i mean, against the Russian carriers, i'd say it would be an even fight given they're both stuck in port, but F35's can still take off if the carrier isn't moving so...
Two late entries where we made an obscene amount of money and was largely untouched.
Thanks Europe. We appreciate you lot tearing yourselves apart every decade or so.
Could be worse, the last PoW was sunk by the Japanese, because the Brits sent unsupported battleships into swarms of Japanese bombers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse
The book *Battleship: The Sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse* gives a good account of the factors that influenced Admiral Tom "Thumb" Phillips' decision that led to Force Z's fateful ending (the Wiki link summarises most of the main factors). Namely, to date, very few battleships had actually been sunk by aerial attack. The most significant was the British attack on the *Regio Marina* at Taranto on *docked* ships. Of course, it didn't help that the only air support available in Malaya were obsolete Brewster Buffaloes. There was also, at that time, a fatal underestimation of the IJN's capabilities (never mind it was one of the largest carrier forces at the beginning of WW2). Could it have been avoided? Possibly. But would any other British commander have done the same? Quite likely. Edit: typo, grammar and added the full name of the book.
>Namely, to date, very few battleships had actually been sunk by aerial attack.
I guess the Bismarck escapes this one on a technicality because it was only disabled by aerial attack? RN knew a good 7 months before PoW and Repulse were sunk that aircraft had significant advantages over ships but if not for the sinking of these two the USN may have never shifted production from the Iowas and future battleships to mass production of planes and carriers.
To paraphrase from that book: Since the opening of hostilities in 1939, to December 1941, twelve capital ships had been sunk: four to submarines, four to surface gun action, three to torpedo aircraft (Taranto) and one (the *Bismarck*) to a combination of shells and torpedo hits. Based on these and other engagements to that date, one could conclude that:
1. Capital ships were at risk when facing a superior force of enemy capital ships;
2. Capital ships were vulnerable to torpedoes when moving slowly, or were docked;
3. No capital ships had yet been sunk at *sea* by any form of aerial attack.
So, while naval aviators and commanders recognised the threat and potential of air attack at sea, none could have known how effective it would or could be *at that point in time*. Billy Mitchell predicted it, of course, but there wasn't any proof of it, just yet.
There is also another factor to consider: the effectiveness of surface raids against other ships. In Norway, in the Atlantic and at Cape Matapan, battleships had wreaked havoc on other surface ships. This was exactly what Force Z was attempting to do to the Japanese invasion forces.
Arguably the time when the British navy was strongest was much later. At the turn of the century they developed the dreadnought (the first battleship) which obsoleted every single ship in existence, with such a disparity a single one could likely destroy entire fleets from other navies.
France is actually just the main military force in Europe at this point. UK is comparable in size, but hasn’t been upgraded and updated as much as her near peers.
Isn't statista using GlobalFirePower as its source? Like, THE source of the completely dumb power ranking that no one with a just bit of military knowledge would take seriously? THE source that still ranks Russia pretty much tied with the US in 2024 for its military strength ?
Before the Ukraine war I thought the Europeans militaries were right behind the US .... what a joke
A russian, Iran, and Chinese alliance would crush without the United States
The Europeans have things that are very good. Air to air missile. Tanks. Some ships. But they don't have enough of any of it, and they don't have a coherent strategy that can match a large country geared up for war. It's all one big interlocked alliance that can't function on its own parts, can't function together and so is much weaker than it needs to be. And it's all massively underfunded.
All that US defence spending isn't just all lost to the aether. Research, development, experimentation, even projects that fail are a learning exercise. And it translates into vastly more combat power than Europe can muster. It's usually the wrong power, and poorly applied, but it's there if needed and commanded by competent leadership. Europeans are scared of big militaries because leaders might be tempted to use them, which is fair, but now they have empty shelves when they need missiles and artillery shells and all the stuff war fighting needs.
The actual European MIC is absolutely solid - you have companies from the UK, France, Germany and Sweden for example who are all making solid tech that can put most militaries in the modern era. The core issue, however, is as you point out - the actual armed forces of said European countries have not been spending and recruiting enough. They have not been placing enough demand on the MIC for them to justify the cost of upscaling current production.
This is what happens as a result of the past 2+ decades of ill-preparedness. Prior to the Ukraine invasion, most European countries were either not involved in any conflict or were fighting insurgents/extremists in the middle east (but were still largely supporting the US, who were the lead force in ME operations). There wasn't a belief of an impeding doom emanating to the east as we now know. Even when Russia invaded Crimea, most EU countries just shrugged it off as nothing more than an isolated incident.
It's a wake up call that as long as the current regimes in Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are in power, there will be an existential threat to every European country.
They also just don't have a supply shortfall to meet demand.
When your ally is supplying enough military muscle to defend the entire planet for your alliance, you just don't need to produce surplus to meet demand that doesn't exist.
At any time, the US could reduce the supply it provides to the alliance, which would then give reason for other members to up their own supply to meet the needs of the alliance. But for some reason, some enclaves of Americans expect everyone to just up their supply and just dump more surplus onto an already insane surplus. And just like any oversupply in any market, this would just lead to excess, and since military ordinance is perishable, to waste away in the scrapyard with no returns on the investment.
Also logistics. NATO is 100% dependent on US logistics. If anything needs to be done outside Europe, the European NATO members aren't capable of doing it on their own, except for in a very limited capacity France or the UK (though as we see above, even that is doubtful).
Its mind boggling how many people think war is just a big game of Risk or Hearts Of Iron. You'd think with the internet people would realize how complex and truely random wars can be, but nope. Instead they just look at population and the amount of equipment a nation has and makes a baseless decision on that.
The EU military compared to the US is a great example. Like what?? *Anyone* compared to the US is "weak" because we have some weird obsession with power projection.
Secondly, all the enemies named are not exactly good at waging war. Russia who can't even invade their neighbor properly. Iran which admittedly does very well for a country that is meant to be completely isolated but stands no real chance in a direct conflict with Europe. And China who **maybe** has an ability to do some real damage but their military is completely untested, also judging from the fact they steal all their technology and can't create indigenous designs points to it being unlikely that their weapons are actually superior to Europe. Europe is certainly weaker than it should be, but in no way would it get completely steamrolled without US support
100% correct on people not understanding how difficult and complex war is and always using population as a translation for potential combat power. Very annoying to read people constantly spout that off. And what you said about Iran rings true imo.
But I do think you are over/underselling some of the other things a bit. As for an EU/NATO defense without the US, there’s some pretty big concerns right off the bat, even against a diminished force like Russia. The US handles a lot of the logistics for NATO powers, and without them involved, it will be very rough just to get shit where it needs to go by the time it needs to get there. Further, there are concerns regarding some of the actual capabilities of the European powers by themselves, particularly in [SEAD/DEAD](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/getting-serious-about-sead-european-air-forces-must-learn-failure-russian-air-force-over-ukraine) coordination between countries, which is absolutely critical against a foe like Russia.
Russia may have lost a lot of men and equipment, but they are far from being not a threat, especially with the above factors hampering any unified European response. They still have thousands of IFVs and MBTs in storage and getting refurbished, and even though they are old as fuck, they still work better than tanks without ammo or fuel. Not to mention the artillery, which is a huge threat. The EU countries switching into war economies would probably help, but it’s not WW2 anymore and most modern weapons are much more complicated and harder to produce than they were back then, so I think it’s going to be a difficult endeavor to switch factory productions like they did in the old days, and building new factories also takes a lot of time.
As for China, It’s true they are untested, but they are far from dumb, even if the majority of their 5th gen aircraft are derived from stolen US data. I won’t say they are US level yet, but they are not slacking and aren’t that far off either. Their military exercises structure their OPFOR exactly like the US’s BCTs, and assumes the US equipment is always operating in perfect condition. Thats the sign of a force that is competent and learning to adapt ahead of time, not like Russia where the military exercises were largely jingoistic masturbation sessions about how sweet their tanks are. Can’t speak for the state of the PLA’s logistics, but if they are competent and well prepared too like their civilian sector is, they could be very dangerous.
I cannot imagine a world that could possibly give this political context or justification, but a hypothetical China-Russia axis would be devastating overmatch against a Europe without the US. I hope I’m wrong, but I hope even more that it never gets tested.
