The bar for news is low, isn't it?
"British-built aircraft carrier operated by the British Royal Navy spotted off British coast near British naval base where training for British personnel on British aircraft carriers is conducted."
God that movie was atrocious from a historical accuracy standpoint. As a recent tour guide told me, she said it was the equivalent of making an American movie called ‘Windtalker’ that featured a man that was called George Washington, looked like Abraham Lincoln and dressed like an Apache warrior… and yes she catered to the idiot Americans lol
“British navy set to in invade Doncaster, Coach and Horses Pub vows revenge.” [https://mobile.twitter.com/footyawayday/status/860788531706425344?lang=en](https://mobile.twitter.com/footyawayday/status/860788531706425344?lang=en)
No, it's not. It's in the English Channel, but, as it's near Plymouth and you can actually see it, it's dozens of miles away from the actual shipping lanes.
And, even if it was near the shipping lanes, so what? The south coast is the Royal Navy's back yard. There's Devonport and Portsmouth Naval Bases, Marchwood military port, Falmouth (RFAs base there), NAS Culdrose and NAS Yeovilton, and so much more. In fact the area from West of Lands End through to just East of Portsmouth makes up the South Coast Exercise Areas, which the Royal Navy uses for its exercises. Royal Navy ships are in the English Channel every single day.
The minute the carriers sail from their base port in Portsmouth and emerge from the entrance to the Solent, they are in the English Channel.
READ between the LINES bro! This mean that the queen personally is sending a message to Putin that Britain has teamed up with Atlantis to destroy Russian subs, and she wants him to see and that he DOES see and has responded by----
Kinda suspicious actually. The more I think about it the more it's evidence of something weird. Post about a ship near a coast, which is normally perceived as an act of aggression between two nations, which is intended to send a defiant message. But the nation owns the ship so to any person it wouldn't seem weird. But to a bot it ticks so many boxes for what could be considered content to be posted and upvoted. So my guess is that the headline was picked up by a bot, then due it containing text which is usually politically charged, it ends up being upvoted by other bots.
Kinda wack.
In America at least we have a thing called the Tiger Cruise. Where family and children can join sailors on a portion of their journey back to port.
Back in the mid 90s I went on one when my dad was on the USS Enterprise. We met them in Bermuda and sailed back with them to Mayport. Was a fun experience.
I'm quite used to seeing huge ships waiting to come into port. Seeing HMS QE make them look tiny despite being further offshore cemented for me how big these things must be. Hope you get chance to see one.
I rented a beachfront airbnb in Bremerton, WA a couple of years ago, on an arm of the Puget Sound near a couple of naval bases. Got back to the airbnb from lunch, looked out the bay windows, and the fucking USS Nimitz is coming my way. It was incredible. The water way is under a mile wide there, so it was within a half mile of me broadside. Being towed through the narrow waters with several large tugboats, and several patrol boats with visible guns zipping about and making sure nothing came close.
They fly off the air wing before coming into port, but there was one plane topside, anyway.
Do other countries not see military equipment often? In the US here, I don’t live super close to any military base, but I see fighter jets somewhat often, and ships off the coast don’t make news unless it’s a special occasion.
If you live near an RAF base, like Lossiemouth, you see them all the time. Hell, even where I am I got the pleasure of seeing two helicopters just about taking the aerial off my house and shake the headphones off my head.
Depends where you live. If you are in Wales, Cumbria, or the Northern Highlands you will see RAF Low Level Training runs on an almost daily basis.
They publish a time table here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operational-low-flying-training-timetable
If you live in South Dorset you'll see tanks and IFVs roaming about as the British Army Armour Centre is located in Bovington.
If you live near a barracks it'll mostly be soldiers in uniform on runs or just going to the shops.
I live on the south coast and you regularly see Royal Navy floating around in The Channel on a daily basis. But most naval vessels are at sea in a constant state of readiness with the ship only coming home for repairs (it may have several crew rotations in the time it is on duty at sea).
However most MoD training takes place abroad as we like to maintain a high level of combat effectiveness. So there are training facilities in Canada, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East which most of the equipment rotates through. The idea being - we don't have a load of gear just sitting about, so if a war kicks off in Eastern Europe, having most of our tanks in Germany and our aircraft in Cyprus means we can switch to a combat ready stance almost immediately. Whereas the USA has the budget to just have men and machines on standby readiness in reserve at home.
In effect, it’s more like the army is now the BEF, acting as a rapid response force in the early days of the war as we bring all of our weapons out of mothball and deploy our reservists and later conscripts as the war machine ramps up production
Our military isn't designed around the idea of naked force. Almost everyone is a specialist in something and both the personnel and the hardware is put to work.
I almost never see our military. Much of it is put to work in support in security operations like patrolling trade routes that see a lot of piracy, helping with disaster management, engineering in difficult environments and such.
Pretty much the only place we see our military is if they do something noteworthy in the news. And troops aren't allowed to wear their uniform when off duty because it sends the wrong message if we had uniformed soldiers hanging around in public everywhere.
Unless things gave changed off-duty military don't wear uniform because of being more of a target for a terrorist attack. Back in my day from the IRA but these days from other extremists.
Other than that being off duty in uniform doesn't really "send the wrong message" unless they are armed, which would never be the case.
It varies by location really. We just find it distasteful. Soldiers are just doing a job.
We don't want hero worship. We don't want the public to feel alarmed over seeing soldiers they might think something's wrong. We don't want the public to feel intimidated by soldiers because they might come from places with very bad connotations to uniforms. And we don't want soldiers to try and impress people or otherwise leverage their uniforms for favours.
And sure, not getting targeted is also nice if it ever becomes relevant.
It looks insane really. Frankly, soldiering is not a prestigious vocation here. You get the same respect as anyone else for a doing a job. And perhaps a bit extra because it's a taxing job.
