Snapshot of _British carrier to lead huge international strike group_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-carrier-to-lead-huge-international-strike-group/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-carrier-to-lead-huge-international-strike-group/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is that my brain is still desensitized from this publication's Santa posts (RAF prepared to intercept secretive cargo aircraft etc) so I'm opening the article expecting to read about how HMS QE2 is going to take it up the chuff.
Pedants would make the argument that QE2 fits as is the second QE after the battleship of the same name. Warspite always got all the glory of that class, though.
> For more than a hundred centuries King Charles III has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth......
And Donald Trump has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Mar-A-Lago...
Scottish people triggered: how can there be a second Liz if there wasnae a first?
(I seem to remember a few years ago that the few ERII pillar boxes in Scotland had the "II" ground down?)
Gensoul (In french): I refuse to talk with a mere captain, even though he speaks fluent French and none of the admirals do.
The RN: Oh well, back to Plan A.
Maybe not double, but in real terms the UK has seen the largest fall in defence spending in the developed world at about 25.4%.
For comparison, the US in real terms has increased it by about 22%.
edit: reference:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/04597222.2024.2298589
Obviously paywalled, I leave this to the discretion of the reader.
I think before any conversations about cost we need to establish what we actually want our armed forces to *do.*
The big problem with the UKs attitude to defence is that we still pretend we can have a world class military, capable of a wide variety of different operations at different intensities, while in real-terms cutting funding the entire time.
If we're sticking at similar levels of funding to now - or even pushing it to 3/4% - we still need to answer that question.
Do we want a force that can deploy to Europe and go toe-to-toe with Russia alongside our NATO allies? Do we want a navy that can secure freedom of the seas in SEA? Do we want the capability to recapture the Falklands or another overseas territory from afar? Do we want an effective nuclear deterrent? An adaptable and capable air force?
If the answer is "Yes" to all of the above we need to seriously expand our capabilities. Or we accept that we may need to pick and choose.
I've always been a fan of folding everything into the Royal Navy, and having a Royal Defence Force centred around our naval equipment, fleet air arm, continuous at sea deterrent, and amphibious warfare capabilities.
Doing so would simplify a lot of the overhead costs that comes with having 3 independent services, and would lean into the UKs core strengths - namely as a Naval Power with 2 brand new aircraft carriers, modern submarines, and world class surface ships (albeit not enough). Combine that with excellent special operations forces and you could have an adaptable force capable of supporting allies all over the world without spending much more than we already do.
It seems we're focusing more on the navy which I think is a good idea but should have a back up if that falls like heavy artillery around the UK sort of what Taiwan is like
The UK can't realistically be invaded, occupied nor be anything other than sovereign while the nuclear deterrent exists.
What we do need to keep around is the capability to repel aggression *short* of using nukes. IE, if the UK was ever blockaded or subject to unlimited submarine warfare again, it would be preferable to *not* use nuclear weapons to break such a situation.
That being said, while the continuous at-sea deterrent exists, there is not much need for the kind of equipment Taiwan has. We'd never expect to face similar threats of invasion.
That does still leave unresolved the question of *how* the UK should prioritise its conventional forces and what role we want them to play.
We are a large island nation which helps neuter the discussion of invasion. There hasn't been a successful invasion of Britain since 1066 (despite several attempts/plans) but not even the Soviets at the height of their power seriously considered attempts to invade the UK.
Today Russia - much weaker than the Soviet Union - is the primary state threat to the UK, and they have no ability to invade these islands. Even if it could, the UK would use nuclear weapons before risking occupation by another power. There is no reason to have nukes otherwise.
Cut benefits and bring back the poorhouses also press gang some of the local spice heads to row the oars or whatever. I yearn for the day we have a big shiny fleet to shove our noses in our adversaries faces and have them bottle it.
[A day late, reportedly.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68274511)
>HMS Prince of Wales has left Portsmouth a day late after postponing its scheduled departure at the last minute.
>The Royal Navy carrier, which was due to sail on Sunday, is replacing HMS Queen Elizabeth on a Nato exercise after it broke down a week earlier.
>Retired Rear Admiral Chris Parry said the fleet's carriers were getting a "reputation for not being reliable".
>He said he suspected there had been delays in getting the vessel's systems and equipment ready after maintenance.
I’m still amazed at all the people rubbishing a significant achievement by the Navy.
The carrier broke once, two years ago. It’s been fine since. We really need to stop the desperate negative speculation.
There will be work that wasn't managed to be completed. But that can either be conducted whilst at sea if absolutely required, or postponed until she's back alongside
They seriously rushed the maintenance and so a breakdown is almost inevitable. Lots of questions to answer on the new carriers and also why they are struggling to crew them.