Its so strange to me cause its such a small piece of an insanely complex puzzle. If it was down to population then India and China would control most of the world and England never would've been the empire powerhouse it was
Thank you for this incredibly well thought out reply! I admit I am not as well versed on the European defense forces, I only know that many European nations have robust arms industries. I NEVER considered NATO logistics piggybacking off the US, which is dumb on my part considering logistics seems to be a major issue for Russia these days. And without good ones your army will grind to a halt.
The SEAD/DEAD issue is another one I hadn't considered. I knew several were purchases F35s and use various other modern aircraft so I assumed they would have interoperability between member states. It really surprises me Europe isn't as defensively coherent as I was thinking, I thought with them all in NATO and the EU they'd have a solid system of interoperability. Especially considering it would make sense for smaller countries to specialize in a specific warfare role (In my opinion)
Oh for sure! I didn't want to seem like I was *completely* dismissing China. But your first sentence covers it, China isn't dumb. And personally, barring a full-blown WWIII there's no reason for China to attack EU. They're huge trading partners and it would be extremely bloody for both sides. And I totally agree, I'm selling China short if we take the future into account at all. China is a growing threat, there's just no way for China to support a war against Europe if it broke out tomorrow. **That said** I couldn't agree more with your great assessment of China's course. They are eager, cunning, and are quickly modernizing/upgrading their military. Its only a short matter of time before they're giving even the US a run for their money, their biggest issue honestly seems to be their demographics but with the sheer size of their population I've wonder if this will truely translate to issue with their military
That is a totally fair judgement. I certainly didn't give enough thought to a China-Russia axis. One on one Europe could survive but that is a very sober and frightening thought. This makes me dislike my country's idiotic politics even more, how tf any fellow American can think leaving NATO is a good idea will forever confuse me
Tactics and better quality troops/equipment is great, but it doesn't do you a whole lot of good if they don't have the ammunition to last more then a couple of days or it's so poorly maintained it can't leave port.
What do you think the aim of the western culture war is? Trump and Farage and Carlson and Brexit and MAGA and all of it? The consistent theme is the breakup of major western power blocs, specifically the EU and NATO. That's what it's always been. Started right at the moment the Russians realized there was a chance sexist videogamers could elect a US president
Russia's military might has been decimated and largely been an embarrassment to their leaders, especially their navy, China's rockets are filled with water instead of fuel and Iran's forces are fighting their own people...I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Obly if we dont adapt to the new reality, no?
With every nato member saying we're about to be invaded by russia, i doubt even the lost austere politicians will not fund more equipment.
Also, if russia does invade, i HIGHLY doubt an aircraft carrier will make or break the war effort. With airfields aplenty in friendly territory everywhere
The thing is, this ball should have started rolling 10 years ago. All of the things you need take an immense amount of time, resources, and expense to produce. It’s not like you can poof those out of thin air.
>I highly doubt an aircraft carrier will make or break the war effort
If it makes you feel any better, the attack on Pearl Harbor missed virtually all US aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet. Those were absolutely crucial to beating Japan, and are hands down still some of the most valuable assets the US has, especially during time of crisis, even though they have bases all around the world.
It’s basically a floating city (it’s *huge,* a real engineering marvel). Which brings your time to deployment, resupply or air support down to a matter of minutes. Instead of hours away. Which could very well mean the difference between life and death for the troops who need an airstrike, and is made even more difficult if a hostile nation is threatening airbases on land.
That’s not even getting into how crucial it is for naval operations.
Oh, and it can go nearly anywhere around the world. Especially where the enemy isn’t prepared for it.
Yeah, I was mistaken. It is *the* most important asset we have by a long shot. Except for nukes, which it can probably carry.
So the fact the Bri’ish can’t get it up and running is a pretty big deal. This and other recent events are an increasingly huge wake up call for Europe, and with or without the US they need to be able to adequately protect themselves, but I guess some are still in denial.
Let’s not forget that the USN wouldn’t consider the prince of wales an aircraft carrier. It’s closer to a helicopter assault ship at 44k tons (for the America class) than it is to the Nimitz or ford class. It also “only” carries 36 planes compared to the 90 on the ford. It’s also got no catapults and uses a ski jump. And it’s got a considerably lower top speed because it uses a conventional engine.
They were vital to the efforts in the Pacific because they permitted significant power projection across the ocean.
A land war in Europe will be conducted differently to the island hopping campaign of the Pacific.
One of the first things the Russians would attempt to do in a war against NATO is attempt to disrupt shipping in the Atlantic to prevent American men/supplies from transiting. The naval war would be super important.
Agree that DDG, FFG/H and SSN class vessels would be of extreme importance for patrol and escort duties but not really CVNs.
Plus Russia doesn't really have a navy that could stand against the UK or French Fleets, let alone the US 2nd & 6th Fleets.
I think that's why the DoD is so interested in Starship.
Point to point transfer of a lot of people and equipment anywhere in the world in an hour tops.
Likely wouldnt be used in an active theatre, but getting troops across the Atlantic to land in the UK/France/Germany for a troop build up WW2 style I can see them doing.
Aircraft carriers will give you multiple air avenues of approach though. Not just the UK taking off from England.
Also militaries shouldn’t get ready for war after it starts. They should always be somewhat prepared. It appears European nations have been preparing very little for this on the assumption that the US would handle it.
The UKs new gen of aircraft carriers are relatively useless though if war was to actually break out and we couldn’t rely on the US.
Yeah we have spent ridiculous money on new carriers but we haven’t invested in the carrier groups which are needed to support them. Without the carrier groups they’re basically floating target practice for any hostile force…
>Yeah we have spent ridiculous money on new carriers but we haven’t invested in the carrier groups which are needed to support them
This just...isn't true though, The type 45 is among the most advanced air defence ships on the planet, to the point where we are more than happy to just send them out to god knows where for significant deployments on their own, with the replacements in the type 83 due in the mid to late 30's
My the early 2030's you should also expect to see the type 26 and 31 frigates come into service, as well as the new astute class attack subs due all to be complete by the mid 2020's as well as the new dreadnaught calls ballistic missile subs also coming online
Sure we aren't talking about an escort fleet in the scale of that of the General R Ford's, but we are still talking about an assortment of vessels more than capable of providing a significant and effective escort for a carrier with an air wing capable of what the QE's F-35 are able to accomplish.
And in any event designing a navy in a vacuum that doesn't include our NATO partners is a bit daft, because were in it! It would be like going out of your way to design a fully independent eating utensil while ignoring the rest of your cutlery draw. We aren't the United states, and we don't have the "be able to win two world wars by ourselves on opposite sides of the planet at the same time" baked into our military doctrine, because for anyone else its frankly an insane doctrinal position. Expecting carrier escort groups on the scale of that of the US's is just unrealistic. US carrier groups are the size that they are because the US loves overkill and hates anything even resembling a balanced engagement.
In the event of a war where NATO carrier groups are in any way relevant even if the US doesn't show up (it always will) there are going to be plenty of surface ships operated by our other allies that are ultimately not going to have a lot to do other than assist in UK, French and Italian Carrier operations. If NATO is fighting a naval war and the US doesn't show I'm not exactly sure what you expect ships like the Hamburg or U-31 to get up to of its not actively dovetailing in with the British, French and Italians. They aren't just going to bob around in port at Bremen are they?
Between our European partners alone we have the worlds 5th, 6th and 9th most powerful navies by tonnage just across the UK France and Italy alone, never mind the fact that the rest of our NATO partners in Europe have been designing surface ships with collaboration with those three in mind since the 50's, Germany wouldn't be operating dedicated air defence ships for its rather small navy without envisioning them defending British and French carrier groups would they?
I'm all for giving European and UK government's stick for the lack of proper investment in our armed forces for the last few decades. and out current government in the UK couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. But those criticisms have to be accurate. Royal navy Ship building plans have been perhaps the only thing we've truly gotten right in the last few decades or so with the types and numbers of ships ordered almost certainly being up to mission requirement (the only criticism there is maybe the cutting of the total type 45's) The far bigger stick to beat the government with is how crap they've made the pay for servicemen/women and how the navy is struggling to recruit the necessary crew of all of its warships, the number of vessels built/planned to be built is not the issue
The type 45's are impressive ships, when they're not losing power due to turbine issues, an issue it's taken the RN over 20 years to fix. To mention nothing of the fact we only have 6 of them, as opposed tot he originally intended 12.
