Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "What It's Like On Board Britain's NEXT Aircraft Carrier | Forces TV" video.

@jb76489 because it means it's a more modern, more advanced design? needing less to achieve the same or better?
3
@jb76489 how far can the crews and planes aboard your oh-we-never-need-to-refuel carriers go without food and jet-fuel? :) range figures really don't mean that much in the real world; as for how many aircraft if you took out the unneeded transport helicopters and such and we were on a war-footing it could carry a lot more F35's, we ARE talking about a ship almost the same size as a Nimitz-class here, space is not an issue should it be required- but it WON'T be, what you anti-QE-class people don't seem to get is that we don't NEED to have what the Americans think they do
3
@jb76489 also something you seem to be forgetting is that aside from a couple of transport helicopters and such ALL THE AIRCRAFT this thing will be carrying are ready-for-combat machines and ALL THE FIGHTERS are state-of-the-art modern aircraft, whereas the bulk of the air-wings on yours still consist of F18's, a design from the late 1980's I beleive
3
@Locutus494 You clearly have no idea what aircraft they're talking about if you think the Sea Harrier and AV-8 are 'completely different', the latter is unquestionably just a breathed-on Americanised version of the former
2
@jb76489 as for the sorties thing I really don't get that, if the situation demanded it all these aircraft could just take off and land VERTICALLY FROM WHERE THEY ARE, they don't NEED to use the damn ramp you lot get so triggered by or even the runway for that matter if there's that much of a rush
2
@Locutus494 the point still stands as far as I'm concerned but whatever you say, not gonna get into an argument about it now mate, that comment's from ages ago. My respects to you for your military service regardless though
1