Stay Safe Lads & Lasses of HMS Queen Elizbeth

shiplake

Active Member
South China sea as a 'tour' seems a bit provocative at the moment, won't be helping the UK bank balance much either. Sometimes i wonder what they are trying to achieve?
 

Tim.243

Well-Known Member
South China sea as a 'tour' seems a bit provocative at the moment, won't be helping the UK bank balance much either. Sometimes i wonder what they are trying to achieve?
How is the post count going?
In answer to your question is a containing commitment to protect this nation as what ever the cost, 1939-45 was a good example.
 

shiplake

Active Member
How is the post count going?
In answer to your question is a containing commitment to protect this nation as what ever the cost, 1939-45 was a good example.
Not completely convinced that sending a carrier group to the South China Sea is protecting the nation at the moment but happy to be corrected. I spent a lot of time charging around 'protecting the nation' in the 70/80's and i was never completely convinced we actually achieved very much but seemed like fun at the time. :):)
 

Pedro

Well-Known Member
The idea, I'm sure is that by parading such things as this, we let the world know that we have the capabilities on show. It's probably one step down from sabre rattling. Whether those powers that would act against our interests will take note (most likely) and give us more respect as a result (not very likely) is another matter.

Britannia used to rule the waves. Although we don't now, we do still have a say and that's what this is about. Like it or not.
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
Last edited:

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
In a shooting war with China and/or Russia I'd think that both of these Queen Elizabeth class carriers would not only prime targets but that the Royal Navy was now so denuded of other ships that in fact we'd be unable to form a large enough "war footing" carrier group to protect both adequately.

You only have to look at what follows an US Navy carrier when it is deployed. Do that twice over even if in fact it could and the Royal Navy has very little left over for anything else. It may look good but if we cannot then protect vital sea lanes or interests elsewhere its a white elephant.

Both ships are likely less about any of the above and more about giving for the next fifty years "off shore" air bases to support land operations such as perhaps, against Somali pirate bases or heliborne evacuations of "Brits" from future then now hostile other countries here or there.

And for that "Bless 'Em All, Bless 'Em All".
 

shiplake

Active Member
I'm not sure we should be 'prodding' any major armed nation.

Wikipedia - ''In the beginning of World War II the Royal Navy was the strongest navy in the world,[1] with the largest number of warships built and with naval bases across the globe.[2] Totalling over 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines.[2] With a massive merchant navy, about a third of the world total, it also dominated shipping'' and even with all this, a massive ship building industry and the commonwealth nations - it nearly didn't end well.

Today;
As of January 2021, there are 79 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy.

Of the commissioned vessels, twenty-three are major surface combatants (six guided missile destroyers, thirteen frigates, two amphibious transport docks and two aircraft carriers), and eleven are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and seven fleet submarines - the rest aren't worth mentioning. The merchant navy, although something like the 10th largest, is mainly 'flagged out' and crewed by many none UK personnel. Even during the Falklands (82) the MN was bigger but struggled to supply enough vessels/crews for the operation which is why foreign flagged vessels were chartered in. During the Gulf wars the MOD struggled to charter enough vessels from the foreign flagged vessels available as many crews refused to get involved.

I'm all for 'Brittania rules the waves' and although some would argue that Nato might get involved - i wouldn't count on it. History teaches us that most major nations either roll over or only get involved when they absolutely need to and charge us for the pleasure whilst they are at it. Anyone who thinks that Nuclear weapons would swing it, is living in cloud cuckoo land - by the time someone made a decision - it would all be over.

Diplomacy is the only option these days and this has not been high on the agenda recently either. Hope i'm wrong, but we stick our noses into other peoples business a little too much these days and the cost to all of us is huge. Having been involved in a few conflicts, i hope everybody sees some sense and gets back to trading normally soon. Of course i support all our armed forces and wish them well whilst serving ' Queen and country'. :):)
 
Last edited:

Pedro

Well-Known Member
In a shooting war with China and/or Russia I'd think that both of these Queen Elizabeth class carriers would not only prime targets but that the Royal Navy was now so denuded of other ships that in fact we'd be unable to form a large enough "war footing" carrier group to protect both adequately.

You only have to look at what follows an US Navy carrier when it is deployed. Do that twice over even if in fact it could and the Royal Navy has very little left over for anything else. It may look good but if we cannot then protect vital sea lanes or interests elsewhere its a white elephant.

Both ships are likely less about any of the above and more about giving for the next fifty years "off shore" air bases to support land operations such as perhaps, against Somali pirate bases or heliborne evacuations of "Brits" from future then now hostile other countries here or there.

And for that "Bless 'Em All, Bless 'Em All".
I think that's pretty accurate. Those two carriers would be able to maintain air superiority over minor nations in war zones and fly sorties at will. But against the likes of China and Russia, or countries supported militarily by them, the Royal Navy would (hopefully) be working in cahoots with other allies, such as the USA and other prominent NATO allies, who would enhance the likelihood of air superiority and the defence of such assets.

Let's hope that they, along with NATO allies continue to maintain a credible deterrent, the need for which is apparent if Russia (and countries in their sphere of interest) continues to press into NATO countries air space, murder people in other countries at will and hijack passenger jets.
 
Top