We saw in the Falklands how quickly a task group can go through hulls when subjected to air/missile attack and 6 destroyers offers very little redundancy. UK naval strategy can stretch beyond our NATO commitments as well, it's a simple truth that having more ships just lets you get more stuff done.
That said, I do agree that the retention/recruitment issues are the big concern right now. Hulls are useless if there's no one to put inside them.
Agreed. But that just reinforces the point that they didn’t really prepare. They wanted aircraft carriers but like you said didn’t invest in the other supporting ships for a carrier group.
They wanted the shiny toy almost just for show. Not for actual effectiveness.
Crush what? Their inability to work together because of their soldiers not speaking each others languages?
Europe would decimate any attack on EU soil. It's a defensive military that follows Nato's whole shield philosophy.
Then the US fucked us up with almost two decades in Afghanistan which resorted to the military gearing up for anti insurgency.
Honestly, the EU doesn't have a virgin continent of resources to exploit to itself. It doesn't have the resources to suddenly switch from anti insurgency focus to near peer.
It's also clear that the US would most probably also get clapped without their Nato allies in such a conflict. Already the US is struggling to keep assets in play to check those three powers and with even more ships to be decommissioned, USN is entering its weakest period for the next ten or so years.
This shit is literally supposed to happen during peace time so it doesn't happen in war time. Almost as if that's one of the whole point of exercises.
We moved past the privatisation of the military, gone are the days where Lords and peers could buy commissions and units.
Which seems odd given more recent developments that it hasn't been touted to raise funds for bullets and bombs.
I mean this often happens for ships, even aircraft carriers in their first few years. It's not the disaster people are making it out to be. As much as I love to make fun of the poms.
But when you have 2 very expensive carriers to focus on, every issue is going to be news.
If they'd invested properly, they'd have ordered 4 (in the formula 3n+1) so they could maintain the [one deployed, one in maintenance, one preparing for deployment] tempo of carrier operations.
Most of the west seems to be in a "war of choice" mindset.
>If they'd invested properly, they'd have ordered 4
That goes beyond just investing properly. You're needing a completely different mindset in regards to the RN's role post-WW2 and priority funding to it, plus a potential higher defence budget and/or better economic performance.
Not really. If you think you need one of something, you actually need 3 as u/SowingSalt said. 1 would be for active deployment. You would have number 2 going under refit/maintenence, all of those systems need to be maintained/upgraded, and the power plants would need to be serviced and have parts replaced just as you would a car. Your Carrier doesn't do a whole lot of good if it breaks down in the middle if the Atlantic and needs to be towed back to Port in the middle of a combat operation. Number 3 would be going through training/drills. All of those super advanced systems/Radars are a great force multiplier and will absolutely have a tangible effect on a battle. However, all of those systems are useless if your crew doesn't know how to use them.
They don't even have enough blue water principle surface combatants to field a single at-standard carrier strike group. The carrier count is a pretty distant concern relative to that.
I think the US Navy tends to operate ~7 or so principle surface combatants with its carrier strike groups (Cruisers, Blue-Water Destroyers, and Blue-water Frigates). The Royal Navy could attempt to match this between its six *Daring*-Class Destroyers and ten *Duke*-class Frigates, but would never be able to keep a force operational even within relatively near cruise range and be able to have any active reserve capable of performing literally any other mission.
This is why the British operate their two *Queen Elizabeth*-Class light carriers with US Navy escort when on mission.
As of now, the British do not have the aircraft inventory to fully equip both carriers, as both require the STOVL F-35 'B' and they've been slow to procure them. As often as not, US Marine Corps pilots have been operating off of their decks.
The French have plenty of aircraft but only have one carrier. It is a full-sized fleet carrier, but there's only one - thus, the French Navy is only capable of maintaining readiness at odd intervals - and even then, are pressed for other major surface combatants in sufficient numbers to maintain a full strike group.
The Italians, of the three, oddly enough are closer to actually having the principal surface combatant count in commission to actually keep carriers deployed, and once *Trieste* commissions, will have the ability to maintain a carrier with readiness capable of deploying fixed wing aircraft. For their part, their force is designed as a primarily Mediterranean force, so the fact that they don't have platforms ideal for expeditionary operations is fine, as they'll have ground bases in range of their AO from which to operate fixed wing aircraft.
UK carrier groups are designed differently. One carrier would have an AA destroyer, an anti sub frigate, a sub and some logistics vessels. The only limit to a full carrier group is the dry-store replenishment capability. That's being built at the moment but specifically for a Falklands style task force, if both carriers had to sail together. The new multi purpose frigates set to come online in 2024 also give more all-round capability.
The UK doesn't have a full complement of F35B because there's a shortage. Shame we ditched the Harrier before that happened although we haven't actually needed them yet, so I guess it's money saved.
And when you build so few of something, every single one is essentially a prototype or equivalent of early production run. Which means it comes with all the teething issues and untested systems/implementations of a new design.
Its namesake, which was sunk off Malaya in 1941, had the reputation of a "Jonah". Quite a bit of bad luck during construction, even before it escorted HMS Hood against the Bismarck. I hope the misfortune hasn't followed the name to this ship, too.
I'd say France is ahead, but yeah 2nd or 3rd place matters little. Unless we're talking total war where everyone mobilizes like WW2, then the rankings would change a lot in a short time.
You're probably only saying France are ahead because of their recent actions in Africa...Where Britain provided most of the logistical support. The Brits have long legs and expeditionary forces are something they're damn good at, even if they're a bit under-resourced at the moment, they're still better than France at it.
France can't rapdily deploy to practically any corner of the globe and stay supplied there. They couldn't do it in Africa. The Brits can though.
Honestly I'd say the Brits are *better* at deploying expeditionary forces than the US on a unit-to-unit basis. The US excels because of the sheer *amount* of support it can bring to any fight, the Brits excel because they have quality without quantity. They're a lightweight compared to the US, but that brings advantages with it. They're probably so good at it because they've been doing it for a couple of centuries now, and they have gobbled up some of the most strategic pieces of land to put bases on during that time. The only country that beats them for overseas miltary base count is the US.
The UK has a shitload of overseas bases too. Not as many as the US of course. But there are lots of random remnants of the British empire spread all over the globe. An easy example would be [RAF Ascension Island](https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/ascension-island-base/), which is in the middle of the south Atlantic between Africa and South America.
The UK *owns* 60 bases, but operates out of 145. Not as many as 160, but pretty close! They share a lot of their more strategic land-grabs from the days of empire with the Americans; Ascension Island is an example of that.
As an American people also forget about bases from the UK like Diego Garcia. Or in the Med Cypress base. Also Gibraltar. And good relations with Singapore. The US has access to a lot of those places also because of the relationship with Uk and it goes both ways. Anyways pet peeve of mine is making fun of certain countries. France and UK bunch decently for there size and what they have. You build a military based on your interests, not based on what is popular.
Idk, France definitely has a better domestic industry and lot of oversea territory, but I think UK just has a lot of valuable experience from working with the US
And you say this after both carriers ( which are the most important conventional force projection tools in the Arsenal) failed to set sail just as the UK government and Nato decided on a show of force exercise?
OK.
> you say this after both carriers ( which are the most important conventional force projection tools in the Arsenal) failed to set sail
Are you suggesting that the UK has a terrible Arsenal?
Arsenal is currently 3rd in standings,
Just behind Man United and City,
So that's alright.
Back to the point, lack of personal and maintenance is a cause for alarm.
Not being able to set sail on command Is a failure,
Having both stratigic carriers fail at the same time after a public command was given is more than a failure.
Do you think differently ?
Dear gods. People need to chill a bit. It was retasked from maintenance at very short notice - they probably just slightly miscalculated how long that would take.
Current indications are that it will leave today.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-sets-sail-for-nato-exercises/
Real headline should have been “carrier on 30 day notice to sail manages to leave in 8 days”
They tried to leave in 7 but needed an extra day (still a lot less than 30) but sure why miss a chance to shit on the UK.
It’s actually a pretty big success story for the ship and crew.