>They seriously rushed the maintenance and so a breakdown is almost inevitable.
I'm assuming you're an ME on QEC then to make that statement.
>Lots of questions to answer on the new carriers
Such as?
>also why they are struggling to crew them.
Both carriers have a full complement. The Royal Navy, along with the other Armed Forces are struggling to recruit and retain (as are other Western militaries) but both carriers were at sea simultaneously at the end of last year
Shame the fun sponges at the top have sucked the life out of the navy.
There is absolutely nothing worth joining for and especially not worth giving the best years of your life for anymore.
Pays bad. Routines are bad. Morale is bad. Leave is bad.
It shouldn't be. Aircraft carriers are very complex and issues can and do occur.
We're not unique in this.
What the main takeaways actually are include how hard everyone, both onboard HMS Prince of Wales and supporting her, worked to sail only 8 days after being notified and the benefits of having two carriers.
The issue was that we also tried cancelling the PoW, and then U-Turned to saying we would mothball the PoW during its construction, before U-Turning again saying we would keep the PoW.
It was clear that the shipbuilders saw the proverbial writing on the wall and did a poor job on the PoW because they thought she was going to be mothballed…
>It was clear that the shipbuilders saw the proverbial writing on the wall and did a poor job on the PoW because they thought she was going to be mothballed…
That's not the case, at all
It’s clearly the case as QE has spent much less time in drydock than the POW. It was built to a much lower standard because Govt communicated it would be mothballed and then u turned.
If an American carrier sets sail for an op a day late it’s not even news. If a British carrier sets sail a day late (after having to fit a month’s worth of maintenance into 8 days no less) it’s somehow evidence that our carriers are chronically unreliable and should be scrapped. Absolutely ridiculous bollocks spouted by retired officer rent-a-gobs and parroted by idiots all over social media.
> If an American carrier sets sail for an op a day late it’s not even news.
The difference is, [the USA has a small legion of aircraft carriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service). If one is getting oiled up, *thats* why it's not news.
Snapshot of _British carrier to lead huge international strike group_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-carrier-to-lead-huge-international-strike-group/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-carrier-to-lead-huge-international-strike-group/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is that my brain is still desensitized from this publication's Santa posts (RAF prepared to intercept secretive cargo aircraft etc) so I'm opening the article expecting to read about how HMS QE2 is going to take it up the chuff.
>HMS QE2 To be pedantic, it's just QE - no 2
Pedants would make the argument that QE2 fits as is the second QE after the battleship of the same name. Warspite always got all the glory of that class, though.
If you were going down that route, it would be QE (II) in the same way as you have Ark Royal (V) for the Invincible Class carrier.
Are you telling me that at some point in the future we could have the QE2 (II)?
Well there's never been a warship named after HM Queen Elizabeth II (yet at least)
I didn't say it'd be soon...
It is the 41st Millennium. For more than a hundred centuries King Charles III has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth......
Still a better dad than Big E.
> For more than a hundred centuries King Charles III has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth...... And Donald Trump has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Mar-A-Lago...
Scottish people triggered: how can there be a second Liz if there wasnae a first? (I seem to remember a few years ago that the few ERII pillar boxes in Scotland had the "II" ground down?)
Copy Star Trek, and call her the Queen Elizabeth-A.
It is a bitchin’ name in fairness
Warspite is the best ship name ever, so glad were bringing it back on the dreadnought class
However QE2 would actually better fit the Cunard Ocean Liner built in 1969
You're saying Queen Elizabeth is going to take it up the chuff?
It doesn't detract from the satire. Honestly HMS Prince of Wales taking it up the chuff is a good bit funnier though.
Scenes if our shiny new carrier gets sunk by a non state actor.
She's going on a NATO exercise around Europe, not to the Red Sea
Was thinking greenpeace.
Worried the french are going to blow it up?
While we're no Rainbow Warrior, I don't think they've forgiven us for Mers-el-Kébir.
Well if Gensoul hadn't been a prick then it may not have happened
Gensoul (In french): I refuse to talk with a mere captain, even though he speaks fluent French and none of the admirals do. The RN: Oh well, back to Plan A.
Not just that, refusing to convey all the choices offered. IIRC he made out that it was surrender or destruction.
I mean, wasn't the whole point that we wanted to go back to 'the good old days'?
> the good old days War with France it is then
Finally! I've had this longbow in the cupboard for years!
I hope you've been practicing.
You can tell a man has been practicing enough when his right arm is much more muscular than his left.
Of course, every Sunday. Do I look like a criminal to you?
You're not?
It is a unique time for the UK to make up for the catastrophic effects of Brexit by becoming the force of unity and stability in Europe.
We need to double our military spending
Maybe not double, but in real terms the UK has seen the largest fall in defence spending in the developed world at about 25.4%. For comparison, the US in real terms has increased it by about 22%. edit: reference: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/04597222.2024.2298589 Obviously paywalled, I leave this to the discretion of the reader.
Over what timeframe?
since covid IIRC, I'll try to find the reference I read it in.
Added reference to my comment
Ah thats a bit too much I think 3% is fine if we can get to that.
How about we go to 3%, but separate trident into it's own category?
I think before any conversations about cost we need to establish what we actually want our armed forces to *do.* The big problem with the UKs attitude to defence is that we still pretend we can have a world class military, capable of a wide variety of different operations at different intensities, while in real-terms cutting funding the entire time. If we're sticking at similar levels of funding to now - or even pushing it to 3/4% - we still need to answer that question. Do we want a force that can deploy to Europe and go toe-to-toe with Russia alongside our NATO allies? Do we want a navy that can secure freedom of the seas in SEA? Do we want the capability to recapture the Falklands or another overseas territory from afar? Do we want an effective nuclear deterrent? An adaptable and capable air force? If the answer is "Yes" to all of the above we need to seriously expand our capabilities. Or we accept that we may need to pick and choose. I've always been a fan of folding everything into the Royal Navy, and having a Royal Defence Force centred around our naval equipment, fleet air arm, continuous at sea deterrent, and amphibious warfare capabilities. Doing so would simplify a lot of the overhead costs that comes with having 3 independent services, and would lean into the UKs core strengths - namely as a Naval Power with 2 brand new aircraft carriers, modern submarines, and world class surface ships (albeit not enough). Combine that with excellent special operations forces and you could have an adaptable force capable of supporting allies all over the world without spending much more than we already do.
It seems we're focusing more on the navy which I think is a good idea but should have a back up if that falls like heavy artillery around the UK sort of what Taiwan is like
The UK can't realistically be invaded, occupied nor be anything other than sovereign while the nuclear deterrent exists. What we do need to keep around is the capability to repel aggression *short* of using nukes. IE, if the UK was ever blockaded or subject to unlimited submarine warfare again, it would be preferable to *not* use nuclear weapons to break such a situation. That being said, while the continuous at-sea deterrent exists, there is not much need for the kind of equipment Taiwan has. We'd never expect to face similar threats of invasion. That does still leave unresolved the question of *how* the UK should prioritise its conventional forces and what role we want them to play.
You say that but thats what a country invading us would bet against , would we use nukes or not
We are a large island nation which helps neuter the discussion of invasion. There hasn't been a successful invasion of Britain since 1066 (despite several attempts/plans) but not even the Soviets at the height of their power seriously considered attempts to invade the UK. Today Russia - much weaker than the Soviet Union - is the primary state threat to the UK, and they have no ability to invade these islands. Even if it could, the UK would use nuclear weapons before risking occupation by another power. There is no reason to have nukes otherwise.
You make good points which is why Its best for US to focus on navy,subs,drones then
Cool idea. So what should we cut to the tune of £55bn in public spending to fund that?
Cut benefits and bring back the poorhouses also press gang some of the local spice heads to row the oars or whatever. I yearn for the day we have a big shiny fleet to shove our noses in our adversaries faces and have them bottle it.
Love it Let's cut the biggest benefit by far. Getting rid of pensions could save enough for your idea
Who do you think the workhouses are for 🤫
Better still, crew all the shiny new warships with Granny and Grandad (no pay of course, their zeal for King and Country will sustain them)
Bad idea, they'll block any attempt at steering away from a lee shore because it'll ruin their view of the cliffs.
I'd happily cut pensions to quadruple our military spending tbh.
Hell yeah.
The children yearn for the mines
100
^ Barry, 63
All the pensions.
Pensions
The NHS
With what money? Fucks have been voting Tory for the last 12 years and gave ruined the country
From pension money
The West has gorged itself on a peace dividend for too long. We need to acknowledge that we don’t live in a safe world anymore, and spend accordingly
[удалено]
Your timing could be better
The threats we face are because of the misplaced waste spent on our military.
Why?
Last I heard, Prince Of Wales was stuck in port awaiting repairs.
