbines which adds the complication of where does the steam come from. Back when the ships were conceived almost 20 years ago this was a real problem. Today EMALS catapults are a (almost) a real thing, alleviating the need to provide steam. Adding all the needed equipment to PoW was however estimated to add 100 million to the cost and delay IOC to 2023. For someone who keeps complaining about cost,... The idea the QE's could be relatively quickly and painlessly converted CTOL configuration seems to have been abandoned about 2002 and did not in fact feature into the final design.

The RAF and RN will be operating the F-35 force jointly. The F-35B is not just replacing the long-retired Sea Harrier but also the RAF Harrier GR7/9. Both services have a need for STOVL aircraft.

Fourth - and this is extremely minor - it has got to be the ugliest aircraft carrier in history...by FAR.

Its novel.

Five - if they were going with the F-35C, why not just go with an America class-type amphibious warfare ship? Heck, maybe even ask the Americans to build them a couple and save a TON of dollars in development costs. The America's can still launch lots of F-35's (more then Britain will probably ever need), can deploy large numbers of troops and do all of it a fraction of the cost of these QE-class monsters.

I wasn't aware American amphibss could operate CTOL aircraft in the numbers required AND sustain fleet speeds. And how does spending all that green in the U.S. improve the UK economy?

Six - or why not just build another, more advanced, slightly larger class of Invincibles? Say one's that can carry 16-20 F-35's plus support aircraft? It would be 'all-British', probably more then larger enough to get the job done and cost GIGANTICALLY less then the QE class. Even if they built 3 or 4 of them.

The Invincible's were never actually designed as aircraft carriers but rather as "escort cruisers" designed to support the CVA-01 class fleet carriers by providing the command and ASW helicopter facilities for the task force allowing the CVA-01's to operate strictly with fixed-wing aircraft. The Invincible program survived even after CVA-01 was cancelled and Sea Harrier facilities were sort of tacked on.

Now the requirement for the QE's was the ability to carry up to 50 aircraft, clearly a ship that carries half that many ain't gonna cut it and won't "get the job done", at least not the same job. And history teaches us that smaller doesn't mean they will get more. They will just end up with less - 2 very much less capable ships.

The Type 42 destroyers and Invincible vice CVA-01 provide a valuable lesson in the harm of trying to go on the cheap by downsizing.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Well, I think the British got it completely wrong.

First, their 'empire' is virtually non-existent. So building the largest warships in Royal Navy history when their economy is staggering along and the Cold War is long over is way overkill.

You do not need an empire to want to project power. Further, aircraft carriers provide firepower out of proportion with their size. Lastly(and kinda related to the first point), part of what you want a navy for is to fight before the bad guys get to your country.

Second, as I stated, Britain is in no financial position any longer to build massive ships like this. SO much so that they have had to hugely delay deploying these things with full air compliments for years...which is ridiculous.

I am not sure they could get the same bang for the buck with other ships. Also note that when new aircraft technology comes along, the carrier gets an upgrade without having to do anything to the ship itself.

Third, they build these gigantic aircraft carriers yet then stuck them with V/STOL fighter/bombers. Why in God's name would you do such a thing? You don't need a gigantic deck when all your aircraft takeoff and land vertically.
So they are stuck with the 'B' model of the F-35. Which has far less range and armament capacity because it has to carry around a gigantic fan (for take-off and landing vertically) where a huge fuel tank would go on the 'A' and 'C' versions.
Apparently, they changed their mind and wanted the 'C' for the Prince of Wales...but then chickened out when the cost to fit the carrier with launching/recovery equipment for the 'C' skyrocketed.

There are significant advantages to using short take offs over vertical ones, even for aircraft capable of vertical takeoffs. However, my one complaint is that really, without a catapult and arresting gear, you limit far too much what you can do with a carrier. That would be my big complaint with the design, not that it is too big, but that it really should have EMALS and arresting gear.

Fourth - and this is extremely minor - it has got to be the ugliest aircraft carrier in history...by FAR.

Oh god, it is that...

Five - if they were going with the F-35C, why not just go with an America class-type amphibious warfare ship? Heck, maybe even ask the Americans to build them a couple and save a TON of dollars in development costs. The America's can still launch lots of F-35's (more then Britain will probably ever need), can deploy large numbers of troops and do all of it a fraction of the cost of these QE-class monsters.