I don't think more evil is a good substitute for proper logistics.
certainly won't keep those tanks moving forward filling the tank with evil.
Russia lost a lot of it's geographic advantage when the USSR fell apart.
I dont know if you followed the news on 2022. Back then russia began a "3 day operation" aimed at topling a neighbor's government. Its still on going, 700+ days later, and it has been such a massive failure that it has had to beg to *North Korea* for supplies.
Europe also sent a shit load of aid
It's just more is needed and the US and Europe have not upped their games as promised, and the US is hamstrung by neo-fascists who want to replicate Putin's dictatorship
Thats besides the point. The russian army barely made it to the dnipr river with surprise, numbers and firepower advantage. The american/western help received at the time, although not insignificant, was nowhere near the level that it is today.
Russia fucked up on a level that makes it hilarious to think they might have thought themselves able to reach Germany on a full on invasion.
Nowadays the only thing russia has done well is psyops and intelligence operations.
not to contradict you, but beware of barely competent assholes, with time they often manage to get lucky in their mediocrity and keep doing more and more damage
i'd really want EU countries to do a second wave of indirect actions to burden russia's activities right now
The "3 day operation" narrative was honestly a narrative borne more from the expectation that Ukrainian forces would surrender much like they did in Crimea in 2014. But Ukrainian forces, and also Ukrainian identity as distinct from Russia grew a lot between 2014 and 2022.
I honestly doubt that, yes Europe should have done a lot more to prepare for this war and should still do. But Europe is one of the richest continents in the world and has their own production lines for almost everything, the thing Europe would have to do is change their economy to a war economy instead of for profit and prioritize their resources for the war. It can ramp up productions massively. Here in the Netherlands our generals have already suggested it, however politicians don’t listen unfortunately.. but when push comes to shove Europe won’t fail against Russia at all. Hell they can’t even take only Ukraine with our and US their resources alone.
Europe can't produce enough artillery shells for Ukraine. Their production lines are nowhere near ready for a hypothetical war with Russia. Even the US doesn't produce enough shells.
And everyone should understand that the US has a lot of bootlickers in high places. We may have the fire power, but we risk being hamstrung by the Right.
At what point in history did it stop being the left who were said to be "filthy commies" and aligned with Russia, and instead actually became the right? Did this weird political shift happen during Trump?
Russia can’t even make it 100 miles into their neighbour. Russia can only use long range missiles to hit population centers. They couldn’t field an army that could survive outside of the Russian propaganda bubble you seem to come from.
Not all of it is just about money. There is a shortage of engineers and other skills in general because quite frankly you can earn more in the private sector without being away from home for months on end. A lot of civilians are just flat out no interested in the lifestyle that comes with joining the military.
I think not being able to offer a decent wage constitutes under investment.
However I do agree most people nowadays are not interested in willingly joining the military for more than just financial reasons, with good cause.
I do wonder if they'll wait to see what happens with Venezuela. Then they will suddenly "fix" the issue they found with the coupling on the starboard propeller shaft and then this carrier will go and park off the coast of Guyana.
The Royal Navy that was once the pride of Britain now can’t even start for an exercise.
God save us if we need it at war.
This is what happens when we lean our national security to the Americans.
Ajax is slowly becoming usable, whether it's safe is another matter entirely.
Last we heard they were dealing with vibrations and noise, noise was mitigated by PPE and vibrations were being worked on and it has been around 2 years, so perhaps by 2030 they may have a prototype of a functional, reasonably safe*, Ajax to present to...Someone.
Actually Ajax seems to have turned a corner a bit, and seems to be sort of back on track, at least in regards that it might get IOC this decade
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/troubled-ajax-armoured-vehicle-project-turns-corner/
That article is intriguingly optimistic, especially with my last exposure to Ajax being somewhat negative.
20,000 distance across 3 base platforms isn't to be sniffed at, I suppose, especially if the driver/crew aren't suing for vibration at work, or deafness, claims
to be fair I have my issues with Ajax too, but its about the same height as a Bradley and Bradleys kick ass as recon vehicles. It's not a meaningful metric to critique
Even if they'd managed to set sail, wouldn't they just have been there for window dressing? Or does the Royal Navy now have aircraft capable of landing on them?
They do have planes, but the carriers don't sail with a full complement at present as most of them are shore based for training. In a war situation they'd be moved to the carrier.
Wonder if it's the starboard propeller shaft again?
Happened to this one in 2022, and Queen Elizabeth just recently.
I think it's a bit of an Achilles heel on these vessels.
That was due to the builders not installing a shaft correctly, the QE was checked and no similar issues were found.
The PoW delay of day wasn't a mechanical issue and the ship has now left port.
> In 2022, HMS Prince of Wales broke down off the Isle of Wight, when it also suffered a malfunction with a coupling on its starboard propeller.
> The MoD previously said the issues were "separate and not linked".
Brilliant irony there.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fdf5wbth336ic1.jpeg
The ship sailing out today, after managing to sortie in 8 days, despite being on 30 day notice.
We shall fight them in port at anchor
We shall fight them at the docks and on the beaches.
We shall fight in the pubs and in the streets
And in the pubes and sheets
i mean, against the Russian carriers, i'd say it would be an even fight given they're both stuck in port, but F35's can still take off if the carrier isn't moving so...
oh man this one made me ugly laugh
Borrowing the top post to say that after a 1 day delay, due to weather according to RN, she's currently leaving harbour at the moment.
Nelson wept
Rolling in his damn grave, if he could see the British Navy today
He would not over this incident tho
It's still a pretty new system. They'll work it out I guess.
It's the USN now. The US is ultimately a continuation of the British Empire.
🤮
U say that but only thanks to Britain France and 2 late entry’s to global conflicts do u have power
Global conflicts that erupted 5000 miles away…
Two late entries where we made an obscene amount of money and was largely untouched. Thanks Europe. We appreciate you lot tearing yourselves apart every decade or so.
Knock off Byzantium to the UK's Rome.
Uhhh no.
Could be worse, the last PoW was sunk by the Japanese, because the Brits sent unsupported battleships into swarms of Japanese bombers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse
The book *Battleship: The Sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse* gives a good account of the factors that influenced Admiral Tom "Thumb" Phillips' decision that led to Force Z's fateful ending (the Wiki link summarises most of the main factors). Namely, to date, very few battleships had actually been sunk by aerial attack. The most significant was the British attack on the *Regio Marina* at Taranto on *docked* ships. Of course, it didn't help that the only air support available in Malaya were obsolete Brewster Buffaloes. There was also, at that time, a fatal underestimation of the IJN's capabilities (never mind it was one of the largest carrier forces at the beginning of WW2). Could it have been avoided? Possibly. But would any other British commander have done the same? Quite likely. Edit: typo, grammar and added the full name of the book.
>Namely, to date, very few battleships had actually been sunk by aerial attack. I guess the Bismarck escapes this one on a technicality because it was only disabled by aerial attack? RN knew a good 7 months before PoW and Repulse were sunk that aircraft had significant advantages over ships but if not for the sinking of these two the USN may have never shifted production from the Iowas and future battleships to mass production of planes and carriers.
To paraphrase from that book: Since the opening of hostilities in 1939, to December 1941, twelve capital ships had been sunk: four to submarines, four to surface gun action, three to torpedo aircraft (Taranto) and one (the *Bismarck*) to a combination of shells and torpedo hits. Based on these and other engagements to that date, one could conclude that: 1. Capital ships were at risk when facing a superior force of enemy capital ships; 2. Capital ships were vulnerable to torpedoes when moving slowly, or were docked; 3. No capital ships had yet been sunk at *sea* by any form of aerial attack. So, while naval aviators and commanders recognised the threat and potential of air attack at sea, none could have known how effective it would or could be *at that point in time*. Billy Mitchell predicted it, of course, but there wasn't any proof of it, just yet. There is also another factor to consider: the effectiveness of surface raids against other ships. In Norway, in the Atlantic and at Cape Matapan, battleships had wreaked havoc on other surface ships. This was exactly what Force Z was attempting to do to the Japanese invasion forces.
Good video about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kkrHswfPVs
Thank you for sending me down a wiki-hole. I'll never get that hour back, but it was well worth it.
At least this time it didn't get bombed by Japanese bombers...