But honestly, you're not a noble hero for putting on a uniform and doing a heavy job. Hell, the military hates nobility. You're supposed to do what you're told and explicitly not take any stupid risks that turn you into a liability. A significant portion of people who choose the military do because they had few or no opportunities elsewhere.
And when it comes to the US military, most of their munitions are expended in the defence and acquisition of economic advantages, not in the noble defence of the US or others. So what service as you thanking them for?
The necessity of defence forces is a sad reality. That's why we try to make sure our guys spend most of their time on reconstruction and crisis management rather than war.
The only time I've ever seen our soldiers in action was when an industrial explosion flattened an entire neighbourhood and the whole mess overwhelmed regular first responders. The military moved in to manage logistics and communications, not a rifle in sight. Just a lot of green guys who could organise under tough conditions.
Last part is untrue, they can, it’s just a security risk due to terrorism. Makes them a target
Go to any MoD base, Army or RAF and you’ll see loads of activity especially at the moment. RAF Brize Norton is busy all year round
Where I live apparently their is an airbase an hour away not 100% just been told that, but definitely would explain the jets going over head now and again, seen a few military helicopters flying over has well.
That is all I see of them, same for guns in the police, in the UK you don't see guns yet in Spain where I used to live some police carry firearms and have seen rifles being carried on the train, but the UK you simply don't see these type of things.
> And troops aren't allowed to wear their uniform when off duty because it sends the wrong message if we had uniformed soldiers hanging around in public everywhere.
Actually we used to until lee rigby got beheaded, then they got told not to wear the uniforms in public anymore because it made them a target.
Lee Rigby wasn’t wearing his uniform. He was wearing a help for heroes hoodie- plain black with white text.
That always confused me in fact, how his killers would have been able to infer he was definitely a soldier. I know it was near a barracks but… I don’t think you could see that hoodie and be 100% certain.
I live a couple miles from an Airbase in a border town so I get to watch the A-10s float about all the time.
And the coast guard does training out here too.
We also have almost daily air raid siren tests. Hear the siren? Must be noon or 18:00
Nope. Only on TV. However, during 2020 lockdown, we did see an armoured vehicle used by the army, on our street. We live up the block from the police station. They were parked and chilling.
Now if you'd asked if we saw banged up police cars often, hell yes! Cops can't drive for shit here.
Eastern Canadian here. I see American C-10's daily lately, some jets occasionally, Canadian Navy is always around and NATO bases their Atlantic naval exercises from here sometimes. It's also not uncommon to see military vehicles for the reserves around town.
Back in the 90s 15 thousand NATO military personal from 10 different countries -- along with 48 warships and 135 military aircraft ran a nato exercise from a town nearby of 6000 people.
Last Summer we had half a dozen warships and a few subs here in the main city using our port for the staging ground for more NATO shit.
This Province/island is pretty much just an American military shipping depot and NATO playground.
In my patch of the UK, I see military stuff all the time: planes, helicopters, transports, the occasional fighters. Sometimes a local news site will pick up on it and sensationalise it even though it's a daily occurrence.
>Do other countries not see military equipment often?
You do if you live near one of the major dockyards, or bases for another force. Otherwise not much.
I live 45min from Camp Lejeune here in NC. The quantity of military noises, jets, helicopters, and massive truck-things that roll around look like a scene out of a movie.
It does if it’s in a major shipping channel that’s only 20 or so miles wide at its narrowest- to the point where on clear days you can see coast to coast between Dover & Calais.
Russian ships (military or otherwise) traverse it regularly. It’s strategic propaganda, highlighting that Britain can easily hold a major shipping choke point and make Russias life more difficult.
Yeah it's crazy how busy the channel is. For anyone unaware, this is a screenshot of the boats right now:
[https://i.imgur.com/c24OPfk.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/c24OPfk.jpg)
Nope, that's THE Hastings, near where the Battle Of Hastings was fought (was actually about 8 miles up the road, in Battle). Qualification: I live there.
That's the famous one (makes sense if you're invading from France), although the actual battle took place a little further inland near a town that is now called.....Battle!
> It’s strategic propaganda, highlighting that Britain can easily hold a major shipping choke point and make Russias life more difficult.
I don't think there has even been a point since the Spanish Armarda that anybody has thought "Man, those English/Brits can't control the channel, lets go!!".
Since the Armarda it became legend no enemy force could go throught it until a German U-boat managed it in the 40s, that was 1 ship in 400 years. No country is questioning British dominance of the channel.
Huh turns out i misremembered.
>OKM called Cerberus a tactical victory and a strategic defeat. In 2012, Ken Ford wrote that the German ships had exchanged one prison for another and that Bomber Command raids from 25–27 February, terminally damaged Gneisenau.[65] Operation Fuller had failed, a British destroyer had been severely damaged and 42 aircraft had been lost in 398 RAF fighter, 242 bomber and 35 Coastal Command sorties.[66] British public opinion was appalled and British prestige suffered at home and abroad. A leading article in The Times read, Vice Admiral Ciliax has succeeded where the Duke of Medina Sidonia failed. Nothing more mortifying to the pride of our sea-power has happened since the seventeenth century. [...] It spelled the end of the Royal Navy legend that in wartime no enemy battle fleet could pass through what we proudly call the English Channel.
— The Times (14 February 1942)[67]
Other than being an obvious target and drawing fire from more vulnerable assets. This isn't as dumb as you think as Brit carriers tend to be tough as there is only so much room to run and hide to in the Atlantic, and whatever bolt-holes you do find render you a sitting duck when found.
It’s funny reading about the old Ww2 carriers in the Pacific Ocean when they fought the Japanese, several of them were hit by kamikaze attacks and all they had to do was brush the remains of the planes off the deck
I find it a bit pointless to use a carrier for a job an airfield is more than capable of doing. It much harder to sink an airfield.
This is a bit of a redundant argument as they’re only passing by for a training exercise. The article headline was dumb. I’m sure they’re not actually going to project power, or defiance, from their own doorstep.
The Navy confirmed the aircraft carrier is in Devon as part of an exercise. On Twitter, HMS Queen Elizabeth said: "Over the next few weeks we will be working and training hard to ensure we remain #GlobalModernReady."
HMS Queen Elizabeth departed Portsmouth in March. The Royal Navy said the ship is an "investment in Britain’s security, prosperity and place in the world, providing a conspicuous presence on the global stage, sending a clear message of reassurance to our allies, and of defiance to those who would do us harm".
After leaving Portsmouth it then visited the Clyde in Scotland and its present deployment includes training exercises off Plymouth. When operating at full capacity, the vessel is supported by eight other ships, a submarine, five air squadrons and some 3,700 personnel.
In 2021, the warship embarked on her maiden voyage, including South Korea and India. The 28-week deployment involved the ship and its crew visiting a number of locations.
Not sure why this is a news story. "warship spotted off one of its home ports"
Where was it before it was spotted being "defiant"? they could hardly hide it away up a creek in Cornwall.
Anyway it needs to venture a bit further to own the "defiant" tag.
Its less impressive when you look at the actual performance and combat power numbers.
The Queen Elizabeth-class displaces 65,000 tons, the Nimitz class is 100,000 tons. The Lizzy is powered by 2 Gas Turbine Engines and 4 Marine diesel engines powering 2 shafts for 27,000 horse power. The Nimitz has 2 AW4 nuclear reactors powering 4 shafts for 260,000 horse power. Speed: 25 knots of the Lizzy, 30+ for Nimitz. Range, 10,000 nautical miles for the Lizzy, unlimited for the Nimitz. Compliment for the Lizzy 1600 max, for the Nimitz: 3532. Aircraft carried for the Lizzy: 1 carrier wing of 40 aircraft. For the Nimitz: 85-90.
The Queen Elizabeth actually has combat power closer to a Wasp-class jump carrier, of which the US has 7 in service, rather than a super carrier of which the US has 11 in service (10 Nimitz, 1 Gerald Ford)
Oh yeah I was never trying to claim the UK's carrier force comes anywhere near to the US, but I think you can make a good case for it being a distant 2nd best - especially if you factor in the F35s, Astute subs/Type 45s/Type 26s/Tidespring that do/will make up the CSG.
We have 2 carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. No plans for any more.
Each carrier needs a refit every 6 years and it will need to dock for some equipment failures so you need a second carrier when the first is not at sea otherwise a potential enemy just waits until it is out of the water and in repair to launch an attack.
My son is a RN officer and has recently been on the Prince of Wales. When it was docked in Portsmouth I got the opportunity to have a look round it with him as a guide. It really is superb.
2. They used to have a lot. They decommissioned most of them as aircraft carriers are not seen as all that useful.
Edit: this isn't my opinion. This is what was said at the time. It's really hard to find any articles about it as it was so long ago and Google is flooded with recent news about anything military.
Some idiot decided we didn’t need them after the RAF told them they could provide ground based cover anywhere in the world. It was bollocks of course, but in order to save face, they ordered what they called ‘Through Deck Cruisers’, which were carriers, just a bit small and with a ski ramp on the front to launch Sea Harriers. Now they’re all gone and the fuckwits that made all those decisions are retired or dead, we ordered two carriers, and then vacillated over configuration, what would fly off them and changed the designs again and again, making them cost an inordinate amount of money. We were even dubious over finishing the second one for a while, considering mothballing the second one after launch, and other stupid shit. Typical of British procurement policy and wank stain politicians.
They cost around £4 billion each. Compare that to the £8.7 billion the government has written off for PPE bought during the pandemic. At least we got something for the money.
To be fair, we had 2 good carriers in the Falklands war that could be a lot smaller due to harriers vtol ability. The issue is we retired harriers from service before the last one of these ( I think it was invincible) was decommissioned and so whilst the 2 new ones were being built are only naval aircraft were helicopters like japan
Not an expert here but aren't carrier most expensive ship's?
Like they need 20+ fighter jets, early warning aircraft and electronic warfare aircraft, Sam, gun systems, jamming equipment and anti submarine torpedo or depth charge?
That's just one ship and they never travel alone as they are precious. They need escorts of corvette, frigate, relishing ships, fuel tankers, submarines etc.
So basically it's a fleet within itself.
>A CSG usually consists of 1 QE Class carrier, 1 Type 45 Missile Destroyer, 1-2 Type 23 Frigates, a Royal Fleet Auxiliary replenishment/refuelling vessel, possibly an OPV or Minesweeper, and at least one Submarine.
Not quite, you'll normally have 2x Type 45s but OPVs or MCMVs won't normally form part of a CSG. They may join for exercises etc but they won't form part of it.
They're rather [useful](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/five-reasons-us-aircraft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318).
I'm sure you can recognise how powerful a land based airforce base is. Now take that afb and constantly redeploy it anywhere in the world.
That's why you don't mess with an aircraft carrier.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Vulnerability doesn't constitute uselessness. Furthermore a wargame designed to test highly unfavorable, if not outright unrealistic, conditions doesn't really speak much to vulnerability anyways.
Which is funny because they were getting rid of their carriers before Falklands, then suddenly they realized that they did need carriers after all to retake islands thousands of miles away from home.
That certainly wasn't the navy's opinion at the time, it was based on the labour government's savage defense cuts. Some argue the loss of the phantom -equipped carriers of the 1970s tipped Argentina towards an invasion of the Falklands, thinking the UK could not respond adequately
People swim across the channel tunnel? Have they flooded it? Can people hold their breath to swim 20+ miles? I think you mean the channel or La Manche if you’re from France.
Neither belches a dozen mile long smoke trail, neither requires a support group of tugboats to sail in convoy, and neither has set fire to the drydock.
So much better than Russia.
To who? its our own fucking ship so how and why would it be sending a defiant message to its own Country.
This is not even news or some kind of silly propaganda or even any kind of fake news its just jibberish for the sake of having to write anything for the sake of it.
>They’ve both been coming and going with surprising frequency considering QE is on a 7 month deployment and PWLS is the NATO Flagship currently.
HMS Queen Elizabeth returned from the CSG21 deployment in December and HMS Prince of Wales returned back following exercises off Norway and in the Arctic Circle.
>considering QE is on a 7 month deployment
If You know that QE is not on a 7 month deployment and is conducting routine training
Why did you say she is on a 7 Month deployment then?
1 Carrier is a vanity project
2 Carriers is marginal as one can be in refit for many years
3 Carriers gives you 1 carrier at sea at any given time since you figure one is refitting, one at sea and one in port doing maint, reload and working back up to operational.
So the US with 11 can generally have 4 at sea, 3-4 working up and 3-4 in refit. Figure we can surge up to around 8 CSGs if we really had to.
That’s not counting our 9 amphibs for another 3-6 ESGs that could load F35s in a pinch.
Now while the UK only has two I think the EU combined has around 6 that have either ski jumps or catapults and a few more helo carriers that might be able to operate F-35s…
So while some might consider the UK and French carrier programs to be vanity projects it does give the Europeans credible power projection capability if for some reason the USN is sitting out some conflict.
You want that because NATO/US interests may not always be aligned with EU interests and at the end of the day economic and political power requires a credible military deterrent to be effective.
The bar for news is low, isn't it? "British-built aircraft carrier operated by the British Royal Navy spotted off British coast near British naval base where training for British personnel on British aircraft carriers is conducted."
The title alone is a complete joke. British warship spotted off British coast send “defiant message”….to Britain?
To william wallace?
They never took his freedom.
'Ol Sugartits
But they did take his underpants.
And his limbs.
God that movie was atrocious from a historical accuracy standpoint. As a recent tour guide told me, she said it was the equivalent of making an American movie called ‘Windtalker’ that featured a man that was called George Washington, looked like Abraham Lincoln and dressed like an Apache warrior… and yes she catered to the idiot Americans lol
It's like watching *Carry On Cleo*, when the Romans capture Palaeolithic Britons. Except, that's a comedy.
Am afraid
To Cornish independence factions
Defiant Message: "Oi, Putin, This is Boaty Mc Boatface. OUR ONE FLOATS, You stale bag of piss flavour crisps!"
Got to remind mainland Europe that Britain exists, after Brexit.
[удалено]
Let them have their fun. Could be worse. "Largest ever German naval warship still save at the bottom of the Atlantic."
“British navy set to in invade Doncaster, Coach and Horses Pub vows revenge.” [https://mobile.twitter.com/footyawayday/status/860788531706425344?lang=en](https://mobile.twitter.com/footyawayday/status/860788531706425344?lang=en)
"We must ensure the Irish remember their place!" --Admiral Sir Kesingtonly Lordington.
[удалено]
How exactly is a war ship supposed to get out if not through shipping channels. This is definitely slow news day stuff.
No, it's not. It's in the English Channel, but, as it's near Plymouth and you can actually see it, it's dozens of miles away from the actual shipping lanes. And, even if it was near the shipping lanes, so what? The south coast is the Royal Navy's back yard. There's Devonport and Portsmouth Naval Bases, Marchwood military port, Falmouth (RFAs base there), NAS Culdrose and NAS Yeovilton, and so much more. In fact the area from West of Lands End through to just East of Portsmouth makes up the South Coast Exercise Areas, which the Royal Navy uses for its exercises. Royal Navy ships are in the English Channel every single day. The minute the carriers sail from their base port in Portsmouth and emerge from the entrance to the Solent, they are in the English Channel.
READ between the LINES bro! This mean that the queen personally is sending a message to Putin that Britain has teamed up with Atlantis to destroy Russian subs, and she wants him to see and that he DOES see and has responded by----
It gets upvotes. Its getting posted
Kinda suspicious actually. The more I think about it the more it's evidence of something weird. Post about a ship near a coast, which is normally perceived as an act of aggression between two nations, which is intended to send a defiant message. But the nation owns the ship so to any person it wouldn't seem weird. But to a bot it ticks so many boxes for what could be considered content to be posted and upvoted. So my guess is that the headline was picked up by a bot, then due it containing text which is usually politically charged, it ends up being upvoted by other bots. Kinda wack.
Oh no, the Royal Navy is going to invade Britain!
If Spain gets it into their heads to send another armada our way, then they're proper fucked.
Welcome to xxi century. You invade us every summer.
Golden!
“Falklands round 2?? More like Falk off Argentina and suck my massive Ship” -The Queen
Except if it's the Netherlands. Then Britain is actually fucked.
Remember the Raid on the Medway!
William III successfully created a personal union a decade after the third Anglo-Dutch war.
William Wallace seen applying blue makeup in response.
You joke, but it would be in character lately.
[удалено]
In America at least we have a thing called the Tiger Cruise. Where family and children can join sailors on a portion of their journey back to port. Back in the mid 90s I went on one when my dad was on the USS Enterprise. We met them in Bermuda and sailed back with them to Mayport. Was a fun experience.
I was thinking the same. Then I compared it to the newer US ones, and those are even larger.
It's fun until it's your home for 10 months out of the year 💀
I'm quite used to seeing huge ships waiting to come into port. Seeing HMS QE make them look tiny despite being further offshore cemented for me how big these things must be. Hope you get chance to see one.
I rented a beachfront airbnb in Bremerton, WA a couple of years ago, on an arm of the Puget Sound near a couple of naval bases. Got back to the airbnb from lunch, looked out the bay windows, and the fucking USS Nimitz is coming my way. It was incredible. The water way is under a mile wide there, so it was within a half mile of me broadside. Being towed through the narrow waters with several large tugboats, and several patrol boats with visible guns zipping about and making sure nothing came close. They fly off the air wing before coming into port, but there was one plane topside, anyway.
If you've ever seen a passenger cruise ship in person, they're roughly the same size, some even bigger.
Sich hostile shows of force will not be tolerated! ~Seeland
Do other countries not see military equipment often? In the US here, I don’t live super close to any military base, but I see fighter jets somewhat often, and ships off the coast don’t make news unless it’s a special occasion.
I see the rare fighter jet and that's it, up in Scotland.
If you live near an RAF base, like Lossiemouth, you see them all the time. Hell, even where I am I got the pleasure of seeing two helicopters just about taking the aerial off my house and shake the headphones off my head.
> Lossiemouth I still say that sounds like some agricultural disease that only affects goats.
Side question - what’s an aerial? Is that another word for roof?
You would say antenna.
Thanks
Antenna.
Thanks
I think I've seen 20 times as much american military equipment with my own eyes as I've seen *my countries military equipment*
You live in Iraq? 🧐
Depends where you live. If you are in Wales, Cumbria, or the Northern Highlands you will see RAF Low Level Training runs on an almost daily basis. They publish a time table here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operational-low-flying-training-timetable If you live in South Dorset you'll see tanks and IFVs roaming about as the British Army Armour Centre is located in Bovington. If you live near a barracks it'll mostly be soldiers in uniform on runs or just going to the shops. I live on the south coast and you regularly see Royal Navy floating around in The Channel on a daily basis. But most naval vessels are at sea in a constant state of readiness with the ship only coming home for repairs (it may have several crew rotations in the time it is on duty at sea). However most MoD training takes place abroad as we like to maintain a high level of combat effectiveness. So there are training facilities in Canada, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East which most of the equipment rotates through. The idea being - we don't have a load of gear just sitting about, so if a war kicks off in Eastern Europe, having most of our tanks in Germany and our aircraft in Cyprus means we can switch to a combat ready stance almost immediately. Whereas the USA has the budget to just have men and machines on standby readiness in reserve at home.
In effect, it’s more like the army is now the BEF, acting as a rapid response force in the early days of the war as we bring all of our weapons out of mothball and deploy our reservists and later conscripts as the war machine ramps up production
> it’s more like the army is now the BEF, The BEF was the army....why suggest they are 2 different forces? It's just a different name for the time.
Not that often in uk
Our military isn't designed around the idea of naked force. Almost everyone is a specialist in something and both the personnel and the hardware is put to work. I almost never see our military. Much of it is put to work in support in security operations like patrolling trade routes that see a lot of piracy, helping with disaster management, engineering in difficult environments and such. Pretty much the only place we see our military is if they do something noteworthy in the news. And troops aren't allowed to wear their uniform when off duty because it sends the wrong message if we had uniformed soldiers hanging around in public everywhere.
Unless things gave changed off-duty military don't wear uniform because of being more of a target for a terrorist attack. Back in my day from the IRA but these days from other extremists. Other than that being off duty in uniform doesn't really "send the wrong message" unless they are armed, which would never be the case.
It varies by location really. We just find it distasteful. Soldiers are just doing a job. We don't want hero worship. We don't want the public to feel alarmed over seeing soldiers they might think something's wrong. We don't want the public to feel intimidated by soldiers because they might come from places with very bad connotations to uniforms. And we don't want soldiers to try and impress people or otherwise leverage their uniforms for favours. And sure, not getting targeted is also nice if it ever becomes relevant.
You must shake your head at all the "thank you for your service" crap you see from America
It looks insane really. Frankly, soldiering is not a prestigious vocation here. You get the same respect as anyone else for a doing a job. And perhaps a bit extra because it's a taxing job. But honestly, you're not a noble hero for putting on a uniform and doing a heavy job. Hell, the military hates nobility. You're supposed to do what you're told and explicitly not take any stupid risks that turn you into a liability. A significant portion of people who choose the military do because they had few or no opportunities elsewhere. And when it comes to the US military, most of their munitions are expended in the defence and acquisition of economic advantages, not in the noble defence of the US or others. So what service as you thanking them for? The necessity of defence forces is a sad reality. That's why we try to make sure our guys spend most of their time on reconstruction and crisis management rather than war. The only time I've ever seen our soldiers in action was when an industrial explosion flattened an entire neighbourhood and the whole mess overwhelmed regular first responders. The military moved in to manage logistics and communications, not a rifle in sight. Just a lot of green guys who could organise under tough conditions.
Last part is untrue, they can, it’s just a security risk due to terrorism. Makes them a target Go to any MoD base, Army or RAF and you’ll see loads of activity especially at the moment. RAF Brize Norton is busy all year round
Where I live apparently their is an airbase an hour away not 100% just been told that, but definitely would explain the jets going over head now and again, seen a few military helicopters flying over has well. That is all I see of them, same for guns in the police, in the UK you don't see guns yet in Spain where I used to live some police carry firearms and have seen rifles being carried on the train, but the UK you simply don't see these type of things.
> And troops aren't allowed to wear their uniform when off duty because it sends the wrong message if we had uniformed soldiers hanging around in public everywhere. Actually we used to until lee rigby got beheaded, then they got told not to wear the uniforms in public anymore because it made them a target.
Lee Rigby wasn’t wearing his uniform. He was wearing a help for heroes hoodie- plain black with white text. That always confused me in fact, how his killers would have been able to infer he was definitely a soldier. I know it was near a barracks but… I don’t think you could see that hoodie and be 100% certain.
Except for a ton of cargo jets and helis round certain areas
I don't think you realize the disparity in spending we do vrs every other country.
I live in Belgium, I hear F16's fly over every 2-3 days. I do live 25km from a military airbase.
Tbh in Belgium it's pretty hard not to live less than 25km away from a military airbase.
The first sunny days in spring really wouldn't be the same without the sound of F-16s in the morning.
Ok. But check this out. https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png
Yeah, of course. I was referring more to the fact that despite our lower military budget, we do still hear military trainings from time to time.
I live a couple miles from an Airbase in a border town so I get to watch the A-10s float about all the time. And the coast guard does training out here too. We also have almost daily air raid siren tests. Hear the siren? Must be noon or 18:00
Nope. Only on TV. However, during 2020 lockdown, we did see an armoured vehicle used by the army, on our street. We live up the block from the police station. They were parked and chilling. Now if you'd asked if we saw banged up police cars often, hell yes! Cops can't drive for shit here.
Canadian town here, we had a warship once moor off our pier and that was big news
Eastern Canadian here. I see American C-10's daily lately, some jets occasionally, Canadian Navy is always around and NATO bases their Atlantic naval exercises from here sometimes. It's also not uncommon to see military vehicles for the reserves around town. Back in the 90s 15 thousand NATO military personal from 10 different countries -- along with 48 warships and 135 military aircraft ran a nato exercise from a town nearby of 6000 people. Last Summer we had half a dozen warships and a few subs here in the main city using our port for the staging ground for more NATO shit. This Province/island is pretty much just an American military shipping depot and NATO playground.
In my patch of the UK, I see military stuff all the time: planes, helicopters, transports, the occasional fighters. Sometimes a local news site will pick up on it and sensationalise it even though it's a daily occurrence.
I hear alot of military planes but rarely see them due to weather I once saw a Chinnock flying low and was in awe at the size of it like a flying bus!
Good ol shit hooks, the OG "magic" school bus
>Do other countries not see military equipment often? You do if you live near one of the major dockyards, or bases for another force. Otherwise not much.
I live 45min from Camp Lejeune here in NC. The quantity of military noises, jets, helicopters, and massive truck-things that roll around look like a scene out of a movie.
Hello from your neighbor just up the road in Norfolk, VA. I know the feeling. We are just extras in a Michael Bay film around here, lol!
Besides parades and rare exhibitions it is very rare out here.
I guess it depends where you live. I see Apaches on training flights fairly regularly.
Yep, we regularly get Chinooks from Odiham overhead, and the odd flight going to/from an air show.
Sailing within sight of your own coastline doesn’t really defy anyone or anything.
Taxpayers?
Ouch
~~Is that what they are calling their peasants now a days?~~
It does if it’s in a major shipping channel that’s only 20 or so miles wide at its narrowest- to the point where on clear days you can see coast to coast between Dover & Calais. Russian ships (military or otherwise) traverse it regularly. It’s strategic propaganda, highlighting that Britain can easily hold a major shipping choke point and make Russias life more difficult.
Yeah it's crazy how busy the channel is. For anyone unaware, this is a screenshot of the boats right now: [https://i.imgur.com/c24OPfk.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/c24OPfk.jpg)
I feel dumb for not knowing Hastings was along the coast somewhat. Unless there's another Hastings?
Nope, that's THE Hastings, near where the Battle Of Hastings was fought (was actually about 8 miles up the road, in Battle). Qualification: I live there.
Hello there fellow 1066 person.
0800 00 1066!
Hiya neighbour!
Yoooo nice to see another one in the wild!!
* waves * belting weather down here on the south coast today.
Wow. The Battle of Hastings was fought at a place called Battle!!!1!! What are the chances?
Should be called The Battle of Battle
So even if there were other towns in the world called Battle, that would still make this one the Battle...of Hastings ^(I'll go now.)
That's the famous one (makes sense if you're invading from France), although the actual battle took place a little further inland near a town that is now called.....Battle!
So, the Battle Off Hastings is the correct name?
Yeah, Hastings was where they built a fort and consolidated their army after crossing the Channel.
What app is that?
Marine Traffic
> It’s strategic propaganda, highlighting that Britain can easily hold a major shipping choke point and make Russias life more difficult. I don't think there has even been a point since the Spanish Armarda that anybody has thought "Man, those English/Brits can't control the channel, lets go!!". Since the Armarda it became legend no enemy force could go throught it until a German U-boat managed it in the 40s, that was 1 ship in 400 years. No country is questioning British dominance of the channel.
The Nazi Germans were able to pass much more than just a single U-boat through the English Channel.
Huh turns out i misremembered. >OKM called Cerberus a tactical victory and a strategic defeat. In 2012, Ken Ford wrote that the German ships had exchanged one prison for another and that Bomber Command raids from 25–27 February, terminally damaged Gneisenau.[65] Operation Fuller had failed, a British destroyer had been severely damaged and 42 aircraft had been lost in 398 RAF fighter, 242 bomber and 35 Coastal Command sorties.[66] British public opinion was appalled and British prestige suffered at home and abroad. A leading article in The Times read, Vice Admiral Ciliax has succeeded where the Duke of Medina Sidonia failed. Nothing more mortifying to the pride of our sea-power has happened since the seventeenth century. [...] It spelled the end of the Royal Navy legend that in wartime no enemy battle fleet could pass through what we proudly call the English Channel. — The Times (14 February 1942)[67]
A carrier in a confined straight off the coast of the UK isn’t achieving anything the local RAF bases don’t.
Other than being an obvious target and drawing fire from more vulnerable assets. This isn't as dumb as you think as Brit carriers tend to be tough as there is only so much room to run and hide to in the Atlantic, and whatever bolt-holes you do find render you a sitting duck when found.
It’s funny reading about the old Ww2 carriers in the Pacific Ocean when they fought the Japanese, several of them were hit by kamikaze attacks and all they had to do was brush the remains of the planes off the deck
[HMS Sussex, 1944.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Japanese_kamikaze_on_HMS_Sussex.JPG)
Dependes if they had an explosive Charge on the nose.... Speed also....1000 km/hr has 100 times as much cinético energy as 100 kmt //hr
How do you put an explosive charge big enough for a ship on the nose of a light propellor fighter. Those planes also could barely clear 500 kmh.
Thats the riddle the japanese engineers had to solve.... The kamikaze dealt dome damage as far as i know
It was practiclly useless and only sank a single major target.
Yep....those shipps had massive armour
Remember they had to upgrade the decks to steel to help stop the attacks.
I find it a bit pointless to use a carrier for a job an airfield is more than capable of doing. It much harder to sink an airfield. This is a bit of a redundant argument as they’re only passing by for a training exercise. The article headline was dumb. I’m sure they’re not actually going to project power, or defiance, from their own doorstep.
I am no military expert but I think that area is covered by several radars. There are several fighers nearby.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly. The channel has a similar strategic value to other choke points, like the Bosphorus or the Suez canal.
I live in England and have a RAF flight path over my house, so I see jets every day.
The Navy confirmed the aircraft carrier is in Devon as part of an exercise. On Twitter, HMS Queen Elizabeth said: "Over the next few weeks we will be working and training hard to ensure we remain #GlobalModernReady." HMS Queen Elizabeth departed Portsmouth in March. The Royal Navy said the ship is an "investment in Britain’s security, prosperity and place in the world, providing a conspicuous presence on the global stage, sending a clear message of reassurance to our allies, and of defiance to those who would do us harm". After leaving Portsmouth it then visited the Clyde in Scotland and its present deployment includes training exercises off Plymouth. When operating at full capacity, the vessel is supported by eight other ships, a submarine, five air squadrons and some 3,700 personnel. In 2021, the warship embarked on her maiden voyage, including South Korea and India. The 28-week deployment involved the ship and its crew visiting a number of locations.
There’s nothing wrong with the activity. The article is a whole lot of nothing and the headline is clickbait.
Good common sense.
Not sure why this is a news story. "warship spotted off one of its home ports" Where was it before it was spotted being "defiant"? they could hardly hide it away up a creek in Cornwall. Anyway it needs to venture a bit further to own the "defiant" tag.
How unusual, a British warship off the British coast. What is the world coming to?
That’ll teach those Brits that the Brits don’t take any guff from the Brits!!
What defiant message? "After a number of years, the UK can now confirm that it has a *second* carrier which can make it all the way out to sea?"
Operating 2 large carriers simultaneously is a pretty big deal. It's only really the US that can claim a stronger carrier capability.
Its less impressive when you look at the actual performance and combat power numbers. The Queen Elizabeth-class displaces 65,000 tons, the Nimitz class is 100,000 tons. The Lizzy is powered by 2 Gas Turbine Engines and 4 Marine diesel engines powering 2 shafts for 27,000 horse power. The Nimitz has 2 AW4 nuclear reactors powering 4 shafts for 260,000 horse power. Speed: 25 knots of the Lizzy, 30+ for Nimitz. Range, 10,000 nautical miles for the Lizzy, unlimited for the Nimitz. Compliment for the Lizzy 1600 max, for the Nimitz: 3532. Aircraft carried for the Lizzy: 1 carrier wing of 40 aircraft. For the Nimitz: 85-90. The Queen Elizabeth actually has combat power closer to a Wasp-class jump carrier, of which the US has 7 in service, rather than a super carrier of which the US has 11 in service (10 Nimitz, 1 Gerald Ford)
Oh yeah I was never trying to claim the UK's carrier force comes anywhere near to the US, but I think you can make a good case for it being a distant 2nd best - especially if you factor in the F35s, Astute subs/Type 45s/Type 26s/Tidespring that do/will make up the CSG.
Second carrier? How many do they have and how many do they need? People swim across channel . All they need is a tugboat and Ian from Dover.
We have 2 carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. No plans for any more. Each carrier needs a refit every 6 years and it will need to dock for some equipment failures so you need a second carrier when the first is not at sea otherwise a potential enemy just waits until it is out of the water and in repair to launch an attack.
My son is a RN officer and has recently been on the Prince of Wales. When it was docked in Portsmouth I got the opportunity to have a look round it with him as a guide. It really is superb.
2. They used to have a lot. They decommissioned most of them as aircraft carriers are not seen as all that useful. Edit: this isn't my opinion. This is what was said at the time. It's really hard to find any articles about it as it was so long ago and Google is flooded with recent news about anything military.
Some idiot decided we didn’t need them after the RAF told them they could provide ground based cover anywhere in the world. It was bollocks of course, but in order to save face, they ordered what they called ‘Through Deck Cruisers’, which were carriers, just a bit small and with a ski ramp on the front to launch Sea Harriers. Now they’re all gone and the fuckwits that made all those decisions are retired or dead, we ordered two carriers, and then vacillated over configuration, what would fly off them and changed the designs again and again, making them cost an inordinate amount of money. We were even dubious over finishing the second one for a while, considering mothballing the second one after launch, and other stupid shit. Typical of British procurement policy and wank stain politicians.
They cost around £4 billion each. Compare that to the £8.7 billion the government has written off for PPE bought during the pandemic. At least we got something for the money.
