For the QE or PoW to deploy to an area roughly the size to the North Sea, where all the action would be in a strait as narrow as the English Channel, would be ridiculously dangerous unless every T45 the Navy could lay it's hands on was deployed to escort it. And for what, that couldn't be achieved by other surface combatants or shore-based aircraft?
@@billcook7483 Well, that's a very good question - is there much point to a navy that's essentially a single carrier strike group, rather than a whole bunch more modern frigates/destroyers/submarines? And at a time when the RAF is about to go down to just over 100 interceptors and the army to less than 150 MBTs, are the carriers really that useful?
The only problem is we were planning things to do a big world tour type csg in 2025. Using ships now might mean they have to have x amount of maintenance done which then means they won't be ready for when we want them in 2025.
@@regarded9702 To quote the cousins, 'you got to use them sometime'. Let's see tour the world, or protect shipping, that we rely on. Hmmm! The original reason for the RN, is to protect shipping, or why the hell have it.
A lose lose situation, in such a narrow straite a sitting target! If lost it would be a decade to replace if it ever was. The UK is not like the US we don't have the resources.
The carriers won't be deployed, simple as that... there is no funding available to deploy any of our armed forces into potential combat situations. The carriers simply aren't fit to deploy... hardly any ammunition after being operationally de-funded by the UK government.
HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales will probably have to be deployed to Guyana if Venezuela makes a move to annex the Essequibo region and its offshore oil and gas fields.
3 Type 45's are at Portsmouth being refitted. Im not so sure we have enough escorts at present. I don't understand why these container ships don't carry a helicopter from the Americans or the UK to defend against the fast attack boats.
Putting a helicopter on a merchant ship is relatively easy in terms of landing and taking off. Embarking an armed military helicopter for a sustained operation is a whole different kettle of fish. Do I need to bore you with the details?
She's leaving. The ship & her crew are long overdue a return to the US, think they've already had their tour extended twice. A USN assault carrier with USMC harriers or F35b is to replace her initially.
There's already a carrier out there. It's not an issue that needs more than one CV at the moment. This is why NATO is good, you're an alliance who can provide whats needed in turn.
I agree the way the world is right now who knows where we might need them next. We have two carriers out there right now unless we start making strikes hold them in reserve or make it rotational.
NATO has no jurisdiction South of the Tropic of Cancer. Also, the US Navy should not be there. This is just a very small problem within a small area within European/ Asian shipping route. This is a euro problem, and they seem not to care. Therefore, it is not a real problem at all, especially for the USA.
Except that it absolutely is a US problem, since it affects them as much as anybody there. Global shipping is global shipping. The better question is why places like China, India etc are being lazy again and not actually putting in the effort.@@willw8011
Tom Sharpe is an old warfare officer of mine from best part of 20 years back, top bloke. Always sure footed and knew his craft. Good to see an old face 👌
U do realize that if he's actually retarted enough to do that Putin would then and their have just declared war on the west, they can't fight Ukraine so honestly nothing to worry about
Absolute nonsense. Putin is as likely to 'escalate' anything, as he was to respond to any of the weapons we sent to Ukraine. Russia has nothing but cyber attacks and diplomatic bluffing.
I don't see the point of a British carrier being there. It's a huge target that needs protecting and a destroyer is better suited to shooting down drones and missiles. A US carrier is already there. If tensions escalate to the point of a more conventional conflict then sure send PoW or QE there. But right now I think a destroyer is a more suitable asset.
No it was to kick the Spanish arses and any one else's. At the time the Royal Navy was established, England had no issues with privateers stealing Spanish gold that it stole from South America. Keeping trade routes open is more of a 18- 21th century mission, as Britain started to build a world wide trading empire.
Yes and people cant cry about it because without it prices for oil and gas will sky rocket and the cost of living will be so much worse than it is now.
I hate to quash some mp’s at Westminster but you have hollowed out our armed forces and the RN hasn’t got the ships to send to the Red Sea! And there’s not enough F35s to go around!
This guy is mad. The Red Sea is far too restricted for large aircraft to operate. The carriers would have to be in the northern Indian Ocean to give manoeuvre room for the ships. The aircraft would still have the range. I'm sure the Americans have enough of their own combat power
@phucknuts I don't know we are talking about a royal Navy Commander here and chances are he's been deployed multiple times into war zones. So he has as you say send your own family been there and done that. It's okay to call people out but maybe this one doesn't really work in this particular scenario because he's already put his life on the line for his country and I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem doing it again and he may or may not have his son or daughter in the service now as we speak. Who knows
@@JimCarner Disruption of Apple sending their iPhones from the far east to Europe is definitely a US concern, for example. And even if it wasn't, when's the last time the US said "it's none of our business really, let's not interfere"?