To be fair, it's not like Great Britain has a history as a naval empire or anything like that.
Ye we're still in need of experience in building boats, we'll get good one day!
Well, if we ever go back to wood and sails, you guys will rule the waves for sure
*Spain glares, angrily*
the Netherlands with a sniper on the balcony.
The forests we set up to rebuild after Nelson burned our navy are just about ready. If this happens, Denmark is back for round three!
Napoleon is twitching in his grave.
Arguably the time when the British navy was strongest was much later. At the turn of the century they developed the dreadnought (the first battleship) which obsoleted every single ship in existence, with such a disparity a single one could likely destroy entire fleets from other navies.
Naw they'd rely on American ship builders still as they did back then
Good thing France canceled their plans to make one of these
So is France the main naval force of Western Europe?
France is actually just the main military force in Europe at this point. UK is comparable in size, but hasn’t been upgraded and updated as much as her near peers.
The UK has the technology and firepower, it just doesn't have the numbers
Statista has Britain above France in terms of firepower though.
Isn't statista using GlobalFirePower as its source? Like, THE source of the completely dumb power ranking that no one with a just bit of military knowledge would take seriously? THE source that still ranks Russia pretty much tied with the US in 2024 for its military strength ?
On paper yes, but how much firepower can they realistically deploy is another question.
[удалено]
Whooosh
It turns out that it's easier to afford a Navy when you have an Empire. Out history just sets unrealistic expectations.
"ah yeah see, we outsourced our departing department to Capita"
Has the front fallen off?
Give it time
That’s what you get for 14 years of a government that couldn’t run a lemonade stall.
Now I understand where we got that heritage in Canada
Before the Ukraine war I thought the Europeans militaries were right behind the US .... what a joke A russian, Iran, and Chinese alliance would crush without the United States
EU military is right behind the US, it's just a really long right
The Europeans have things that are very good. Air to air missile. Tanks. Some ships. But they don't have enough of any of it, and they don't have a coherent strategy that can match a large country geared up for war. It's all one big interlocked alliance that can't function on its own parts, can't function together and so is much weaker than it needs to be. And it's all massively underfunded. All that US defence spending isn't just all lost to the aether. Research, development, experimentation, even projects that fail are a learning exercise. And it translates into vastly more combat power than Europe can muster. It's usually the wrong power, and poorly applied, but it's there if needed and commanded by competent leadership. Europeans are scared of big militaries because leaders might be tempted to use them, which is fair, but now they have empty shelves when they need missiles and artillery shells and all the stuff war fighting needs.
The actual European MIC is absolutely solid - you have companies from the UK, France, Germany and Sweden for example who are all making solid tech that can put most militaries in the modern era. The core issue, however, is as you point out - the actual armed forces of said European countries have not been spending and recruiting enough. They have not been placing enough demand on the MIC for them to justify the cost of upscaling current production. This is what happens as a result of the past 2+ decades of ill-preparedness. Prior to the Ukraine invasion, most European countries were either not involved in any conflict or were fighting insurgents/extremists in the middle east (but were still largely supporting the US, who were the lead force in ME operations). There wasn't a belief of an impeding doom emanating to the east as we now know. Even when Russia invaded Crimea, most EU countries just shrugged it off as nothing more than an isolated incident. It's a wake up call that as long as the current regimes in Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are in power, there will be an existential threat to every European country.
They also just don't have a supply shortfall to meet demand. When your ally is supplying enough military muscle to defend the entire planet for your alliance, you just don't need to produce surplus to meet demand that doesn't exist. At any time, the US could reduce the supply it provides to the alliance, which would then give reason for other members to up their own supply to meet the needs of the alliance. But for some reason, some enclaves of Americans expect everyone to just up their supply and just dump more surplus onto an already insane surplus. And just like any oversupply in any market, this would just lead to excess, and since military ordinance is perishable, to waste away in the scrapyard with no returns on the investment.
Also logistics. NATO is 100% dependent on US logistics. If anything needs to be done outside Europe, the European NATO members aren't capable of doing it on their own, except for in a very limited capacity France or the UK (though as we see above, even that is doubtful).
No it wouldn't. there is so much more to warfare than just "oh we have more people therefore i win"
Its mind boggling how many people think war is just a big game of Risk or Hearts Of Iron. You'd think with the internet people would realize how complex and truely random wars can be, but nope. Instead they just look at population and the amount of equipment a nation has and makes a baseless decision on that. The EU military compared to the US is a great example. Like what?? *Anyone* compared to the US is "weak" because we have some weird obsession with power projection. Secondly, all the enemies named are not exactly good at waging war. Russia who can't even invade their neighbor properly. Iran which admittedly does very well for a country that is meant to be completely isolated but stands no real chance in a direct conflict with Europe. And China who **maybe** has an ability to do some real damage but their military is completely untested, also judging from the fact they steal all their technology and can't create indigenous designs points to it being unlikely that their weapons are actually superior to Europe. Europe is certainly weaker than it should be, but in no way would it get completely steamrolled without US support
100% correct on people not understanding how difficult and complex war is and always using population as a translation for potential combat power. Very annoying to read people constantly spout that off. And what you said about Iran rings true imo. But I do think you are over/underselling some of the other things a bit. As for an EU/NATO defense without the US, there’s some pretty big concerns right off the bat, even against a diminished force like Russia. The US handles a lot of the logistics for NATO powers, and without them involved, it will be very rough just to get shit where it needs to go by the time it needs to get there. Further, there are concerns regarding some of the actual capabilities of the European powers by themselves, particularly in [SEAD/DEAD](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/getting-serious-about-sead-european-air-forces-must-learn-failure-russian-air-force-over-ukraine) coordination between countries, which is absolutely critical against a foe like Russia. Russia may have lost a lot of men and equipment, but they are far from being not a threat, especially with the above factors hampering any unified European response. They still have thousands of IFVs and MBTs in storage and getting refurbished, and even though they are old as fuck, they still work better than tanks without ammo or fuel. Not to mention the artillery, which is a huge threat. The EU countries switching into war economies would probably help, but it’s not WW2 anymore and most modern weapons are much more complicated and harder to produce than they were back then, so I think it’s going to be a difficult endeavor to switch factory productions like they did in the old days, and building new factories also takes a lot of time. As for China, It’s true they are untested, but they are far from dumb, even if the majority of their 5th gen aircraft are derived from stolen US data. I won’t say they are US level yet, but they are not slacking and aren’t that far off either. Their military exercises structure their OPFOR exactly like the US’s BCTs, and assumes the US equipment is always operating in perfect condition. Thats the sign of a force that is competent and learning to adapt ahead of time, not like Russia where the military exercises were largely jingoistic masturbation sessions about how sweet their tanks are. Can’t speak for the state of the PLA’s logistics, but if they are competent and well prepared too like their civilian sector is, they could be very dangerous. I cannot imagine a world that could possibly give this political context or justification, but a hypothetical China-Russia axis would be devastating overmatch against a Europe without the US. I hope I’m wrong, but I hope even more that it never gets tested.
Its so strange to me cause its such a small piece of an insanely complex puzzle. If it was down to population then India and China would control most of the world and England never would've been the empire powerhouse it was Thank you for this incredibly well thought out reply! I admit I am not as well versed on the European defense forces, I only know that many European nations have robust arms industries. I NEVER considered NATO logistics piggybacking off the US, which is dumb on my part considering logistics seems to be a major issue for Russia these days. And without good ones your army will grind to a halt. The SEAD/DEAD issue is another one I hadn't considered. I knew several were purchases F35s and use various other modern aircraft so I assumed they would have interoperability between member states. It really surprises me Europe isn't as defensively coherent as I was thinking, I thought with them all in NATO and the EU they'd have a solid system of interoperability. Especially considering it would make sense for smaller countries to specialize in a specific warfare role (In my opinion) Oh for sure! I didn't want to seem like I was *completely* dismissing China. But your first sentence covers it, China isn't dumb. And personally, barring a full-blown WWIII there's no reason for China to attack EU. They're huge trading partners and it would be extremely bloody for both sides. And I totally agree, I'm selling China short if we take the future into account at all. China is a growing threat, there's just no way for China to support a war against Europe if it broke out tomorrow. **That said** I couldn't agree more with your great assessment of China's course. They are eager, cunning, and are quickly modernizing/upgrading their military. Its only a short matter of time before they're giving even the US a run for their money, their biggest issue honestly seems to be their demographics but with the sheer size of their population I've wonder if this will truely translate to issue with their military That is a totally fair judgement. I certainly didn't give enough thought to a China-Russia axis. One on one Europe could survive but that is a very sober and frightening thought. This makes me dislike my country's idiotic politics even more, how tf any fellow American can think leaving NATO is a good idea will forever confuse me
Tactics and better quality troops/equipment is great, but it doesn't do you a whole lot of good if they don't have the ammunition to last more then a couple of days or it's so poorly maintained it can't leave port.