The America class LHAs are going to carry about a half dozen F-35s. Wasp class similar numbers. The QE, 36.

Six - or why not just build another, more advanced, slightly larger class of Invincibles? Say one's that can carry 16-20 F-35's plus support aircraft? It would be 'all-British', probably more then larger enough to get the job done and cost GIGANTICALLY less then the QE class. Even if they built 3 or 4 of them.

It would need to be a complete redesign, and I do mean complete. EMALS is new. Flight decks have to be heavily modified due to heat from the F-35s(I understand this is a significant problem we are having). Bulkheads are even different from when I was in the navy. Yes, bulkheads.

No, imo, the British screwed this whole thing almost as much as you could possibly screw it.

It could have been better, but it is not that bad.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Going to butcher your post a bit since I do not really have any contention with or anything to add to most of what you said(and I wish I saw your post before I made mine above). Lots removed from your post, not because it is unimportant, just because it isn't what I want to comment on, and your post is large.

Any conflict the British are likely to be involved in will not be at home. That means power projection and that means carriers. All of this is detailed in the 1998 SDR.

More than just that, it is the history of naval warfare. You are not just stopping blockades are invasions of your home country, but ensuring naval traffic can get where it needs to go.

CTOL operations require a catapults, arresting gear landing aids and other kit. In the old days steam catapults were used, steam being provided by the steam turbines that drove the ship. The QE's though aren't old fashioned and are not driven by ancient steam turbines which adds the complication of where does the steam come from. Back when the ships were conceived almost 20 years ago this was a real problem. Today EMALS catapults are a (almost) a real thing, alleviating the need to provide steam. Adding all the needed equipment to PoW was however estimated to add 100 million to the cost and delay IOC to 2023. For someone who keeps complaining about cost,... The idea the QE's could be relatively quickly and painlessly converted CTOL configuration seems to have been abandoned about 2002 and did not in fact feature into the final design.

EMALS is a weird thing. I envy the sailors who are not going to be running low on fresh water every single ****ing cruise and have to take cold showers cuz the skipper thinks you will use less water that way, but after a launch, walking away from the cat through the billowing steam was just cool. It looked like a dramatic movie shot kinda thing. It had atmosphere.

I wasn't aware American amphibss could operate CTOL aircraft in the numbers required AND sustain fleet speeds. And how does spending all that green in the U.S. improve the UK economy?

Looks like 20 knots for America class vs 25 for the QE. Definite problem. Plus as I mentioned in my above post, they do not carry nearly enough aircraft. And as some one who worked on aircraft on a carrier, trust me, room matters to maintenance crews. Alot. A whole ****ing lot.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

You do not need an empire to want to project power. Further, aircraft carriers provide firepower out of proportion with their size. Lastly(and kinda related to the first p.oint), part of what you want a navy for is to fight before the bad guys get to your country.
I am fully cognizant of force projection. But Britain does not need to force project...they have no empire to protect. And they will not be going up against anyone that they need that much ship borne firepower against.

I am not sure they could get the same bang for the buck with other ships. Also note that when new aircraft technology comes along, the carrier gets an upgrade without having to do anything to the ship itself.
Bang for the buck? They cannot even afford them. They will not be able to even afford to fully equip then with F-35's for maybe 10 more years...at least. Right now Britain has zero...ZERO, fixed wing naval aircraft.
Because they blew all their money on two massive ships they cannot afford, their Fleet now has no fighter protection and will not for some time.
If they had instead built 2-3 larger Invincible's, they would have probably been finished by now and been equipped (or at least easily afforded to equip them).



There are significant advantages to using short take offs over vertical ones, even for aircraft capable of vertical takeoffs. However, my one complaint is that really, without a catapult and arresting gear, you limit far too much what you can do with a carrier. That would be my big complaint with the design, not that it is too big, but that it really should have EMALS and arresting gear.
You are missing the point...THEY CANNOT AFFORD THEM. Sure, in maybe 15-20 years they might...big deal.
And the F-35C has some range and some payload superiority over the B...but by no means a huge one. Certainly not worth going broke over.


