Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Why aircraft carriers are still the go-to for projecting power" video.

  1. They don't need the UKs help, but they certainly want it. Extra assets are extra assets.
    4
  2. Not redundant, but maybe they'll change. Battleships went but we still have cruisers. Similarly it might not be worth all the risk in one place that a supercarrier represents but a ship carrying aircraft still fulfils a needed role.
    3
  3. @charlesbrightman4237  that way you describe is more like a mine. Maybe there is a good hybrid, but you might also be getting the downside of both.
    2
  4. It just tells you about the UK military.
    2
  5. Extra weight put on smaller wars we actually fight rather than the potential big war (that might go nuclear anyway). You get more sorties out of two big rather than four small carriers but more redundancy with the small. Also chances are we'd only have got 3 smaller anyway.
    1
  6.  @charlesbrightman4237  that just sounds like subs with extra steps? It might work but it's the same basic battle detection.
    1
  7. @charlesbrightman4237  and that might be the problem, the cost of a sub to do a mines job.
    1
  8. The US would be sucked into a wider war, better to make that clear-up front and try to prevent it happening.
    1
  9.  @SCscoutguy  they looking at the next order of 26 on top the the current 48 order. They've always avoiding saying a final number.
    1
  10. No, we have two part empty carriers. Empty is a joke, part empty is effectively just a smaller carrier, still very useful.
    1
  11. They can, big mostly just means more. But it also has advantages on takeoff/landing weight.
    1