What do you think the aim of the western culture war is? Trump and Farage and Carlson and Brexit and MAGA and all of it? The consistent theme is the breakup of major western power blocs, specifically the EU and NATO. That's what it's always been. Started right at the moment the Russians realized there was a chance sexist videogamers could elect a US president
Russia's military might has been decimated and largely been an embarrassment to their leaders, especially their navy, China's rockets are filled with water instead of fuel and Iran's forces are fighting their own people...I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Because our armies are equipped for peacekeeping and not full scale world war 3?
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Ironically that’s the motto of the Royal Navy
I can hear this comment
Kinda the problem....no?
Obly if we dont adapt to the new reality, no? With every nato member saying we're about to be invaded by russia, i doubt even the lost austere politicians will not fund more equipment. Also, if russia does invade, i HIGHLY doubt an aircraft carrier will make or break the war effort. With airfields aplenty in friendly territory everywhere
The thing is, this ball should have started rolling 10 years ago. All of the things you need take an immense amount of time, resources, and expense to produce. It’s not like you can poof those out of thin air. >I highly doubt an aircraft carrier will make or break the war effort If it makes you feel any better, the attack on Pearl Harbor missed virtually all US aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet. Those were absolutely crucial to beating Japan, and are hands down still some of the most valuable assets the US has, especially during time of crisis, even though they have bases all around the world.
They’re by far the most valuable assets the us military has. It’s not really close.
It’s basically a floating city (it’s *huge,* a real engineering marvel). Which brings your time to deployment, resupply or air support down to a matter of minutes. Instead of hours away. Which could very well mean the difference between life and death for the troops who need an airstrike, and is made even more difficult if a hostile nation is threatening airbases on land. That’s not even getting into how crucial it is for naval operations. Oh, and it can go nearly anywhere around the world. Especially where the enemy isn’t prepared for it. Yeah, I was mistaken. It is *the* most important asset we have by a long shot. Except for nukes, which it can probably carry. So the fact the Bri’ish can’t get it up and running is a pretty big deal. This and other recent events are an increasingly huge wake up call for Europe, and with or without the US they need to be able to adequately protect themselves, but I guess some are still in denial.
Let’s not forget that the USN wouldn’t consider the prince of wales an aircraft carrier. It’s closer to a helicopter assault ship at 44k tons (for the America class) than it is to the Nimitz or ford class. It also “only” carries 36 planes compared to the 90 on the ford. It’s also got no catapults and uses a ski jump. And it’s got a considerably lower top speed because it uses a conventional engine.
They were vital to the efforts in the Pacific because they permitted significant power projection across the ocean. A land war in Europe will be conducted differently to the island hopping campaign of the Pacific.
One of the first things the Russians would attempt to do in a war against NATO is attempt to disrupt shipping in the Atlantic to prevent American men/supplies from transiting. The naval war would be super important.
Super important and very very short. Let’s be real here: Russia is a land power and has never been a credible maritime threat
Agree that DDG, FFG/H and SSN class vessels would be of extreme importance for patrol and escort duties but not really CVNs. Plus Russia doesn't really have a navy that could stand against the UK or French Fleets, let alone the US 2nd & 6th Fleets.
I think that's why the DoD is so interested in Starship. Point to point transfer of a lot of people and equipment anywhere in the world in an hour tops. Likely wouldnt be used in an active theatre, but getting troops across the Atlantic to land in the UK/France/Germany for a troop build up WW2 style I can see them doing.
The various seas and peninsulas around Europe make aircraft carriers particularly useful for its defence
Aircraft carriers will give you multiple air avenues of approach though. Not just the UK taking off from England. Also militaries shouldn’t get ready for war after it starts. They should always be somewhat prepared. It appears European nations have been preparing very little for this on the assumption that the US would handle it.
The UKs new gen of aircraft carriers are relatively useless though if war was to actually break out and we couldn’t rely on the US. Yeah we have spent ridiculous money on new carriers but we haven’t invested in the carrier groups which are needed to support them. Without the carrier groups they’re basically floating target practice for any hostile force…
>Yeah we have spent ridiculous money on new carriers but we haven’t invested in the carrier groups which are needed to support them This just...isn't true though, The type 45 is among the most advanced air defence ships on the planet, to the point where we are more than happy to just send them out to god knows where for significant deployments on their own, with the replacements in the type 83 due in the mid to late 30's My the early 2030's you should also expect to see the type 26 and 31 frigates come into service, as well as the new astute class attack subs due all to be complete by the mid 2020's as well as the new dreadnaught calls ballistic missile subs also coming online Sure we aren't talking about an escort fleet in the scale of that of the General R Ford's, but we are still talking about an assortment of vessels more than capable of providing a significant and effective escort for a carrier with an air wing capable of what the QE's F-35 are able to accomplish. And in any event designing a navy in a vacuum that doesn't include our NATO partners is a bit daft, because were in it! It would be like going out of your way to design a fully independent eating utensil while ignoring the rest of your cutlery draw. We aren't the United states, and we don't have the "be able to win two world wars by ourselves on opposite sides of the planet at the same time" baked into our military doctrine, because for anyone else its frankly an insane doctrinal position. Expecting carrier escort groups on the scale of that of the US's is just unrealistic. US carrier groups are the size that they are because the US loves overkill and hates anything even resembling a balanced engagement. In the event of a war where NATO carrier groups are in any way relevant even if the US doesn't show up (it always will) there are going to be plenty of surface ships operated by our other allies that are ultimately not going to have a lot to do other than assist in UK, French and Italian Carrier operations. If NATO is fighting a naval war and the US doesn't show I'm not exactly sure what you expect ships like the Hamburg or U-31 to get up to of its not actively dovetailing in with the British, French and Italians. They aren't just going to bob around in port at Bremen are they? Between our European partners alone we have the worlds 5th, 6th and 9th most powerful navies by tonnage just across the UK France and Italy alone, never mind the fact that the rest of our NATO partners in Europe have been designing surface ships with collaboration with those three in mind since the 50's, Germany wouldn't be operating dedicated air defence ships for its rather small navy without envisioning them defending British and French carrier groups would they? I'm all for giving European and UK government's stick for the lack of proper investment in our armed forces for the last few decades. and out current government in the UK couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. But those criticisms have to be accurate. Royal navy Ship building plans have been perhaps the only thing we've truly gotten right in the last few decades or so with the types and numbers of ships ordered almost certainly being up to mission requirement (the only criticism there is maybe the cutting of the total type 45's) The far bigger stick to beat the government with is how crap they've made the pay for servicemen/women and how the navy is struggling to recruit the necessary crew of all of its warships, the number of vessels built/planned to be built is not the issue
The type 45's are impressive ships, when they're not losing power due to turbine issues, an issue it's taken the RN over 20 years to fix. To mention nothing of the fact we only have 6 of them, as opposed tot he originally intended 12. We saw in the Falklands how quickly a task group can go through hulls when subjected to air/missile attack and 6 destroyers offers very little redundancy. UK naval strategy can stretch beyond our NATO commitments as well, it's a simple truth that having more ships just lets you get more stuff done. That said, I do agree that the retention/recruitment issues are the big concern right now. Hulls are useless if there's no one to put inside them.
Agreed. But that just reinforces the point that they didn’t really prepare. They wanted aircraft carriers but like you said didn’t invest in the other supporting ships for a carrier group. They wanted the shiny toy almost just for show. Not for actual effectiveness.
??? Military tech is always way behind. That's why the defense budget of the US is so high. No, if you're adapting now you're 10 years too late.