Oh god, it is that...



The America class LHAs are going to carry about a half dozen F-35s. Wasp class similar numbers. The QE, 36.
Yeah, I overestimated the America capacity.

But 2-3 larger Invincible's could easily carry 16-20 F-36's plus support aircraft at a fraction of the cost of the QE's. And they would probably be in service now.

3 new Invincible's - 90,000 tons total MAX.
2 QE's - 150,000 tons.



It would need to be a complete redesign, and I do mean complete. EMALS is new. Flight decks have to be heavily modified due to heat from the F-35s(I understand this is a significant problem we are having). Bulkheads are even different from when I was in the navy. Yes, bulkheads.

It could have been better, but it is not that bad.

Heat? Heat damage is just a matter of changing the deck material for more heat resistance...you put the same deck material on the smaller Invincible's as you are on the QE's.
And the new Invincible's do not need EMALS as they would never use anything but V/STOL's.
The standard F-35 compliment for the QE's will apparently only be 24 (they cannot afford more then that anyway). The old Invincible's carried 12 Harriers and 10 support aircraft. They would not have to be all that much larger to carry 16-20 F-35's...maybe 25-30,000 tons at most. Plus, they could easily afford 3 of them. That is a total of 48-60 F-35's. Two QE's will have 48-72 max and still cost WAY more then 3 new Invincible's.
They would just need to be bigger then the old Invincible's...no major redesign (except to improve).


Once again...Britain cannot afford the QE's with full air compliments and they will not be able to for many years. Because of that, they have left a GAPING hole in their fleet air defence that they must live with for some time.

Sorry, IMO (and my father was British, so I feel some loyalty) the Royal Navy got it COMPLETELY wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Just MHO valued at precisely :twocents:



Any conflict the British are likely to be involved in will not be at home. That means power projection and that means carriers. All of this is detailed in the 1998 SDR.



Britain just built two ships like this so,.... And remember, part of that delay is due to the F-35 program. So, unless you have another suitable option that would be available in less time,...



STOVL combat aircraft do not take-off vertically. They use rolling take-offs. Also, British F-35B's will employ a rolling landing technique rather than vertical landing to improve their bring-back capabilities. That requires a large deck. Having a hangar big enough to carry a large air wing also at the very least implies a large deck.

CTOL operations require a catapults, arresting gear landing aids and other kit. In the old days steam catapults were used, steam being provided by the steam turbines that drove the ship. The QE's though aren't old fashioned and are not driven by ancient steam turbines which adds the complication of where does the steam come from. Back when the ships were conceived almost 20 years ago this was a real problem. Today EMALS catapults are a (almost) a real thing, alleviating the need to provide steam. Adding all the needed equipment to PoW was however estimated to add 100 million to the cost and delay IOC to 2023. For someone who keeps complaining about cost,... The idea the QE's could be relatively quickly and painlessly converted CTOL configuration seems to have been abandoned about 2002 and did not in fact feature into the final design.

The RAF and RN will be operating the F-35 force jointly. The F-35B is not just replacing the long-retired Sea Harrier but also the RAF Harrier GR7/9. Both services have a need for STOVL aircraft.



Its novel.



I wasn't aware American amphibss could operate CTOL aircraft in the numbers required AND sustain fleet speeds. And how does spending all that green in the U.S. improve the UK economy?



The Invincible's were never actually designed as aircraft carriers but rather as "escort cruisers" designed to support the CVA-01 class fleet carriers by providing the command and ASW helicopter facilities for the task force allowing the CVA-01's to operate strictly with fixed-wing aircraft. The Invincible program survived even after CVA-01 was cancelled and Sea Harrier facilities were sort of tacked on.

Now the requirement for the QE's was the ability to carry up to 50 aircraft, clearly a ship that carries half that many ain't gonna cut it and won't "get the job done", at least not the same job. And history teaches us that smaller doesn't mean they will get more. They will just end up with less - 2 very much less capable ships.

The Type 42 destroyers and Invincible vice CVA-01 provide a valuable lesson in the harm of trying to go on the cheap by downsizing.

I don't read posts of trolls.

When I care what you think about anything, I will let you know.

Don't hold your breath.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

But why build massive carriers that you cannot afford to fully equip in the first place?

