Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "HMS Queen Elizabeth: Carrier's Russian jet run-ins" video.

  1.  @spamuraigranatabru1149  they have not stopped buying F35's, they're still on order it's just a slow process getting them, although you're probably right about a third carrier not happening anytime soon unfortunately simply due to lack of money. Does look like there's gonna be a change of plans and both the carriers we DO have are gonna be capable of operating simultaneously though instead of only one at a time, since Prince Of Wales is getting her own seperate air-group
    27
  2. We do have land-based long-range tanker aircraft you know and bases all over the world to launch them from, not everything actually needs to be ON the carrier to work with it
    16
  3.  @NathansWargames  they can carry a lot more than that in an emergency situation mate, these carriers are BIG haha, that's just for peacetime multirole configuration i.e. making room for lots of helicopters, but if need be there's room for about 70 aircraft on that thing at max capacity. Even if that wasn't the case though, even the Russians or Chinese will agree that two 65,000 ton carriers escorted by full strike-groups and each carrying 36 F35B Lightning II stealth-fighters, 14 assorted helicopters and the option of drones to boot? is nothing to joke about whatsoever. I just wish the process of procurement was quicker so these ships already had them
    10
  4. Oh you "would imagine" that would you
    8
  5.  @L3gionMusic  which is what IS happening, the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow is coming along nicely now and the Type 31 frigates have just started construction too; and there's new classes of destroyer, submarine and yet more frigates on the drawing board for the not-too-distant future
    7
  6. "Back In The Game"
    7
  7.  @henryvagincourt4502  that's because in the Falklands all our Handley-Page Victor tankers were relay-refueling Vulcans haha, just because you didn't see them didn't mean they weren't there
    7
  8.  @iracingrookie3301  Tempest won't be carrier-capable, it'll be a land-based replacement for the Typhoon
    5
  9.  @mythos5809  and the Taliban were the ones that got trashed in Afghanistan, the only thing that defeated NATO in that war was Joe Biden
    5
  10. The question should be "can a Russian hypersonic missile actually work long enough to get anywhere near it?"
    5
  11.  @theancientsancients1769  they should've just bought HMS Ocean when we put her up for sale, outbid the Brazilians and kept her (technically) still in the Queen's service, we'd have been a lot happier to see her go if that happened, and if the Japanese heli-carriers can handle F35's so could she have. Shoulda woulda coulda
    5
  12.  @henryvagincourt4502  you're actually entirely right about tanker and AEW versions of V-22 Ospreys being perfect for the Queen Elizabeth class though, I actually couldn't agree more about that, tell the MOD not YouTube haha; in the meantime however we can make do with long-range land-based tanker aircraft flying from overseas bases like I said, that or either a Merlin helicopter or one of these new Taranis or Vixen drone designs, something like that that'll be able to operate off the carrier and do in-air refueling
    5
  13.  @gazza7uk646  I assume he means tanker aircraft for in-air refueling the F35's
    5
  14.  @petesy03  yeah you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
    5
  15.  @TheBooban  no idea about Canada but Australia has their Canberra-class assault-ships they're already considering trying to make small carriers out of
    5
  16.  @berathajaya8020  which is what's happening, take a look at how HMS Glasgow's coming along
    5
  17.  @mythos5809  actually a bullet can definitely be stopped, it's called body armour? As for these hypersonic missiles I remain to be convinced that they're as effective in real life as the Russians and Chinese claim they are
    4
  18.  @mythos5809  as for body armour well the latest ceramic-plate stuff can definitely stop 5.56 bullets alright, and ships tend to be rather tougher still, especially aircraft carriers, check out the videos of the US Navy's own difficulty in deliberately sinking one of their own old decommissioned ones
    4
  19.  @mythos5809  again, they can't actually use nukes though. They can still fire Hypersonic missiles but only conventional warhead ones, assuming they actually want to survive the retaliation
    4
  20.  @mythos5809  and if China fires Hypersonics that AREN'T nuclear, yeah if they hit it enough times they could theoretically sink a carrier; wouldn't get it in one shot though, and I bet you Aegis or Sea-Ceptor would stand a chance of blocking some of them. And that's just right now mind, as Britain is currently working on something called the Dragonfire laser-defence system for the not-too-distant-future (and again, that's just Britain, who knows what everyone else has in mind)
    4
  21.  @iracingrookie3301  great name but another iteration of HMS Ark Royal is more likely if ever a third does get built
    4
  22.  @abrahamdozer6273  never claimed I was, and nothing specific, guess I just automatically suspected Russian paid-troll the moment I read your comment, but apologies if I was mistaken
    3
  23.  @mythos5809  as for the Hypersonic missiles themselves well if China ever DOES actually dare to try using them, (A) they wouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn with the things and (B) they would be using relatively small conventional warheads, not nuclear, they fire one actual nuke and that's WW3 and the end of China because Mutually Assured Destruction is still a thing, and they know it
    3