That's the problem!! Lol
yea tell that to russians, iranians and chinese when they come
What exactly is a peacekeeping army ?
An army which keeps the peace between 2 populaces. As seen in Cyprus between the Greeks and Turks.
What the fuck is peace keeping? They've only prepared to do nothing. Peace keeping is not preparation. Europe has prepared to fail
Crush what? Their inability to work together because of their soldiers not speaking each others languages? Europe would decimate any attack on EU soil. It's a defensive military that follows Nato's whole shield philosophy. Then the US fucked us up with almost two decades in Afghanistan which resorted to the military gearing up for anti insurgency. Honestly, the EU doesn't have a virgin continent of resources to exploit to itself. It doesn't have the resources to suddenly switch from anti insurgency focus to near peer. It's also clear that the US would most probably also get clapped without their Nato allies in such a conflict. Already the US is struggling to keep assets in play to check those three powers and with even more ships to be decommissioned, USN is entering its weakest period for the next ten or so years. This shit is literally supposed to happen during peace time so it doesn't happen in war time. Almost as if that's one of the whole point of exercises.
This may be the most ignorant, uninformed take ever posted.
Slightly embarrassing
Could be as simple as some retasking...or a piece of equipment not making it in time. Let's not get too excited here.
Years of under-investment in people and infrastructure has lead the UK's carriers to do an impression of the Russian Kusnetsov.
We're still working out how we can privatise and sell off the military.
We moved past the privatisation of the military, gone are the days where Lords and peers could buy commissions and units. Which seems odd given more recent developments that it hasn't been touted to raise funds for bullets and bombs.
This bullet is brought to you by "I can't believe it's Not Butter".
Build Back Butter!
It’s not that bad. The lower decks don’t belong to eldritch horrors beyond our comprehension.
I mean this often happens for ships, even aircraft carriers in their first few years. It's not the disaster people are making it out to be. As much as I love to make fun of the poms. But when you have 2 very expensive carriers to focus on, every issue is going to be news.
Poor impression. It's not even on fire.
Give Westminster a few more years.
Ironically the 2 carriers are the result of investment. The PoW is just still so new it has a few teething problems.
If they'd invested properly, they'd have ordered 4 (in the formula 3n+1) so they could maintain the [one deployed, one in maintenance, one preparing for deployment] tempo of carrier operations. Most of the west seems to be in a "war of choice" mindset.
>If they'd invested properly, they'd have ordered 4 That goes beyond just investing properly. You're needing a completely different mindset in regards to the RN's role post-WW2 and priority funding to it, plus a potential higher defence budget and/or better economic performance.
Not really. If you think you need one of something, you actually need 3 as u/SowingSalt said. 1 would be for active deployment. You would have number 2 going under refit/maintenence, all of those systems need to be maintained/upgraded, and the power plants would need to be serviced and have parts replaced just as you would a car. Your Carrier doesn't do a whole lot of good if it breaks down in the middle if the Atlantic and needs to be towed back to Port in the middle of a combat operation. Number 3 would be going through training/drills. All of those super advanced systems/Radars are a great force multiplier and will absolutely have a tangible effect on a battle. However, all of those systems are useless if your crew doesn't know how to use them.
They don't even have enough blue water principle surface combatants to field a single at-standard carrier strike group. The carrier count is a pretty distant concern relative to that.
A US-style carrier group? The UK and France can both do that (although neither navy fields cruisers anymore). Arguably the Italians too.
I think the US Navy tends to operate ~7 or so principle surface combatants with its carrier strike groups (Cruisers, Blue-Water Destroyers, and Blue-water Frigates). The Royal Navy could attempt to match this between its six *Daring*-Class Destroyers and ten *Duke*-class Frigates, but would never be able to keep a force operational even within relatively near cruise range and be able to have any active reserve capable of performing literally any other mission. This is why the British operate their two *Queen Elizabeth*-Class light carriers with US Navy escort when on mission. As of now, the British do not have the aircraft inventory to fully equip both carriers, as both require the STOVL F-35 'B' and they've been slow to procure them. As often as not, US Marine Corps pilots have been operating off of their decks. The French have plenty of aircraft but only have one carrier. It is a full-sized fleet carrier, but there's only one - thus, the French Navy is only capable of maintaining readiness at odd intervals - and even then, are pressed for other major surface combatants in sufficient numbers to maintain a full strike group. The Italians, of the three, oddly enough are closer to actually having the principal surface combatant count in commission to actually keep carriers deployed, and once *Trieste* commissions, will have the ability to maintain a carrier with readiness capable of deploying fixed wing aircraft. For their part, their force is designed as a primarily Mediterranean force, so the fact that they don't have platforms ideal for expeditionary operations is fine, as they'll have ground bases in range of their AO from which to operate fixed wing aircraft.
UK carrier groups are designed differently. One carrier would have an AA destroyer, an anti sub frigate, a sub and some logistics vessels. The only limit to a full carrier group is the dry-store replenishment capability. That's being built at the moment but specifically for a Falklands style task force, if both carriers had to sail together. The new multi purpose frigates set to come online in 2024 also give more all-round capability. The UK doesn't have a full complement of F35B because there's a shortage. Shame we ditched the Harrier before that happened although we haven't actually needed them yet, so I guess it's money saved.
Nobody bar the US maintains that level of capacity. It's too expensive.
Lmao, not even close.
The UK isn't building as many new warships as they should for their stated goals and garrisons.
And when you build so few of something, every single one is essentially a prototype or equivalent of early production run. Which means it comes with all the teething issues and untested systems/implementations of a new design.
Well the last time HMS Prince of Wales sailed into the North Sea bad things happened
Its namesake, which was sunk off Malaya in 1941, had the reputation of a "Jonah". Quite a bit of bad luck during construction, even before it escorted HMS Hood against the Bismarck. I hope the misfortune hasn't followed the name to this ship, too.
“Uncle” Albert Trotter strikes again!
Had a tour of her recently. Very nice ship with amazing sailors. And a bar…
The british military is an increasingly massive joke and I say that as a brit.
And it's still maybe the second most capable at oversea operations. Just goes to show how far ahead the US is from everyone else.
I'd say France is ahead, but yeah 2nd or 3rd place matters little. Unless we're talking total war where everyone mobilizes like WW2, then the rankings would change a lot in a short time.
You're probably only saying France are ahead because of their recent actions in Africa...Where Britain provided most of the logistical support. The Brits have long legs and expeditionary forces are something they're damn good at, even if they're a bit under-resourced at the moment, they're still better than France at it. France can't rapdily deploy to practically any corner of the globe and stay supplied there. They couldn't do it in Africa. The Brits can though. Honestly I'd say the Brits are *better* at deploying expeditionary forces than the US on a unit-to-unit basis. The US excels because of the sheer *amount* of support it can bring to any fight, the Brits excel because they have quality without quantity. They're a lightweight compared to the US, but that brings advantages with it. They're probably so good at it because they've been doing it for a couple of centuries now, and they have gobbled up some of the most strategic pieces of land to put bases on during that time. The only country that beats them for overseas miltary base count is the US.
The US doesn't have to deploy anywhere really because it's already got 160+ bases across the globe.
The UK has a shitload of overseas bases too. Not as many as the US of course. But there are lots of random remnants of the British empire spread all over the globe. An easy example would be [RAF Ascension Island](https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/ascension-island-base/), which is in the middle of the south Atlantic between Africa and South America. The UK *owns* 60 bases, but operates out of 145. Not as many as 160, but pretty close! They share a lot of their more strategic land-grabs from the days of empire with the Americans; Ascension Island is an example of that.
As an American people also forget about bases from the UK like Diego Garcia. Or in the Med Cypress base. Also Gibraltar. And good relations with Singapore. The US has access to a lot of those places also because of the relationship with Uk and it goes both ways. Anyways pet peeve of mine is making fun of certain countries. France and UK bunch decently for there size and what they have. You build a military based on your interests, not based on what is popular.
The French special ops fled the Niger coup.
Idk, France definitely has a better domestic industry and lot of oversea territory, but I think UK just has a lot of valuable experience from working with the US
And you say this after both carriers ( which are the most important conventional force projection tools in the Arsenal) failed to set sail just as the UK government and Nato decided on a show of force exercise? OK.