IMO, they should have built 3 larger, Invincible class-type ships that can easily carry 16-20 F-35B's plus support aircraft.

Not these ugly behemoths that they cannot even afford to properly equip.

I mentioned in a previous thread that if the Argentines really wanted to retake the Falklands then they need to do it now while the UK's carriers have no planes.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

I don't read posts of trolls.

When I care what you think about anything, I will let you know.

Don't hold your breath.

So when you created this thread then, asking IF the QE's were a mistake it was a rhetorical question? Are you just looking for affirmation, not actual answers? :confused:

You gave some reasons why you think the QE program is a bad idea. You asked for thoughts. Some of your reasons are incorrect. The logic and reasoning used to support some of your conclusions is also flawed. Pointing out an alternative point of view is not trolling, no matter how much you disagree with it. That is in fact what a discussion is all about.

Remember, you asked.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

But why build massive carriers that you cannot afford to fully equip in the first place?

Spitballing but, my understanding is that from laying down the keel to fully commissioned and mission capable warship you're looking at a two to three year lead time with a carrier.

Once you've got the ship, if the poop hits the fan for real (like in a major war scenario) how long would it take for the United States to "fully equip" her closest ally's ship(s) with steam catapults and a full compliment of F35/F18 air frames?

Maybe it's a decision predicated on "having it but not needing it is better than needing it but not having it" type logic.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

I mentioned in a previous thread that if the Argentines really wanted to retake the Falklands then they need to do it now while the UK's carriers have no planes.

Argentina is probably less capable of retaking the Falkland's now than Britain is of getting them back again.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

I mentioned in a previous thread that if the Argentines really wanted to retake the Falklands then they need to do it now while the UK's carriers have no planes.

That is the most ridiculous part.

The Brits are SO worried about having state-of-the-art aircraft carriers that they went broke (military budget wise) building the things and now they have no fixed wing naval air power at all and won't still for some years to come.

So ridiculous.


'Why did you build these incredibly, expensive aircraft carriers?'
'Because nothing is too good for the Royal Navy and state-of-the-art, fixed wing, air power is essential to any modern navy.'
'Okaaaay...but how much fixed wing airpower does the Royal Navy have now?'
'Well...none.'
'So what happens if another Falklands War scenario comes up?'
'No comment.'
 
Last edited:
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Argentina is probably less capable of retaking the Falkland's now than Britain is of getting them back again.

Well they still got those pucara planes dont they? I mean outdated aircraft are still better than no aircraft after all. ;)
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Well they still got those pucara planes dont they? I mean outdated aircraft are still better than no aircraft after all. ;)

And an even smaller army, navy and less amphibious lift than in 1982.

And oh yeah, less money.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

Spitballing but, my understanding is that from laying down the keel to fully commissioned and mission capable warship you're looking at a two to three year lead time with a carrier.

More like 8 years, not 3.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

That is the most ridiculous part.

The Brits are SO worried about having state-of-the-art aircraft carriers that they went broke (military budget wise) building the things and now they have no fixed wing naval air power at all and won't still for some years to come.

So ridiculous.


'Why did you build these incredibly, expensive aircraft carriers?'
'Because nothing is too good for the Royal Navy and state-of-the-art, fixed wing, air power is essential to any modern navy.'
'Okaaaay...but how much fixed wing airpower does the Royal Navy have now?'
'Well...none.'
'So what happens if another Falklands War scenario comes up?'
'No comment.'

No... the Brits went broke after the Labor party went on a massive spending spree between 1997 and 2008 followed by a global economic crash.

The UK could quite easily have afforded the carriers, plus the full 13 type 45 destroyers etc if the previous government had not been so fiscally irresponsible and the economy had not tanked.
 
Re: Did the British make a mistake building the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrie

The Brits are down about their military being downsized. I was reading an article in the Daily Mail this week about two UK fighters bombing ISIS targets. One of the Brit comments below was, "What will we do if they shoot down both of our jets??

The USA has 13 carriers. Why would any of our allies need any? The reason the UK and EU get away with massive social spending is because my tax dollars and the US military defend Europe. Hell, we could have everything free in the USA, too, if someone were defending us and we didn't need to spend trillions protecting the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom