General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

David Houseman
BFBS Forces News
comments

Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Up Close To Britain’s Most Powerful Warship: HMS Queen Elizabeth | Forces TV" video.

@Pebb86 how's our royalty holding us back, it's just a figurehead.
19
It doesn't. The advanced nature of QE is best demonstrated by the fact it needs half the crew for a larger vessel. It can also take more jets and those jets are more advanced.
5
@FallenPhoenix86 you don't pay for them, they are paid from the crown estate.
4
@davidrobertsemail the military ignored Cameron changing to catapults and continued with the STOVL plan which they chose in the first place off the back of the Harrier.
3
We have an AEW aircraft, its Merlin crowsnest. It may not be a capable but it won't cost us 1bn for catapults and then 1bn for the Hawkeye fleet. That means we can keep two carriers. France is also supposed to have two carriers...
3
@danlugo4365 that would be mad but it isn't true.
3
Even the US has 45k tonnes ship run the same, Russia 55k.
2
@ThePalaeontologist Dreadnought wouldn't do much, it's still on the drawing board. Vanguard however...
2
@davidrobertsemail a carrier group has 2 frigates and 2 destroyers. That leaves 15 left, how can't we have any elsewhere?
2
@keithstirton7049 its named after a ship built before the current queen was born.
2
@ULSTERISBRITISH EU = economic organisation. NATO = military organisation. You've named lots of NATO based deployments and direct government to government projects like the Eurofighter but not EU ones. Try learn what the EU is?
2
@davidrobertsemail catapults aren't strictly better, they put a lot more wear in the aircraft, are more dangerous, it easier for an issue to stop all flights etc. But also they cost more which is a military consideration not just a political one because that money can be spent elsewhere. Is a catapult better than 10 more jets for example?
2
Aster isn't particularly old and is already being onward developed. But honestly hypersonic manoeuvring missiles are claimed by the Russian propaganda machine and not much else.
2
In what sense is an aircraft carrier not a warship?
2
1) How is a carrier not a warship? And it offensive capability comes from it's airwing not other naval vessels. 2) That's not rumoured in the slightest, it just heading to test British F35 on-board.
2
Of course we'd use the fighters and not say the helicopters for humanitarian relief. A what the hell is a guy on the back of truck doing to a ship a hundred miles off shore? You comment was basically "if we use this vessel the worst way possible its not very good".
2
@TheMrBennjay a carriers weapons are it's aircraft, and that's the whole point of a carrier strike group, the offensive power of the carriers weapons, its not a limited capability, it's a massive one. The other vessels are just support. If you send a carrier to war without an escort and not flying a CAP you deserve to have it sunk, but no one does. You said it will ONLY carry Helicopters, which given we already have jets, have conducted jet trials and are heading for more jet training is straight up dumb.
2
Ian Brown I'm not justify it, I'm not claiming it's right to sell them weapons. I'm pointing out the utter stupidity of your claim the Yemen crisis is due to the UK.
2
Ian Brown so nothing to do with carriers. Also your description is blatantly wrong, the crisis would have happened with or without British weapons. Other weapons would have worked as well.
2
Ian Brown Whats the link between Carriers and Yemen?
2
Anti ship missiles aren't new, as they progress so do defences.
2
@msquinn225 and one of there carriers cost more than both of ours.
2
Russian jets aren't STOVL.
2
The alternative to a big war is being quickly conquered.
2
@PepRex Where do you get 70s? The latest type 23s were commissioned in the 2000s. But if we run by your logic the US only has a couple if carriers. Shocking.
2
Because a super carrier flies 432 jets?
2
@Trambo1997 aviation fuel?
2
@Trambo1997 in a protracted war nuclear carriers need a constant supply of aviation fuel and munitions.
2
Why not, even to most basic of spy networks could get this information, you won't be hiding it from any one but the general public.
2
The decision process was the ships were built around the jets. So these were built with 36 jets in mind. So say you decide to split it as 3 x 24 in stead of 2 x 36. The problem is you need some looking after the fleet. So say 12 look after the fleet. That then means the 24 jet ship only attacks with 12 compared to the 36 ship with 24. So you are getting only half the power projection for 2/3 the price.