A leading Navy expert says deploy a large high value target to a small restricted area against an enemy armed with modern anti ship missiles ok. I know most westerners don't ever consider this cause the amazing superiority of their equipment and training makes them invulnerable in combat against non Western actors but what would happen if the Houthis slammed one of their cruise missiles into this ship and severely damaged it or sank it?
@shontagu, that must be why the UK was the first country in the world to send main battle tanks and long range missiles to Ukraine, while the US and the rest of the world were afraid to do so!!. The US only agreed to do it, after the UK's offering to Ukraine embarrassed them into doing the same!!. 😂🤣
This is what happens after decades of cuts and trims to the armed forces…. We currently have the War in Ukraine where much of our attention is focused…. Then we have the Red Sea getting messy along with Venezuelan territorial demands on Guiyana…. We simply do not have the resources/ships to meet all the demands being placed on the Navy…
This is what she was built for. A fully operational aircraft carrier is a great deterrent… unless she spends her life simply creating photo ops during training exercises.
I did think about it but I honestly disagree, for a number of reasons. Ultimately, our presence there along with allies is absolutely satisfactory. No doubt at least one sub is in the vicinity. If anything I wouldn't argue for an extra carrier, but another destroyer
The idiots want to send an aircraft carrier, for what? Its not equipped with the types of weapons needed to shoot down primitive drones and missiles. Yet it would be a high value target needing its own fleet of ships for protection, these would be better served protecting civillian ships.
@@JimCarner If they were attacking our Naval ships CIWS would easily deal with them. In fact CIWS fitted tankers would be an easy solution, evaporating potential boarders and great against droned and missiles.
The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are still not ready for operational use therefore capacity, the Navy wouldn’t run the risk until it’s fully operational, plus deploying the aircraft carrier would use up majority of the Navy
It would be part of a substantial US task force - and receive all the protection it would need. It was developed to work alongside the US, that's the whole point.
@@noodles169 even with the help of NATO ships Queen Elizabeth what still needs to settle with 2 type 45 destroyer is and 2 frigates, at least one submarine and different types of support ships, and that still takes up a big portion of the Royal Navy
The UK spent billions of the the UK's tax money to pay for this new aircarft carrier, only for it to NOT be used for what it was created for. Yea, well done UK, fantastic investment there!!!
The European shipping companies based in Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, etc are the ones diverting ships. Seems like those countries should be the ones protecting their shipping companies and shipping route. Those countries seemingly do not care, other than the 1 warship the French have sent to do limited escort of French flagged ships. BTW, the ships' flag determines which country has jurisdiction over the ship in international waters/ shipping lanes. Not a US flag means not the USA's problem. Not a UK flag means not the UK's problem.
And on Saturday, it emerged that our £3billion aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth cannot yet be sent to the region because its support ship RFA Fort Victoria is operating on a skeleton staff, keeping it in a Liverpool shipyard.
The only trouble with the "one out one back" policy is that they send one out which is worth say £1000 & we send one back worth 250 grand! And as none of us have shares in the arms companies that isn't a good deal. We need to look at another way...
The point is at that distance you're going to have to routinely keep the fighters airborne for ~7 hours at a time, just to have them patrol for 2 hours each. That's a pretty inefficient use of limited airframe and pilot hours.@@JimCarner
@@JimCarner That assumes that the missile launchers are just going to sit still in the open for hours waiting to be destroyed. My assumption is that we would need around the clock patrols waiting for the enemy to reveal themselves followed by a very quick response by the patrol. Trying to mount these patrols from Akrotiri seems like a poor way of doing it.
Cost effective, reliable, enduring, responsive. Carrier strike achieves all four. RAF flying operations from AKT? Flying two typhoons halfway across a continent to see if they can first spot anything to even hit, after they secure the overflight permissions, after they are happy with the 2,800 mile round trip, after you’ve found enough crew to endure that sortie, after you’ve made sure the weather is not preventing you across that entire duration, after the tanker can make it? Yeah, it makes perfect sense. Or, like, not that and carrier strike instead. People like you said Tornado could do everything a harrier could back in 2010 when we scrapped them and carrier strike, and then we had ELLAMY, and the emperor was decidedly NOT wearing any clothes. We’re nearly at the point where we’ve regenerated that entire capability, but it’s only taken us over ten years.
This could be seen as a pre-cursor to Iran's possible interference with the oil traffic through the Banda Abbas straits. How would we react to that situation? What are the implications for Egypt from the sudden loss of canal transit revenues.Would Egypt unilaterally come to some quiet financial agreement with the Houthi's to preserve the source of revenue?