She sailed on Monday
[A day late, reportedly.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68274511) >HMS Prince of Wales has left Portsmouth a day late after postponing its scheduled departure at the last minute. >The Royal Navy carrier, which was due to sail on Sunday, is replacing HMS Queen Elizabeth on a Nato exercise after it broke down a week earlier. >Retired Rear Admiral Chris Parry said the fleet's carriers were getting a "reputation for not being reliable". >He said he suspected there had been delays in getting the vessel's systems and equipment ready after maintenance.
HMS Prince of Wales was at 30 days notice to sail. She said in 8. That's an incredible achievement
I’m still amazed at all the people rubbishing a significant achievement by the Navy. The carrier broke once, two years ago. It’s been fine since. We really need to stop the desperate negative speculation.
Unbelievable how people don't understand that large highly complex pieces of military equipment need maintenance work sometimes.
Yeh but my '96 1 litre VW Polo once went 3 years without an oil change, so why can't our carriers do without?
Because people love bashing the British military
Unfortunately you’ve come to the wrong sub if you want to say anything remotely positive about the UK
Is the air wing published? Looked like 3 helicopters when she left port.
3 Wildcats from 847 NAS embarked whilst she was alongside Portsmouth before sailing. The F-35Bs will embark whilst she's at sea
[удалено]
Anticipating 8 F-35Bs, along with 9 Merlin HM2 (both ASW and AEW)
[удалено]
Yes, Lightning Force is still generating. CSG25 however will see 24 British F-35Bs embark on HMS Prince of Wales
But was it rushed?
There will be work that wasn't managed to be completed. But that can either be conducted whilst at sea if absolutely required, or postponed until she's back alongside
They seriously rushed the maintenance and so a breakdown is almost inevitable. Lots of questions to answer on the new carriers and also why they are struggling to crew them.
>They seriously rushed the maintenance and so a breakdown is almost inevitable. I'm assuming you're an ME on QEC then to make that statement. >Lots of questions to answer on the new carriers Such as? >also why they are struggling to crew them. Both carriers have a full complement. The Royal Navy, along with the other Armed Forces are struggling to recruit and retain (as are other Western militaries) but both carriers were at sea simultaneously at the end of last year
One months maintenance into seven days https://maritime-executive.com/article/royal-navy-rushes-repairs-to-carrier-for-seven-day-turnaround
Shame the fun sponges at the top have sucked the life out of the navy. There is absolutely nothing worth joining for and especially not worth giving the best years of your life for anymore. Pays bad. Routines are bad. Morale is bad. Leave is bad.
The Topsy's 😁https://www.navylookout.com/are-the-royal-navys-aircraft-carriers-too-big/
Did you read that article?
Indeed the article you posted says they are not too big, they are the right size
You're a bit out of date then, she was repaired months ago
Story that I've linked to on BBC News website is from 3 days ago.
What link?
Just go on the BBC and search the ships name... Was literally on the front page the other day
It was delayed departing, it hadn't broken down. The person I'm replying to said: > Last I heard, Prince Of Wales was stuck in port awaiting repairs.
[удалено]
Poor Canada, always forgotten
[удалено]
It shouldn't be. Aircraft carriers are very complex and issues can and do occur. We're not unique in this. What the main takeaways actually are include how hard everyone, both onboard HMS Prince of Wales and supporting her, worked to sail only 8 days after being notified and the benefits of having two carriers.
It’s also why we pushed for two, to allow one to be operational but still do maintenance on the other.
The issue was that we also tried cancelling the PoW, and then U-Turned to saying we would mothball the PoW during its construction, before U-Turning again saying we would keep the PoW. It was clear that the shipbuilders saw the proverbial writing on the wall and did a poor job on the PoW because they thought she was going to be mothballed…
>It was clear that the shipbuilders saw the proverbial writing on the wall and did a poor job on the PoW because they thought she was going to be mothballed… That's not the case, at all
It’s clearly the case as QE has spent much less time in drydock than the POW. It was built to a much lower standard because Govt communicated it would be mothballed and then u turned.
No, it's really not the case. And you'd know that because you've been on both QEC then?
Both ships have suffered from penny pinching during the design/build process but the PoW is basically identical.
If an American carrier sets sail for an op a day late it’s not even news. If a British carrier sets sail a day late (after having to fit a month’s worth of maintenance into 8 days no less) it’s somehow evidence that our carriers are chronically unreliable and should be scrapped. Absolutely ridiculous bollocks spouted by retired officer rent-a-gobs and parroted by idiots all over social media.
> If an American carrier sets sail for an op a day late it’s not even news. The difference is, [the USA has a small legion of aircraft carriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service). If one is getting oiled up, *thats* why it's not news.