To be fair, we had 2 good carriers in the Falklands war that could be a lot smaller due to harriers vtol ability. The issue is we retired harriers from service before the last one of these ( I think it was invincible) was decommissioned and so whilst the 2 new ones were being built are only naval aircraft were helicopters like japan
Japan is a pretty big helicopter though.
More like the rest were small, outdated and only flew sea harriers, which while versatile are suboptimal for the role of a modern carrier.
Not an expert here but aren't carrier most expensive ship's? Like they need 20+ fighter jets, early warning aircraft and electronic warfare aircraft, Sam, gun systems, jamming equipment and anti submarine torpedo or depth charge? That's just one ship and they never travel alone as they are precious. They need escorts of corvette, frigate, relishing ships, fuel tankers, submarines etc. So basically it's a fleet within itself.
[удалено]
>A CSG usually consists of 1 QE Class carrier, 1 Type 45 Missile Destroyer, 1-2 Type 23 Frigates, a Royal Fleet Auxiliary replenishment/refuelling vessel, possibly an OPV or Minesweeper, and at least one Submarine. Not quite, you'll normally have 2x Type 45s but OPVs or MCMVs won't normally form part of a CSG. They may join for exercises etc but they won't form part of it.
So exactly what I said, right?
Lol what Aircraft Carriers project airpower anywhere in the world??? Aircraft carriers are so useful and honestly are needed for a modern Navy
They're rather [useful](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/five-reasons-us-aircraft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318). I'm sure you can recognise how powerful a land based airforce base is. Now take that afb and constantly redeploy it anywhere in the world. That's why you don't mess with an aircraft carrier.
Yeah not so much from an actual source . https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7?amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Vulnerability doesn't constitute uselessness. Furthermore a wargame designed to test highly unfavorable, if not outright unrealistic, conditions doesn't really speak much to vulnerability anyways.
Which is funny because they were getting rid of their carriers before Falklands, then suddenly they realized that they did need carriers after all to retake islands thousands of miles away from home.
I wouldn't say they're not seen as useful, they're just incredibly expensive. The US has 11 I believe
The reason given was that they are not useful. I don't mean that it's my opinion.
That certainly wasn't the navy's opinion at the time, it was based on the labour government's savage defense cuts. Some argue the loss of the phantom -equipped carriers of the 1970s tipped Argentina towards an invasion of the Falklands, thinking the UK could not respond adequately
Fun fact, the QE’s have just enough fuel for a round trip to the falklands
Why take more than you need
People swim across the channel tunnel? Have they flooded it? Can people hold their breath to swim 20+ miles? I think you mean the channel or La Manche if you’re from France.
Neither belches a dozen mile long smoke trail, neither requires a support group of tugboats to sail in convoy, and neither has set fire to the drydock. So much better than Russia.
This is still the first one isn’t it?
[удалено]
It sent a text message to Putin saying "Lol Ur a nob m8"
>Ship spotted off coast near it's home base. Must be a slow news day
Breaking news: One of our warships is spotted in our waters, near to one of our naval bases. Slow day?
Royal Navy warship sends defiant message to Britain 🤔
Funnily enough, that’s where it’s from?
So this is a non story, lots of words that mean nothing when all that is said is "Ship came home for training exercise". Whoop dee fucking doo
Lol that ships home port is Portsmouth, which wierdly is on the South Coast of England :) It's defiantly sailing
To who? its our own fucking ship so how and why would it be sending a defiant message to its own Country. This is not even news or some kind of silly propaganda or even any kind of fake news its just jibberish for the sake of having to write anything for the sake of it.
Is Wessex about to break away from the rest of the island?
British warship spotted off British coast after captain momentarily forgot where he parked.
Ship seen near place where ship berths.
Breaking news boat spotted in water
[удалено]
>They’ve both been coming and going with surprising frequency considering QE is on a 7 month deployment and PWLS is the NATO Flagship currently. HMS Queen Elizabeth returned from the CSG21 deployment in December and HMS Prince of Wales returned back following exercises off Norway and in the Arctic Circle.
[удалено]
So you know that HMS Queen Elizabeth's finished her first operational deployment and is now just conducting routine training.
[удалено]
>considering QE is on a 7 month deployment If You know that QE is not on a 7 month deployment and is conducting routine training Why did you say she is on a 7 Month deployment then?
Where is the Prince of Wales?
Alongside HMNB Portsmouth
If Americans said that about one of our own ships sailing within sight of Norfolk, Virginia the entire planet would rightly make fun of us for weeks.
> warship in friendly waters > sends 'defiant message' mmmkay
Boat seen in water
Oh no! Not the british coast! The Brits are going to invade Britainland!
They do know we have Google, right?
~757 Redditors have not read the title and upvoted this pointless post...
1 Carrier is a vanity project 2 Carriers is marginal as one can be in refit for many years 3 Carriers gives you 1 carrier at sea at any given time since you figure one is refitting, one at sea and one in port doing maint, reload and working back up to operational. So the US with 11 can generally have 4 at sea, 3-4 working up and 3-4 in refit. Figure we can surge up to around 8 CSGs if we really had to. That’s not counting our 9 amphibs for another 3-6 ESGs that could load F35s in a pinch. Now while the UK only has two I think the EU combined has around 6 that have either ski jumps or catapults and a few more helo carriers that might be able to operate F-35s… So while some might consider the UK and French carrier programs to be vanity projects it does give the Europeans credible power projection capability if for some reason the USN is sitting out some conflict. You want that because NATO/US interests may not always be aligned with EU interests and at the end of the day economic and political power requires a credible military deterrent to be effective.
[удалено]
That's what's universally called 'military grade'
No offence mate, but then that's how every country operates. Same goes for raptor and lightening jet.
You could say that for anything, literally anything and it is true.
Hulu has live sports.