Our Carrier’s are brand new and just been turned up, we don’t want to scuff the paint work. RN would have a hard time protecting carrier’s. No need for sending such a big target
@@Orbital_Inclination Military aged men in boats landing on the Kent shore..... It's an invasion. Oh yeh, Guardian newspaper readers who think men can become women wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 🙂
One of them had an issue with their prop shaft a few years ago, but what are the other breakdowns? As far as I know they've been on multiple deployments far further than this without issue.
They did And Arabs said just do what Hoothi says make israel stop bombing and bring aids in to Gaza and he will stop hitting thair schips Otherwise u bring more warships overthere u make it worse Hoothi will close red sea complitly and start putting 50.000 sea mines wich means no ship will ever make it And hoothi will keep targeting warships and soon or later it will hit I hope all parts come to agreement and stop wars every where No body is going to gain anything from that All r going to lose
Here's a suggestion. Get the merchant ships to sail round the Cape of Good Hope and into the Atlantic. It might add 12-14 days longer and cost more, but it's going to be a damned sight cheaper than getting involved wit a war with Iranian backed militias. Lose one ship and it's billions gone to the bottom of the sea, not to minimise the loss of life. Just stay away and let them find another way round.
That what most of the big companies are actually doing now. Most of the merchant companies have long plan for a war breaking out in the Middle East and have established plans to change routes to around Africa. An from the looks of things, it about to get very very hot in the Middle East, as America fails to keep it attack poodle under control.
Why didn't the crew take anti piracy measures and go to the citadel? These crews have trained for years to deal with illegal hoardings and call for assistance before going to the citadel.
@@McfcMancs With what's happening in the region the Master of the vessel surely was more suspicious of such activity of an helicopter landing on the deck with armed personnel alighting from a helicopter. The helicopter would have shown up in the radar and the insurance underwriters and UKMO, office of US Naval Intelligence have surely issued warnings of Houthi activity and the dangers. Were there lookouts on the bridge wings? I know Somali pirates don't have helicopters but anyone who boards a vessel illegally in international waters and takes control of the vessel commits an act of piracy.
sending a carrier, anywhere, in anger, isn't just sending "a" carrier... It's sending a carrier, frigates, destroyers, sweepers, and RFA(s) to suport and replenish them. This takes capability away from other areas as wella s redundancy. Moreover it's expensive, and it's election season where everyone's biggest worry is money.
Then it might surprise you what the cost of a non operational red sea shipping route and suez canal would be.High inflation for goods not arriving or late also doesnt sell well in election years I guess.
Which the RN doesn’t have in any useful numbers. The Navy’s down to 6 destroyers and 11 frigates & it looks like two of the Type 23s are going to be decommsioned. At any given time about a third of a navy’s major combatants are available for service. Anywhere. That’s 2 destroyers and 3 frigates to deal with trouble all over the world.
Are these carriers still getting the rumoured angled flight decks and catapults upgrades? Also what about a third carrier? Should a carrier be lost in a conflict we would never be able to build another quickly!
So no mention of the PoW then? stripped for spares for QE? eesh. Only the uk would design cutting edge carriers, then half fill them, then leave one at home permanently. So few aircraft on board should be called HMS bounty.
Both ships have actually recently returned from deployments, Prince of Wales was off the US East coast for a number of months performing flight trials. Most of those articles about it being stripped for parts were just overblown stuff tabloids latched onto.
@@dianeirvine7624 An invasion of civilians, it's the border forces job to deal with them, not the military. It would be a colossal waste of resources to put a £3billion aircraft carrier in the channel to stop small boats.
What is an RN Carrier Strike Force for if not exactly this type of geo-political crisis ? If the US Navy has the tactical space to maneuver their carriers in that sea then a QE Class carrier can too. However.......Guyana and our prior, territorial, treaty responsibilities there are the elephant in the proverbial 'room' .......
Tbf we should still go tho for the international interest and for are own self show who and what we are to the world we have lost are world place it feels
If the Houthi's start mining the waters it is not an aircraft carrier that would be needed but the mine sweepers that Turkey won't allow into the Black Sea and what the Russian military would immediately sink and destroy anyway.
So one person mentions this and the title is "calls for UK to deploy HMS QE" - get a grip
Surprised your comment is permitted. They like to delete them often around here. Agree fully.
@@abody499 Any Tory minister or even MP can get up and claim to speak for the nation (with no evidence to support the assertion).
@johnjephcote7636 And ur telling me something I already know why?
It’s based on more than one person’s opinion. Do a little digging and you’ll see that.