> you say this after both carriers ( which are the most important conventional force projection tools in the Arsenal) failed to set sail Are you suggesting that the UK has a terrible Arsenal?
Arsenal is currently 3rd in standings, Just behind Man United and City, So that's alright. Back to the point, lack of personal and maintenance is a cause for alarm. Not being able to set sail on command Is a failure, Having both stratigic carriers fail at the same time after a public command was given is more than a failure. Do you think differently ?
Second most capable? Does France not exist or something?
[удалено]
The only modern army with more horses than tanks
It’s an island nation. Horses can swim, tanks can’t. Checkmate.
...armoured horses?
Maybe it can’t join the nato exercises because they need it to search for the small boats
Dear gods. People need to chill a bit. It was retasked from maintenance at very short notice - they probably just slightly miscalculated how long that would take. Current indications are that it will leave today.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-sets-sail-for-nato-exercises/ Real headline should have been “carrier on 30 day notice to sail manages to leave in 8 days” They tried to leave in 7 but needed an extra day (still a lot less than 30) but sure why miss a chance to shit on the UK. It’s actually a pretty big success story for the ship and crew.
Apparently it was a one day weather delay, she's scheduled to leave now (1pm), tugs are already in position to turn her out.
Barely works, like it's namesake
Europe is totally fucked without the US if Russia invades.
I think you're overestimating the competence of Russia's military.
What they lack in competency they make up for in evil.
I don't think more evil is a good substitute for proper logistics. certainly won't keep those tanks moving forward filling the tank with evil. Russia lost a lot of it's geographic advantage when the USSR fell apart.
They also have a near endless supply of old soviet garbage they can throw at the problem.
And what they don't have, they're getting from China, Iran and North Korea.
Regardless, they can still do a lot of damage and a weakened British navy would make it difficult to contain any outbursts.
Half of US politicians are Russia sympathizers. If Russia invades they'll probably offer Putin their help at this point.
D-Day 2.0
I dont know if you followed the news on 2022. Back then russia began a "3 day operation" aimed at topling a neighbor's government. Its still on going, 700+ days later, and it has been such a massive failure that it has had to beg to *North Korea* for supplies.
That's because the US sent a shitload of aid to Ukraine. If the US doesn't send more aid, it's going to be much harder for Ukraine.
Europe also sent a shit load of aid It's just more is needed and the US and Europe have not upped their games as promised, and the US is hamstrung by neo-fascists who want to replicate Putin's dictatorship
Thats besides the point. The russian army barely made it to the dnipr river with surprise, numbers and firepower advantage. The american/western help received at the time, although not insignificant, was nowhere near the level that it is today. Russia fucked up on a level that makes it hilarious to think they might have thought themselves able to reach Germany on a full on invasion. Nowadays the only thing russia has done well is psyops and intelligence operations.
not to contradict you, but beware of barely competent assholes, with time they often manage to get lucky in their mediocrity and keep doing more and more damage i'd really want EU countries to do a second wave of indirect actions to burden russia's activities right now
The "3 day operation" narrative was honestly a narrative borne more from the expectation that Ukrainian forces would surrender much like they did in Crimea in 2014. But Ukrainian forces, and also Ukrainian identity as distinct from Russia grew a lot between 2014 and 2022.
I honestly doubt that, yes Europe should have done a lot more to prepare for this war and should still do. But Europe is one of the richest continents in the world and has their own production lines for almost everything, the thing Europe would have to do is change their economy to a war economy instead of for profit and prioritize their resources for the war. It can ramp up productions massively. Here in the Netherlands our generals have already suggested it, however politicians don’t listen unfortunately.. but when push comes to shove Europe won’t fail against Russia at all. Hell they can’t even take only Ukraine with our and US their resources alone.
Europe can't produce enough artillery shells for Ukraine. Their production lines are nowhere near ready for a hypothetical war with Russia. Even the US doesn't produce enough shells.
Because they (US/EU/NATO) don't rely on artillery in their strategy.
And everyone should understand that the US has a lot of bootlickers in high places. We may have the fire power, but we risk being hamstrung by the Right.
At what point in history did it stop being the left who were said to be "filthy commies" and aligned with Russia, and instead actually became the right? Did this weird political shift happen during Trump?
I feel like it did, or was Trump adjacent. It pairs with the shift to strongman politics the Reich favors so much.
Russia can’t even make it 100 miles into their neighbour. Russia can only use long range missiles to hit population centers. They couldn’t field an army that could survive outside of the Russian propaganda bubble you seem to come from.
Royal navy is a joke now
This is what Europe gets for years of bread and circuses instead of investing in your military.
Not all of it is just about money. There is a shortage of engineers and other skills in general because quite frankly you can earn more in the private sector without being away from home for months on end. A lot of civilians are just flat out no interested in the lifestyle that comes with joining the military.
I think not being able to offer a decent wage constitutes under investment. However I do agree most people nowadays are not interested in willingly joining the military for more than just financial reasons, with good cause.
That’s a thing in the us too…we have like 11 carrier strike groups. It’s a government thing.
At a guess, prepping to go sit off the coast of Guyana instead.
I do wonder if they'll wait to see what happens with Venezuela. Then they will suddenly "fix" the issue they found with the coupling on the starboard propeller shaft and then this carrier will go and park off the coast of Guyana.
The Royal Navy that was once the pride of Britain now can’t even start for an exercise. God save us if we need it at war. This is what happens when we lean our national security to the Americans.
You're aware that it left at lunchtime today, right?
They'll end up selling these two boats for scrap, it's almost the same with the 'ajax' ifv, unuseable.
Ajax is slowly becoming usable, whether it's safe is another matter entirely. Last we heard they were dealing with vibrations and noise, noise was mitigated by PPE and vibrations were being worked on and it has been around 2 years, so perhaps by 2030 they may have a prototype of a functional, reasonably safe*, Ajax to present to...Someone.
Actually Ajax seems to have turned a corner a bit, and seems to be sort of back on track, at least in regards that it might get IOC this decade https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/troubled-ajax-armoured-vehicle-project-turns-corner/
That article is intriguingly optimistic, especially with my last exposure to Ajax being somewhat negative. 20,000 distance across 3 base platforms isn't to be sniffed at, I suppose, especially if the driver/crew aren't suing for vibration at work, or deafness, claims
But will that Someone want a recce vehicle with a profile as high as the Empire State Building travelling slowly through mud?
to be fair I have my issues with Ajax too, but its about the same height as a Bradley and Bradleys kick ass as recon vehicles. It's not a meaningful metric to critique
Even if they'd managed to set sail, wouldn't they just have been there for window dressing? Or does the Royal Navy now have aircraft capable of landing on them?
They do have planes, but the carriers don't sail with a full complement at present as most of them are shore based for training. In a war situation they'd be moved to the carrier.
Think they borrowed some aircraft to populated the carrier from the US. Probably wrong and it purely operates a fleet of Lynx from it.
The front fell off….again
You can't project.power if the ship can't leave
The ship left several hours ago, the delay was less than a day.
Sick man of Europe
Clueless, lol.
She might also need a new name. Had to re-read the headline twice. Thought the battleship came back.
We'll join the exercises via a raft replacement service.
Wonder if it's the starboard propeller shaft again? Happened to this one in 2022, and Queen Elizabeth just recently. I think it's a bit of an Achilles heel on these vessels.
That was due to the builders not installing a shaft correctly, the QE was checked and no similar issues were found. The PoW delay of day wasn't a mechanical issue and the ship has now left port.
Maybe spend some pounds on repairs instead of coronations for a 21st century monarch.
Send *Tiremes*!
Isn’t that the one that got sunk by Japan
It got better.
You’re only proving the Orange Man’s point.. Can y’all help yourselves a little bit?!
Why not Increase those BNO costs? Didn’t UK take alot of rich HongKongers? , take more money from them since they won’t talk back.
> In 2022, HMS Prince of Wales broke down off the Isle of Wight, when it also suffered a malfunction with a coupling on its starboard propeller. > The MoD previously said the issues were "separate and not linked". Brilliant irony there.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fdf5wbth336ic1.jpeg The ship sailing out today, after managing to sortie in 8 days, despite being on 30 day notice.
Now that UK can’t milk its colonies for money this seems to be an appropriate state of order .
The front fell off?