  24.  @mythos5809  what if I'm wrong about China being willing to risk the end of the world as we know it, and of their own country's existence, just to sink a few aircraft carriers? Well then the answer would have to be the fact Britain alone has over two hundred Trident SSBN's we can fire from Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, and good luck finding and destroying THOSE before they find and destroy you. And that's just Britain, who is a part of NATO, as is America. If China is willing to risk using Hypersonic nukes then yes, assuming they can actually hit what they're aiming at with the things lol then theoretically they could take out any hostile warships they want. There just wouldn't be many Chinese left to actually celebrate it afterwards
    3
  25.  @NathansWargames  there's more coming, and surely quality beats quantity in most circumstances in modern warfare anyway
    3
  26.  @nigelradcliffe7613  I meant actually launching one AT a real opposing ship as a real attack, that's one step they've definitely yet to take
    3
  27.  @mythos5809  as he said satellite guidance is not something China would be able to rely on for long in a real war with America, as they know all about Chinese spacial guiding of their missiles and have developed missiles of their own to take out those satellites
    3
  28.  @georgebarnes8163  you plainly are unaware of the original design ideas for these ships and regardless I never claimed they already had the power-plants suitable for the job, just that the conversion was possible or that some form of additional steam-generator could be fitted. HMS Prince Of Wales is launching small target-drones as we speak, using a special additional catapult rig mounted on the deck, although they're not stopping there, the far larger and more powerful Vixen drone is planned for future carrier-operations, something that will need a substantially larger launching system
    3
  29.  @georgebarnes8163  we have ROYAL AIR FORCE ones, there is no Royal Navy ones that's true although you seem to be under the rather strange delusion that just because the Navy has none that means there's none at all? As for the carrier who said anything about EMALS, I just meant that with a substantial refit they could be rebuilt with relatively small old-style steam catapults and arrestor wires, the sort of thing HMS Ark Royal had in the 1960's & 70's for launching F4 Phantoms and Blackburn Buccaneers (which was another conventionally-powered British carrier that was substantially smaller and less powerful). CATOBAR is actually what the Queen Elizabeth class were originally designed and built with in mind and the structure of the deck and immediately below it IS made to withstand it and there's space for the equipment. It's possible in fact that in the not-too-distant-future something along those lines will still happen, though less drastic a change, as there's a desire to operate large non-VTOL Vixen drones from these carriers, although there probably won't be an angled deck fitted and modifications will simply be made to the existing inline deck
    3
  30.  @spamuraigranatabru1149  more like an eighth of her capacity lol, 18 jets out of the 36 she'd normally carry and the 50 or 60 she has capacity for, just enough to have something to actually fight with should the need arise and to show off on her flight-deck in the meantime
    3
  31.  @anoopkl4u  there's enough in the Royal Navy for a damn carrier group mate, enough for TWO if necessary with plenty to spare. Oh there was a Dutch frigate and an American destroyer tagging along sure, and some of the planes on the carrier are American to help make up the numbers, but they were just welcome very helpful additions rather than vital; everything else in that Strike Group's British- an aircraft carrier, a nuclear attack submarine, two destroyers, two frigates and two support ships, with one of the Type 45 destroyers unfortunately having to drop out because of engine trouble yeah, but that was the only major problem the Strike Group's HAD; and sure the Royal Navy's short on ships overall but those we DO have are top-notch, and we're building more as we speak
    2
  32.  @waynemongo  that's a bit far-fetched lol, although some kind of chest-rig holding a gun might work perhaps? Y'know like the stabilising rigs sometimes used for cameras
    2
  33.  @pieterveenders9793  we'll see about that won't we, besides which we haven't actually left yet
    2
  34.  @tams805  we already are building more frigates, the first Type 26 is already nearing completion; no-one's suggesting we can or are trying TO build a third carrier, although that IS because of money to actually build her like I said, if we had to I'm sure by the time she WAS built that a crew for her could be found, either by transferring the crew from something else that's just been decommissioned or by calling up the Naval Reserves or a combination of both. However it's a moot point as there just isn't a third being built either way, not for the immediate foreseeable future at least, hell we'll be lucky to keep the two we have as I'm sure some penny-pincher in Parliament is already clamouring to sell HMS Prince Of Wales as we speak
    2
  35.  @abrahamdozer6273  Sounds like more of Trudeau's genius policies there. Oh well the Royal Canadian Navy have always been good at just making do with whatever they can get, and sadly they're gonna need to be. Should've just bought the old HMS Ocean off us when we sold her instead of Brazil, she could probably handle F35's just fine and it'd have been good for her still to be in the Queen's service, but oh well
    2