For the QE or PoW to deploy to an area roughly the size to the North Sea, where all the action would be in a strait as narrow as the English Channel, would be ridiculously dangerous unless every T45 the Navy could lay it's hands on was deployed to escort it. And for what, that couldn't be achieved by other surface combatants or shore-based aircraft?
Well said.
Who did you serve with, because it wasn’t the Royal Navy.
It would obviously deploy to where its aircraft had enough reach to influence not just Bob about waiting for pop shots to be taken at it
This is what our navy is designed for what's the point of having these assets if we don't use them.
@@billcook7483 Well, that's a very good question - is there much point to a navy that's essentially a single carrier strike group, rather than a whole bunch more modern frigates/destroyers/submarines? And at a time when the RAF is about to go down to just over 100 interceptors and the army to less than 150 MBTs, are the carriers really that useful?
It would make shipping lanes safer. Also gives the lads some training! Win-win
It is mainly there to support the terrorist state of Israel 🇮🇱.
The only problem is we were planning things to do a big world tour type csg in 2025. Using ships now might mean they have to have x amount of maintenance done which then means they won't be ready for when we want them in 2025.
@@regarded9702 To quote the cousins, 'you got to use them sometime'.
Let's see tour the world, or protect shipping, that we rely on. Hmmm!
The original reason for the RN, is to protect shipping, or why the hell have it.
A lose lose situation, in such a narrow straite a sitting target! If lost it would be a decade to replace if it ever was. The UK is not like the US we don't have the resources.
The carriers won't be deployed, simple as that... there is no funding available to deploy any of our armed forces into potential combat situations. The carriers simply aren't fit to deploy... hardly any ammunition after being operationally de-funded by the UK government.
HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales will probably have to be deployed to Guyana if Venezuela makes a move to annex the Essequibo region and its offshore oil and gas fields.
Red Sea is more important as we need shipping to flow
@@PotatoSalad614 Last time The Red Sea closed in the 1960s ships were diverted around South Africa.
The Monroe Doctrine means this would never happen.
@@TheBenchPressManif you check world history, it was the British implementing this American rule.
What for, British carriers are useless.
With only 8 fighters it can barely defend itself.
3 Type 45's are at Portsmouth being refitted. Im not so sure we have enough escorts at present.
I don't understand why these container ships don't carry a helicopter from the Americans or the UK to defend against the fast attack boats.
What about French, German, Spanish, Italian helicopters to name just a few other countries.
Putting a helicopter on a merchant ship is relatively easy in terms of landing and taking off. Embarking an armed military helicopter for a sustained operation is a whole different kettle of fish. Do I need to bore you with the details?
You could have left it at 'I don't understand" and that would have sufficed.
You don’t think they have manpads? Helicopters are easy to take down. Don’t play games in war.
@@TheBoobanIt was helicopters that did for the last 3 boats.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Group is already in the area and conducting operations.
She's leaving. The ship & her crew are long overdue a return to the US, think they've already had their tour extended twice.
A USN assault carrier with USMC harriers or F35b is to replace her initially.
@@gregs7562 It is the Ford that is leaving the eastern Mediterranean. The Eisenhower is the Gulf area.
Exactly and that is the US Navy which is crazy as this shipping lane is vital to Europe, not America.
Which has more aircraft than our RAF, more useful large ships than our navy.
@@gregs7562 It's teh Gerald R Ford that's leaving the Mediterranean Not the Eisenhower.
There's already a carrier out there. It's not an issue that needs more than one CV at the moment. This is why NATO is good, you're an alliance who can provide whats needed in turn.
I agree the way the world is right now who knows where we might need them next. We have two carriers out there right now unless we start making strikes hold them in reserve or make it rotational.
NATO has no jurisdiction South of the Tropic of Cancer. Also, the US Navy should not be there. This is just a very small problem within a small area within European/ Asian shipping route. This is a euro problem, and they seem not to care. Therefore, it is not a real problem at all, especially for the USA.
Except that it absolutely is a US problem, since it affects them as much as anybody there. Global shipping is global shipping. The better question is why places like China, India etc are being lazy again and not actually putting in the effort.@@willw8011
@@willw8011 Lol where do you get that from? It's a stones throw away form a Nato member, Türkiye
It’s the NATO charter…. You should read what and where is included…@@thepeacockk
Tom Sharpe is an old warfare officer of mine from best part of 20 years back, top bloke. Always sure footed and knew his craft. Good to see an old face 👌
He loves his rum, bum and bacca
This could escalate quickly, especially if Putin sees an opportunity to damage western commercial interests
U do realize that if he's actually retarted enough to do that Putin would then and their have just declared war on the west, they can't fight Ukraine so honestly nothing to worry about
Britain's 2023 increase in GDP: 0.3%
Russia's wartime increase in GDP - close to 3%
@@basedglennuk Which source are you using?
Absolute nonsense. Putin is as likely to 'escalate' anything, as he was to respond to any of the weapons we sent to Ukraine. Russia has nothing but cyber attacks and diplomatic bluffing.
@@basedglennuk Do you still trust the few economic figures still being published by the Kremilin?
I don't see the point of a British carrier being there. It's a huge target that needs protecting and a destroyer is better suited to shooting down drones and missiles. A US carrier is already there. If tensions escalate to the point of a more conventional conflict then sure send PoW or QE there. But right now I think a destroyer is a more suitable asset.
I agree with you, 100%. No doubt the Royal Navy has at least one sub in the vicinity too. I love the carriers but they're not needed right now
Was The Royal Navy's original role to provide deterrence in hostile waters to allow unencumbered trade between nations?
Yes, it is one of the Royal Navy's primary missions.
Absolutely.
No it was to kick the Spanish arses and any one else's. At the time the Royal Navy was established, England had no issues with privateers stealing Spanish gold that it stole from South America.
Keeping trade routes open is more of a 18- 21th century mission, as Britain started to build a world wide trading empire.
Yes and people cant cry about it because without it prices for oil and gas will sky rocket and the cost of living will be so much worse than it is now.
I hate to quash some mp’s at Westminster but you have hollowed out our armed forces and the RN hasn’t got the ships to send to the Red Sea! And there’s not enough F35s to go around!
Need some fast escort vessels like the fishery's patrol boats or MTB launches we use in WWII.
A carrier is a bit over kill.
This guy is mad. The Red Sea is far too restricted for large aircraft to operate. The carriers would have to be in the northern Indian Ocean to give manoeuvre room for the ships. The aircraft would still have the range. I'm sure the Americans have enough of their own combat power
It’s nice of Tom Sharpe to want it sent to an operational theatre when he isn’t going to be going.
What do want him to do fly out to it
@@TimesFM4532 stop sending everyone else’s family
@phucknuts I don't know we are talking about a royal Navy Commander here and chances are he's been deployed multiple times into war zones. So he has as you say send your own family been there and done that. It's okay to call people out but maybe this one doesn't really work in this particular scenario because he's already put his life on the line for his country and I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem doing it again and he may or may not have his son or daughter in the service now as we speak. Who knows
@@RobK-rl6sn my opinion and im entitled to it
@@phucknuts.7065 And we're entitled to tell you your opinion is laughable. Nobody joins the military hoping to sit at home twiddling their thumbs.
Does the QE have its own carrier strike group at this point to screen the carrier?
Will the US marines be able to provide the aircraft.
@@JimCarner considering they have directly tried to sink US Navy vessels......
@@JimCarner Disruption of Apple sending their iPhones from the far east to Europe is definitely a US concern, for example. And even if it wasn't, when's the last time the US said "it's none of our business really, let's not interfere"?
A leading Navy expert says deploy a large high value target to a small restricted area against an enemy armed with modern anti ship missiles ok. I know most westerners don't ever consider this cause the amazing superiority of their equipment and training makes them invulnerable in combat against non Western actors but what would happen if the Houthis slammed one of their cruise missiles into this ship and severely damaged it or sank it?
UK has no balls anymore.
@shontagu, that must be why the UK was the first country in the world to send main battle tanks and long range missiles to Ukraine, while the US and the rest of the world were afraid to do so!!. The US only agreed to do it, after the UK's offering to Ukraine embarrassed them into doing the same!!. 😂🤣
Has HMS queen E finished sea trails yet? The last time i checked, it was facing problems and do we have free ships to escort and defend her?
This is what happens after decades of cuts and trims to the armed forces…. We currently have the War in Ukraine where much of our attention is focused…. Then we have the Red Sea getting messy along with Venezuelan territorial demands on Guiyana…. We simply do not have the resources/ships to meet all the demands being placed on the Navy…
Yeah, but look at how terrific our education and health systems are!😲
Truth.
@@JimCarnerDamn straight.
Why Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt are NOT sending a Navy ship in the Red Sea?
Because Saudi Arabia is Fighting in Yemen right now
Coz yemen has just defeated them with Single Hand after 9 years War
@@user-ww7uj2fw7w Yemen and the Saudis are on the same side. Always have been. Learn the facts before making statements.
Because Saudi Arabia and Iran have made new peace agreements thanks to China which as p*ssed the yanks and Brits off.
This is what she was built for.
A fully operational aircraft carrier is a great deterrent… unless she spends her life simply creating photo ops during training exercises.