1
@jamesstewart7224 The west had already being attacking ISIS for a year before Russia intervened in Syria, and even then Russia was keener on attacking the moderate rebels than ISIS (as they knew the was was doing that part). That is not turning a blind eye.
1
How are they targeting it when it's hundreds of miles over the horizon?
1
@qiyuxuan9437 ships maybe bigger, but they are harder to identity against the background of the sea rather than open air. Missile radar are very short range.
1
@qiyuxuan9437 what a very long distance. At 200 miles a plane should have already been engaged by the carriers jets. And if your launching blind your very open to decoys, disruption or just no longer being where you expect.
1
@para7843 why do you judge it as the US using our carrier rather than the UK using there jets? Why aren't they our dog? In truth it's neither, we're partners.
1
@para7843 the US buys 15% of the F35 parts from us, that's more than we spend on ours. The F35 is a net export for the UK. I would be very unhappy if we gave up carrier capability, I get the same impression from navy people. The most similar navy to us, France has carrier capability. Why do you think we are building them for the US?
1
@qiyuxuan9437 if your using aircraft that's what carrier are designed to fight. That wouldn't be a flaw in the concept of carriers, just your jets nor being good enough.
1
@Derpaherpa123 A carrier strike group is many ships, a carrier is one. The US Navy is vast but thats nothing like your first post was saying. You were comparing to 1 us carrier. Which is why a pointed out how dumb your statement was.
1
@Derpaherpa123 no that isn't dumb but you said we needed 10 more QE to match 1 US carrier, which is dumb.
1
Likely very. Even if it was vulnerable against a top tier enemy we don't tend to fight them.
1
@FallenPhoenix86 4>2 so happy days.
1
VIPICCB6 we need 2 destroyers for escort.
1
@PepRex from 20% of the world population to less than 1%. You cut cloth according to your situation. But where do you get 12 ships?
1
@johnthatcher2349 over the horizon radars exist but detection is different to targeting, they use a much longer wave length. But the very essence of militrary technology is that its a race between attack and defence. Anti missile technology is also advancing.
1
How do you target it hundreds of miles over the horizon?
1
French carrier? Why do you think a system you have to reset is better than just saying go to the jets? F35B isn't rejected in anyway. The USMC have dozens.
1
The designed to take a missile hit or 2. And used so as not to be hit.
1
@nicolasbocchino3761 US F18 can't land in it, but USMC F35Bs can, along with Italian or Japanese, or other nations that are looking at the F35B. And those can't just land on any ship as the downward thrust will ruin the deck. Cross decking may be higher without catapults. With the size of the run way and the ski jump take off weight restrictions aren't that relevant.
1
@nicolasbocchino3761 spending money for support of an air craft your not actually going to use seems a bigger mistake. If the F35B fails the carrier will need a massive overhaul, spend the money then. But that would also leave all the US's amphibious carriers without a jet and the more than a hundred F35Bs they have as useless, not going to happen.
1
@nicolasbocchino3761 The US might have multiple options, other countries won't, as is normal. Invincibles only flew Harriers.
1
@Blob B there are times when two dudes in a rowing boat might be able to get within a few hundred yards. Like in a friendly harbour.
1
You can be sure of that, your looking at hundreds of kg warheads to do significant damage to her.
1
@msquinn225 why's it a nuclear age? Most of the US fleet is diesel and the UK has had nuclear vessels (subs) for over half a century, its nothing new. Nuclear isn't efficient for our carriers.
1
@constantinvaldor3742 This is the second time its visiting the US. It's a first in class, they take a while to make sure everything works properly.
1
I agree Tridents more powerful, but you can't say take away it jets and it's useless, thats its point. Take away tridents missiles and it's useless. (Though neither is true, a helicopter carrier and a torpedo sub both have uses)
1
@Makeyourselfbig well you entirely missed the point and went off on a rant. If you take away the defining element of an object its not going to be good at what it designed for. Why are you even talking about it? As for carriers in the Royal Navy they they give us power projection. This may not be against the strongest nations, there Trident is keeping the peace but there's 193 nations, take away the 5-10 actually capabke navies and you still have 183 nations they're useful against.