  36.  @georgebarnes8163  need is not the same as capability, we don't have the money, manpower or political will to build a third right now. Nearly half the planes aboard Queen Elizabeth are RAF right now and the rest are US Marine pilots & planes yes but under British overall command, and there's more RAF ones to come, and the ones Prince Of Wales has just gotten aboard are ALL British ones. As for the whole Catobar thing that's what those "taxi service" carriers were originally supposed to have, and actually are still capable of being converted to having, the money just wasn't there, 'ramp-carriers' are just cheaper and a lot less complex to make; oh and the Royal Navy has no fixed-wing aircraft of any sort right now and even if it did they wouldn't be the ones actually making them, the RAF does own & fly their F35B's but it's Lockheed-Martin building them
    2
  37.  @eyeofthetiger6002  sadly not, be a far better world if we were able to
    2
  38.  @mythos5809  as for the Taliban winning, they won because the enemy they were fighting suddenly changed from tough, disciplined, battle-hardened professional British & American soldiers, with overwhelmingly superior firepower & air-superiority, to whatever the hell that sad corrupt cowardly mess they called the Afghan Army was supposed to be, and the Taliban promptly steamrolled 'em; again though, that was the Afghan Army and their government, that was not America and that was certainly not Britain, the Taliban only "defeated" America and Britain due to a certain President (and to a lesser extent a certain almost-as-incompetent Prime Minister)
    2
  39.  @camhunt7310  we've three not five, HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and RFA Mount's Bay
    2
  40.  @abrahamdozer6273  no-one's cutting any holes in anything
    2
  41. And we choose to disagree
    2
  42.  @smith5796  we shall see haha
    2
  43.  @madcat8099  for now that is- look up the proposals for the not-too-distant-future Vixen drones...
    2
  44.  @danielwhyatt3278  sadly we don't have the money
    2
  45. Training, probably for either familiarisation or pilot-rescue
    2
  46.  @joecater894  carrier: lots of planes and helicopters wherever you need them that are launched from a ship that's already protected by existing frigates, submarines and destroyers. Nonetheless I agree we need more, and more ARE being built, HMS Glasgow, the first Type 26 frigate is nearing completion as we speak
    2
  47. Who was poking who, don't recall seeing the Brits doing any poking, China sure but not the Russians, the Russians were coming to poke the Lion if anything
    2
  48.  @hilldoggydogg635  nothing soggy about good fish & chips if they're done right and eaten quick enough
    2
  49. If only they WERE backpacks, then those things might actually be useful. Sadly they're attached to the arms so it means the soldier using it can't actually use a gun at the same time, and they're therefore pretty damn useless unfortunately
    2
  50.  @spamuraigranatabru1149  just to help make up the numbers due to the agonisingly slow process of both getting these F35's and training up pilots to fly them (and, in particular, to fly them to and from carriers). It's getting there though, slowly but surely, yeah there's 10 US Marine ones on Queen Elizabeth but there's 8 RAF ones too with more at home ready to join them when the Strike Group returns, plus another four on Prince Of Wales now
    2
  51. @Drew Peacock we shall see. Just because there's no tanker aircraft on the carrier herself (for the moment) doesn't mean we can't in-air refuel those F35's, Britain's got a substantial fleet of land-based long-range tanker aircraft and bases all over the world to launch them from, not everything actually needs to be on the ship itself. There's also the possibility of large drones being launched from these carriers in the not-too-distant future though, the "Vixen" program, which is believed will include a tanker variant
    1
  52. @Drew Peacock as for the Kessler Effect (thanks for making me waste time having to Google that because I had no idea what the hell that even was because I don't read many scientific journals from the 70's), pretty sure the fragments from one more missile and one more satellite won't make much more difference to the orbiting scrapyard already up there than what the new space-race between Nasa and China will be putting up there soon enough anyway
    1
  53.  @kevinshort3943  still are talking about that and it won't be so "mini". Look up the Vixen drone system
    1
  54.  @damedusa5107  well while I agree that'd have been amazing to see there just was no such "Sea-Typhoon" that got far enough along in development to ever see a carrier's flight-deck, one way or the other, and the Tempest is years away, the Harrier's too old now and we knew the F35 was available, modern, worked and would fly from our carriers, and in most respects has the edge over the Rafale, the only other real carrier-option (Rafale's faster and probably better in a dogfight but the F35 is Stealth and has better radar & BVR missiles, that and we don't really want French planes anyway)
    1
  55. @Drew Peacock seem to be managing ok so far with bombing ISIS and chasing off naughty Russians, which 9 times out of 10 is all that's expected of them
    1
  56.  @Odysseuss.  ok, this new carrier program gives the UK value for money? Lol. I needless to say completely disagree with you about the F35, and probably about the QE-class carrier program overall, but you're entitled to your opinion and I can already see I've no chance of changing your mind on the matter, so think whatever you want to think
    1
  57.  @CH-pv2rz  we're not, we're operating two, the second air-group is Prince Of Wales's until such time as it's decided to send them elsewhere, and I can expect that because if the Yanks can do it so can we
    1
  58. @Drew Peacock as for ordnance look up "F35 beast mode" sometime
    1
  59.  @georgebarnes8163  it is not the end of the story at all, the Royal Marines do beach assault exercises from RFA ships all the time and just because they're in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary doesn't make them quote "merchant ships"?
    1
  60. How about North Korea tries violating ours?
    1
  61.  @elcormoran1  65 and who's expecting them to be
    1
  62.  @georgebarnes8163  rather depends on your definition of "assault ship" doesn't it, and yeah I forgot about the other RFA Bay-class ships, he's right there's either five or just one depending on what you count as an assault-ship and on whether you're only including presently fully-active vessels
    1
  63.  @abrahamdozer6273  fair enough
    1
  64.  @mythos5809  what I'm saying is the plain and simple truth, you can refuse to accept that all you want but I know I am in the right here 🙂
    1
  65.  @mythos5809  as for the United States being unimportant lol, then why hasn't China invaded Taiwan yet
    1
  66. @Drew Peacock yes and China declaring war on America and the rest of NATO in the first place wouldn't be very sensible either, but the Communist Chinese're not what I'd call the most sensible of people lol
    1
  67. @Drew Peacock if that were true about a small tactical nuke used in anger not causing WW3, then one would've already BEEN used in anger somewhere in the world in one of the thousands of conflicts in the last 80 years don't you think
    1
  68. @Drew Peacock 1985, USAF F15-A Eagle, ASAT missile, plane shot down a satellite. That was 35 years ago, don't you think that if they could already do it back then things might've advanced a little since. As for "Kinzhal" who knows about a completely untested unproven weapon like that, but anything you and I know about that the Russians or Chinese have the Americans and other Western powers will know about too, so if there IS an unstoppable weapon there you can bet someone will be working on it
    1
  69.  @stephenlamb9008  we shall see what we shall see won't we. Before you get too high on your horse of moral superiority here though, just bear in mind the only way such a war would happen AT ALL is if China starts it by either invading Taiwan or by attacking a foriegn ship in what they call "their" waters
    1
  70. @Drew Peacock every single proxy war during the Cold War might've been supposedly between non-nuclear countries but each side was backed by bigger countries that were very much nuclear, and if you honestly think a nuclear attack wouldn't immediately result in a retaliation in kind which would in turn result in yet more retaliation, escalation, more escalation and eventually World War 3, you're frankly either delusional, a true religious believer or just a lot more optimistic than me, so either way good for you lol
    1
  71. @Drew Peacock maybe stop with the constant quote-marks if you don't want to seem like QUITE so much of an arrogant little know it all by the way, just a suggestion, because that's all you've achieved here rather than actually proving me wrong or changing my mind about anything
    1
  72. @Drew Peacock how is my point "moot" if the war was really one between the two superpowers BACKING the smaller countries rather than truly between the smaller countries themselves, whatever those smaller countries might've thought was going on? You don't think America wanted to use tactical nukes in Vietnam? They DEFINITELY did in Korea, MacArthur got himself fired over his constant demands TO do so
    1
  73. @Drew Peacock it would be a World War because NATO is a thing, unlike China and Russia we actually have something called "allies worth a damn", for better or for much, much worse- maybe try looking up how the network of alliances in Europe before World War One ended up working out for everyone
    1
  74. @Drew Peacock I replied because my happening to not know who some hippie scientist in another country from 40 years ago I never heard of before was doesn't automatically mean I'm "not very bright" about anything else, you're the one who brought it up because you were clearly running out of sensible arguments to make, as all ignorant brainwashed trolls eventually do, I was keeping on responding anyway because I was 100% in the right about everything I was saying and unlike you I knew I could back it up
    1
  75. @Drew Peacock it's a waste of time if you're the one trying to make me learn it because frankly I have no respect whatsoever for you or anything you have to say and you're the one that'd have to work pretty damn hard to earn any of that respect. I learn new things from sources I trust and know to be accurate and intelligent
    1
  76. Or just an old battleship with some missiles and C-WIS added like USS Missouri
    1