It’s not are problem.
Let’s attempt to stop dinghy’s at Dover is
she wasn't built just to be sunk. Indiscriminate mining will take her down with all her crew if she's trapped in a barrel - use your brain.
With the ROEs your current government will place on her better left in dock
I did think about it but I honestly disagree, for a number of reasons. Ultimately, our presence there along with allies is absolutely satisfactory. No doubt at least one sub is in the vicinity. If anything I wouldn't argue for an extra carrier, but another destroyer
The idiots want to send an aircraft carrier, for what? Its not equipped with the types of weapons needed to shoot down primitive drones and missiles. Yet it would be a high value target needing its own fleet of ships for protection, these would be better served protecting civillian ships.
@@JimCarner If they were attacking our Naval ships CIWS would easily deal with them. In fact CIWS fitted tankers would be an easy solution, evaporating potential boarders and great against droned and missiles.
agreed
Carriers aren’t fully operational yet and the RN doesn’t even have enough surface ships to support them anyway.
Bingo.
Both have been on deployments, what's preventing them from being fully operational?
@@Benjd0 because they have nowhere near full amount of F35s so cannot be described as fully operational.
@@trondog8503 We have >31 F-35s compared to the operational load of 24. That's more than enough for a fully operational carrier strike group.
I would prefer it goes to Belize for obvious reasons
Terrible idea its like lighting a match in a gunpowder store, way too much sabre rattling as it is without making things even more unstable.
Sees pointless having an aircraft carrier if we aren’t going to use to to project power
😅😅😅 Live in Portsmouth it spends more time along side than out in it.
The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are still not ready for operational use therefore capacity, the Navy wouldn’t run the risk until it’s fully operational, plus deploying the aircraft carrier would use up majority of the Navy
She will be supported by nato ships as well as royal navy ships. She will be well protected, similar to when she sailed through the south china sea
It would be part of a substantial US task force - and receive all the protection it would need. It was developed to work alongside the US, that's the whole point.
Another armchair Admiral, probably never served a day.
@@JnglyL3g3nd And how would u know
@@noodles169 even with the help of NATO ships Queen Elizabeth what still needs to settle with 2 type 45 destroyer is and 2 frigates, at least one submarine and different types of support ships, and that still takes up a big portion of the Royal Navy
What is the point of having these expensive items like Carriers when they don't appear to ever do anything other than go on exercises.
Suez.. Suez.... SUEZ! Finally a way to remove humiliation.
Bad idea sitting target in that lake
If an aircraft carrier is sinking, those jet fighters will be like take off take off now now now
Been there did that
Can you protect effectively it though?
Its a dumb move to put a carrier group in an area where the access to the red sea is only 20 km across.
Sending the QE without at least 2 Type 45 would be folly
Who exactly is calling?
Let's just not get deeply involved please... I'd rather like not pulling off another Afghanistan
The UK spent billions of the the UK's tax money to pay for this new aircarft carrier, only for it to NOT be used for what it was created for. Yea, well done UK, fantastic investment there!!!
I agree. We didn't pay for it to go play hide and seek for years. Which this mission would be.
There are the RN's subs.....
Submarines are not good at taking out small fast moving vessels or incoming missles or rockets. Aircraft and destroyers are good at that though
The European shipping companies based in Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, etc are the ones diverting ships. Seems like those countries should be the ones protecting their shipping companies and shipping route. Those countries seemingly do not care, other than the 1 warship the French have sent to do limited escort of French flagged ships.
BTW, the ships' flag determines which country has jurisdiction over the ship in international waters/ shipping lanes. Not a US flag means not the USA's problem. Not a UK flag means not the UK's problem.
Which means it can't afford to loose it. Look at the range of the F35b, you haven't got to see the stealth jet just shoot it's floating runway.
Go.
Send her to Guyana instead
And on Saturday, it emerged that our £3billion aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth cannot yet be sent to the region because its support ship RFA Fort Victoria is operating on a skeleton staff, keeping it in a Liverpool shipyard.
Careful now it might breakdown
The MOD probably doesnt want to risk losing an aircraft carrier to a war that isnt ours since we kay need them later
This war IS ours. They are stopping international trade - including the food and oil that keeps US going.
The only trouble with the "one out one back" policy is that they send one out which is worth say £1000 & we send one back worth 250 grand! And as none of us have shares in the arms companies that isn't a good deal. We need to look at another way...
It's a trap stay well out of it. Don't risk the carriers in an alleyway. Can we not use air assets out of Akrotiri?
Akrotiri is 1200 to 1400 nmi away from the combat area, so not very practical.
For a one off strike, sure. But if you want to maintain a presence in the area over a long period it's clearly too far away. @@JimCarner
The point is at that distance you're going to have to routinely keep the fighters airborne for ~7 hours at a time, just to have them patrol for 2 hours each. That's a pretty inefficient use of limited airframe and pilot hours.@@JimCarner
@@JimCarner That assumes that the missile launchers are just going to sit still in the open for hours waiting to be destroyed. My assumption is that we would need around the clock patrols waiting for the enemy to reveal themselves followed by a very quick response by the patrol. Trying to mount these patrols from Akrotiri seems like a poor way of doing it.
Cost effective, reliable, enduring, responsive. Carrier strike achieves all four. RAF flying operations from AKT? Flying two typhoons halfway across a continent to see if they can first spot anything to even hit, after they secure the overflight permissions, after they are happy with the 2,800 mile round trip, after you’ve found enough crew to endure that sortie, after you’ve made sure the weather is not preventing you across that entire duration, after the tanker can make it? Yeah, it makes perfect sense. Or, like, not that and carrier strike instead. People like you said Tornado could do everything a harrier could back in 2010 when we scrapped them and carrier strike, and then we had ELLAMY, and the emperor was decidedly NOT wearing any clothes. We’re nearly at the point where we’ve regenerated that entire capability, but it’s only taken us over ten years.
This could be seen as a pre-cursor to Iran's possible interference with the oil traffic through the Banda Abbas straits. How would we react to that situation?
What are the implications for Egypt from the sudden loss of canal transit revenues.Would Egypt unilaterally come to some quiet financial agreement with the Houthi's to preserve the source of revenue?
Our Carrier’s are brand new and just been turned up, we don’t want to scuff the paint work. RN would have a hard time protecting carrier’s. No need for sending such a big target
Why not depoly to the English Channel to stop the invasion?
Isn't that what the Royal Navy's primary role?
The people who rule you, the US, Europe etc want you replaced. Why would they use your navy to protect you?
No
What exactly would a carrier do in the channel?
It's not an invasion, get a grip, switch off GB News and go for a walk 😂
No
@@Orbital_Inclination
Military aged men in boats landing on the Kent shore.....
It's an invasion.
Oh yeh, Guardian newspaper readers who think men can become women wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 🙂
Absolutely not. US has overwhelimng presence in theater. UK should deploy to North Sea to provide deterent against Russian Navy and secure Baltic.
What happened to the Ships the Houtis attecked and boarded!
It's got to work probably first it's no good sending a ship that keeps breaking down.
One of them had an issue with their prop shaft a few years ago, but what are the other breakdowns? As far as I know they've been on multiple deployments far further than this without issue.
So let’s send another ship there?
The great Bump
Judging by how everything else operates in the uk. Probably when it’s to late.
Personally one should ask the Arab nations what they are going to do with one of their own ?? condone it , or support a broader coalition ?
They did
And Arabs said just do what Hoothi says make israel stop bombing and bring aids in to Gaza and he will stop hitting thair schips
Otherwise u bring more warships overthere u make it worse
Hoothi will close red sea complitly and start putting 50.000 sea mines wich means no ship will ever make it
And hoothi will keep targeting warships and soon or later it will hit
I hope all parts come to agreement and stop wars every where
No body is going to gain anything from that
All r going to lose
We should be putting the navy in the English channel
❤
Probably break down half way there .
Here's a suggestion. Get the merchant ships to sail round the Cape of Good Hope and into the Atlantic. It might add 12-14 days longer and cost more, but it's going to be a damned sight cheaper than getting involved wit a war with Iranian backed militias. Lose one ship and it's billions gone to the bottom of the sea, not to minimise the loss of life. Just stay away and let them find another way round.
That what most of the big companies are actually doing now. Most of the merchant companies have long plan for a war breaking out in the Middle East and have established plans to change routes to around Africa. An from the looks of things, it about to get very very hot in the Middle East, as America fails to keep it attack poodle under control.
Should be in the English Channel protecting our borders 😡
What would a carrier achieve in the channel?
The number of coastal patrol ships and police boats must be increased to stop the immigrant small boats.
Ask the public before doing these actions
Use the dam thing!
The Empire strikes Back!
Why didn't the crew take anti piracy measures and go to the citadel? These crews have trained for years to deal with illegal hoardings and call for assistance before going to the citadel.
this clip they keep using seems to be from a staged propaganda video
The UK+USA ships are the pirate ships. That's why.
Pirates don’t have helicopters. None of the crew on these ships would have trained for that situation.