1
When it's not fighting its good practice with the helicopters.
1
@constantinvaldor3742 it started it's sea trials in 2017. That ain't just out of the shop.
1
It had a burst pipe, a bad one, but its not a long term issue.
1
@TheMrBennjay I know what a carrier strike group is. That was my whole point, the other vessels are there to support the carrier. If the carriers offence was weak why would you spend all those resources supporting it?
1
@TheMrBennjay as a missile is only an offensive capability when fired, what's your point. You won't explain because you can't, a carrier is a ship built for war. A warship. The F35 program has issues, but the question isn't if, but how many. We already have 17 jets.
1
We only have a few frigates/ destroyers to far for it it be a issue
1
@Batman Summer protesting against Trump is not protesting against America. He's an absolute bell end.
1
@forfun5238 what's a few salvos because a carrier group has over a hundred missiles designed to shoot them down? Also there range is shorter than an f35s, never mind missiles fired from F35s.
1
@forfun5238 urm... we are talking a carrier group, it has eyes in the sky, so your horizon talk is a bit irrelevant.
1
@forfun5238 that just sound like a tactically issue, ie use your awacs as a tall mast rather than a high altitude asset.?
1
The EU doesn't need our military because the EU isn't a military organisation. NATO might need our military, we aren't leaving that.
1
@studinthemaking Theres no point in going faster than your fleet plus America class is 20+knots
1
The Lightning force is a joint one. It lets us deploy a larger force from the most appropriate platform, carrier or land.
1
I know we have some good relations with the Five powers agreement. I hope we can put into port in many more friendly nations.
1
Actually like most ships, it's named after a previous ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the queen that repelled the Spanish Armada so has decent claim anyway. Churchill had a class SSNs named after him, I'm sure he'll get another ship sometime, Monty was army he won't get one.
1
RE fan urm, you know typhoons don't fly off carriers ...
1
@ThePalaeontologist I was wrong on the drawing board. But it's odd to respond to UK most powerful warship with one that won't be launched for years.
1
Waterybint * F35? No we haven't.
1
@jimmymc10021 yes, it isn't at full strength yet. But that's not what you doubted.
1
@davidrobertsemail half the fleet is 9.5, 4 for the carrier, how can't we have any elsewhere?
1
You doubt wrongly, as this video listed there a lots of helicopters that will fly from her.
1
@davidrobertsemail that's why I halved the 19 as you said.
1
@davidrobertsemail type 31s are being built because those frigates elsewhere don't need the capability of a type 26. Rather than the type 31 not being a frigate the real change is the type 26 is not a frigate, it's a destroyer. The type 31 will stack up with the 5 type 23 we already have with no towed array sonar.
1
@davidrobertsemail The F35B doesn't have a low payload and range it massively outstrips the Harrier. It's lower than an F35C, that doesn't make it low. If your comparing to the US we come up short. But that's a dumb comparison, we not in the same weight class. Try look at France.
1
@davidrobertsemail type 45s are still destroyers, that's the point type 26 are type 45 size, and they are looking at using the type 26 hull for the type 4X, the 45 replacement. We do need to keep up, thus the 26. But frigates do a lot of duty that isn't matching against major navies, the 31 will cover those duties. With more ships we could do more but this started with us not being able to doing anything else when we send out a carrier group. That's not true.
1
@davidrobertsemail I don't think the US is wrong to go with catapults but they can spend 12bn on a carrier and make 11 of them, they are working in a different scale. We are gearing up for a carrier that can take anything none US out, and we are getting two.
1
@davidrobertsemail we need them to do what? We don't need them to defend ourselves, our armed forces are expeditionary not defensive. We can send a carrier group across the world while defending ourselves, that seems a good level of capability to me. If we can't be training with the Japanese, saying hi to the Australian, teaching the Indians and pissing off the the Russian is the black sea at the same time I can live without that.
1
@theancientsancients1769 I'm not assuming a type 31 can go head to head with a capable vessel, I hope if runs away (If we're at war). At best in a fleet of will add some extra CAMM. But there are lots jobs that aren't fighting that we use frigates for. All out destroyers and frigates are escorts. They aren't there to fight alone but to protect others. Astutes and F35s will do the fighting.
1
@sensibledriver933 unless you have very new information, no. Last I heard a preferred bidder was rumoured for DSEI next week.
1
@davidrobertsemail how does that illustrate how badly planned they were, they were planned as STOVL carriers. (Though you can add an electric powered steam generator, kettle anyone?)
1
@davidrobertsemail we didn't make them smaller because we designed the ships to make the most out of the jets, rather than trying to make the most of a ships with the jets. Given we'll spend more on jets this seems the right way round to me.
1
It not built for humanitarian aid, but it will fullfill that role if and when the need arrives.
1
@Ab-km9tr what do I need to be awakened to? Do you think the UK is a cartoon villain that couldn't conduct a humanitarian mission?
1
@Ab-km9tr you think Britain has never conducted a humanitarian mission? I has done wrong, but it hasn't only done wrong.
1
How do you get 27? and 2 is just behind.
1
Yes it does.
1
@MajorRoadAhead how does refuel frequency link to service life?
1
@BigRed2 how big are your babies? Even compared the US it's 70% the displacement and looks a similar size on photos. It's bigger than anyone else's.
1
@BigRed2 I led with displacement. But looks is a reasonable way to judge size. By what metric do you think this 280m Behemouth is a baby?
1
"Perfection is a achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" France added a lot of bells and whistles, France has 1 carrier.
1
@RR-us2kp QE means we can fly jets, thats what a carrier is for. Keep it simple l. And France has basically the same number of escorts as us, but less top end capability. Ie. They only built two horizon. Our 2 carriers are so we always have one available. France just spent 18 months with CDG refueling.
1
@MajorRoadAhead not having all your planes available makes my pount even stronger. Lose 1/6 of your jets, the 24 does to 20, only 8 for offence, the 36 goes to 30, 18 for offence more than double. And lifetime idea is like US carriers, much longer than normal ships. We've never built anything this big before so our precedents aren't so useful.
1
The EU wasn't stopping bu8lding our forces, it was and still is public will to pay for it.
1
@TheUncertainKill you have carriers over 40 years old and Ford isn't operational yet so 10 and very old sounds arguable to me.
1
@TheUncertainKill Nimitz commission 75, Eisenhower 77? How's that not 40 years. What deployments has Ford been on then?
1
Capable of, not will. She's a big lass.
1
@MajorRoadAhead is your point that you could fit 36 jets in a 45k tonnes ship? If so then you could but your not getting the most out of your jets. The Royal Navy thought was the wrong way round. You do after all spend less on the ship than the jets.
1
What makes you think it won't have jets when we already have 17 and have just ordered 17 more?
1
@Boric78 138 is the FAA + RAF number, a carrier needs 36, and would still be effective at 24. We might not get 138, that's completely different to not having enough for a carrier.
1
@Boric78 36 is what the carriers are designed for. Having more fighter doesn't change that. And even 24 F35B makes the carrier more capable than the Kuztenov or Liaoning so no they wouldn't only last 30 minutes. We've already ordered the next 17, so no it won't be just 17. And we'll continue buying them. 50% extra cost just means we'd only buy 2/3 the numbers ie. 90.
1
@Boric78 Ford is 75 aircraft, not 75 fighters. That includes ASW helicopter, Awacs etc. and normal deployment is lower. But yes they are a lot bigger. 003 maybe be as big, and it may get a capable jet (J15s aren't scary), China does have 20x our populations and many times our economy. That only leaves 191 countries against whom they might be useful and that's not even counting coalitions.
1
@Boric78 yeah, not the best time politically. And I don't think we'll make the most of the carriers. But they will be useful and have jets.
1
Quite a bit, but they didn't armour it like the US ones. The worry is the kinetic energy of hypersonic missiles act like a massive warhead to do more damage.
1
War can be the lesser evil, its up to politicians to fight the right wars. The military is simply the tool they use.
1
@andrewleonard475 so much wrong with that comment but the bit that stood out is the internet bit. Do you really think the F35 needs a constant internet connection to Lockheed to fly? How stupid do you think professional armed forces personnel are?
1