Aircraft Carriers of the world: England doesnt have one that's of operational capability till 2020?

[JEDI]

https://www.businessinsider.com/uss...-elizabeth-aircraft-carriers-comparred-2017-6

Both the US and England have a new class of carriers:
USS Gerald R. Ford ($13B, nuclear engine) and HMS Queen Elizabeth ($10B, diesel engine)

England didn't have an aircraft carrier between 2014 and 2017?!
and wont have one at operational capability till 2020!

wow.. how the mighty Royal Navy has fallen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08)
HMS Illustrious decommissioned in 2014 and Queen Elizabeth was commissioned in 2017 but wont reach "Initial operational capability" till 2020.
sea trials, etc, etc


also, the US has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined:

but Pound for pound, US and UK carriers don't carry as many weapons as their foreign counterparts.
but they make up for it because Strike Groups.
Support ships defend instead of the carriers fending for itself.

 

[KMFJD]

She's in New York this week for trials i believe....

 

[Exterous]

They were in Florida not too long ago:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-navy-sailors-arrested-in-us-after-drunken-fight-hp7d7pbvq

 

[KB]

That's sad to see the Royal Navy, the greatest Navy in history (by connected ports), so weakened, but why build Aircraft Carriers when your closest ally is outbuilding everyone else. You can save the money and help your people by spending it on crazy things like healthcare.

 

[kage69]

Yep, it's gotten pretty bad. Less firepower than 19th century equivalents. In the case of that carrier it's predicated on unproven designs like F-35.

Look at their ASM budget, ugh. No heavy weight options at all, frigates won't have ANY anti-ship missiles until 2030. I think Whale Island needs to have it's water supply checked.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's sad to see the Royal Navy, the greatest Navy in history (by connected ports), so weakened, but why build Aircraft Carriers when your closest ally is outbuilding everyone else. You can save the money and help your people by spending it on crazy things like healthcare.

I've got to say that there's probably other things the country could spend $20B on!
Aircraft carriers seem like they are in search of a role nowadays.

 

[kage69]

That's sad to see the Royal Navy, the greatest Navy in history (by connected ports), so weakened, but why build Aircraft Carriers when your closest ally is outbuilding everyone else. You can save the money and help your people by spending it on crazy things like healthcare.

The issue of distance, mainly. We had a bigger fleet in WW2, and Britain still needed their own. That and their closest ally's primary anti-ship option hails from the 70s (about to change though, finally).

I'd say subs make more sense for their situation myself, and Britain has always produced very fine sub crews. Remember what Sweden did with a single Gotland.

I'd like to see the US and Britain both take a second look at non-nuclear sub designs actually, supplemented with an emphasis on drones. More cost and time effective than a classical, big surface fleet.

 

[Homerboy]

Pathetic we have that many.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Props to the UK for being smart enough to not waste money on archaic weapons platforms. If only we were capable of learning from their example.

 

[JEDI]

Props to the UK for being smart enough to not waste money on archaic weapons platforms. If only we were capable of learning from their example.

but how else can we flex our might over countries with grass huts?

 

[FeuerFrei]

China and Russia have uno solamente?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

but how else can we flex our might over countries with grass huts?

Predator drones and cruise missiles man. Time moves on.

 

[aigomorla]

Aren't the entire left side not true carriers but amphibious assault ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

 

[dainthomas]

Aren't the entire left side not true carriers but amphibious assault ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

Any flat-topped vessel that carries flying craft probably counts.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Aren't the entire left side not true carriers but amphibious assault ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

Yes, but those Amphibious Assault Ships are still more capable than pretty much anything in the right hand column.

 

[skyking]

Aren't the entire left side not true carriers but amphibious assault ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

In my haste I read that as ambiguous assault ships.....

 

[IronWing]

In my haste I read that as ambiguous assault ships.....

That's understandable as that is how we've traditionally used them.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nobody want Carrier Air Support, until they need Carrier Air Support.

You can't always just fly from a land base to where you need to go. The main reason we have so many is that our allies are not pulling their weight.

https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/

The U.S. Navy operates 19 ships that could be called aircraft carriers, but only considers 10 to be actual carriers.

The others are Assault Ships.

 

[pcgeek11]

I look at it a little differently. The US Navy only has two different types of ships.

There are Submarines and there are Targets.

 

[pauldun170]

Pathetic we have that many.

If the United States wants to be a big dog then it needs the ability swing it's dick around.
If you look at the map, you'll see we have a big issue.
Huge ass oceans.

However, we also have this crap
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...0&ll=38.341774399172586,-73.3195120768213&z=2

I would counter your argument with "It's sad we have some many damn land bases around the world."

Folks always pull the line that
"Boats can be sunk"
Boats are a hard to find and they are hard as hell to sink. Even with all the modern tech that is out there.
Land Bases are easy to find and there are all sorts of ways to take that crap out.

 

[IronWing]

We could put our land bases on boat,FTW!

 

[pauldun170]

We could put our land bases on boat,FTW!

lol

 

[Genx87]

Aren't the entire left side not true carriers but amphibious assault ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

Back in the day these looked like light carriers. Not sure if they even have launch capability. Believe their aircraft are helicopters and harriers. And eventually the F35 that is replacing the harrier.

 

[Genx87]

Props to the UK for being smart enough to not waste money on archaic weapons platforms. If only we were capable of learning from their example.

Eh what is archaic about a carrier? Other nations are trying to get into the party(Russia, China). They provide the ability to force project well beyond borders. No country wants a US carrier group showing up off shore. Means they are about to be in a world of hurt.

 

[spacejamz]

Eh what is archaic about a carrier? Other nations are trying to get into the party(Russia, China). They provide the ability to force project well beyond borders. No country wants a US carrier group showing up off shore. Means they are about to be in a world of hurt.

I am curious how well a Carrier strike group will hold up against a large scale missile attack (say around 400-500 missiles)....between the CIWS, rolling airframe missiles, the Aegis support ships, I wonder how many would get through....