@@McfcMancs With what's happening in the region the Master of the vessel surely was more suspicious of such activity of an helicopter landing on the deck with armed personnel alighting from a helicopter. The helicopter would have shown up in the radar and the insurance underwriters and UKMO, office of US Naval Intelligence have surely issued warnings of Houthi activity and the dangers. Were there lookouts on the bridge wings? I know Somali pirates don't have helicopters but anyone who boards a vessel illegally in international waters and takes control of the vessel commits an act of piracy.
Sending to the Red Sea would make it a sitting target with no room to move ,
Who’s calling?
sending a carrier, anywhere, in anger, isn't just sending "a" carrier... It's sending a carrier, frigates, destroyers, sweepers, and RFA(s) to suport and replenish them. This takes capability away from other areas as wella s redundancy. Moreover it's expensive, and it's election season where everyone's biggest worry is money.
Then it might surprise you what the cost of a non operational red sea shipping route and suez canal would be.High inflation for goods not arriving or late also doesnt sell well in election years I guess.
you have a good brain for warfare
Which other areas though ! That's what I always think ? Like Venezuela? Or Spain 🇪🇸 or africa?
PoW sailing round America? For what ?
Which the RN doesn’t have in any useful numbers. The Navy’s down to 6 destroyers and 11 frigates & it looks like two of the Type 23s are going to be decommsioned. At any given time about a third of a navy’s major combatants are available for service. Anywhere. That’s 2 destroyers and 3 frigates to deal with trouble all over the world.
It’s definitely a hard decision
Are these carriers still getting the rumoured angled flight decks and catapults upgrades? Also what about a third carrier? Should a carrier be lost in a conflict we would never be able to build another quickly!
No, only 2 carriers and both STOVL. The only CATOBAR kit seriously being looked at is for drones
Need the small boys more.
Is it just me or is his eyes blinking like morse code
🙄🙄 AND THEY SAID I WAS CRAZY
👇👇👇
So no mention of the PoW then? stripped for spares for QE? eesh. Only the uk would design cutting edge carriers, then half fill them, then leave one at home permanently. So few aircraft on board should be called HMS bounty.
Both ships have actually recently returned from deployments, Prince of Wales was off the US East coast for a number of months performing flight trials. Most of those articles about it being stripped for parts were just overblown stuff tabloids latched onto.
Holywoood people time is over
Is this build back better from the WEF?
we do not want war with Iran
Uk has an army of 80k, enough to fill a football stadium but folks here think we can the boss of the world
Why a carrier , id send in a frigate or destroyer … unkess its to act as a command platform & maybe a supply ship to Indian waters
UK must be very rich..
Are we deploying one off the Kent coast
Why would we? The whole point of a carrier is to be a floating airfield. Kent already has airfields 😂
Invasion
@@dianeirvine7624 An invasion of civilians, it's the border forces job to deal with them, not the military.
It would be a colossal waste of resources to put a £3billion aircraft carrier in the channel to stop small boats.
❤👍💙
you don' take a knife to gun fight and you don't take f35s to chase missiles ? you take missile destroyers.
Finally, someone with a brain.
Seems like you're walking into a trap. Destroyers are needed
another billion dollar weapon challenge the unbeaten home made drone and homemade rocket 😂
What is an RN Carrier Strike Force for if not exactly this type of geo-political crisis ?
If the US Navy has the tactical space to maneuver their carriers in that sea then a QE Class carrier can too.
However.......Guyana and our prior, territorial, treaty responsibilities there are the elephant in the proverbial 'room' .......
Send it send it hah, make use of the big investment.
Not gonna happen. The QE class, both ships, appear to have a design flaw. QE heads to port. POW abandoned plans to go to sea.
Aircraft carrier would be a sitting duck.
No we need to keep all our valuable stuff until we really need to. Why lose our best. When we ain't in any danger.
Is HMS Queen Elizabeth leaking yet?
No thats the HMS Prince of Wales
HMS Queen Elizabeth should be renamed HMS Ghislaine Maxwell. And a new captain must be appointed....Captain Prince Andrew!
Future Headlines
The Queen is sunk😂😂😂
Seriously though. Think asymmetric. Sas and marines will do a better job on the ground
Tbf we should still go tho for the international interest and for are own self show who and what we are to the world we have lost are world place it feels
LET THEM EAT
If the Houthi's start mining the waters it is not an aircraft carrier that would be needed but the mine sweepers that Turkey won't allow into the Black Sea and what the Russian military would immediately sink and destroy anyway.
4:32 you raise a good point, why isn’t china doing more? They’re the most affected by this…….aren’t they?
China has a lot of ships, but they're based on Russian designs and frankly, aren't quite ready to project power very far...at least now.
get her deployed !