Comments by "Chris Hayward" (@1chish) on "Royal Navy Ships And Subs Explained ⚓" video.

@ThatCarGuy Still copy pasting your stand by nonsense I see Car Guy. Sorry but we do not need nor want nuclear carriers. there is no discernable benfit and certainly not for the costs involved. As the USS Gerald R Ford has proved - $18 Bn vs $10 Bn for two Qes. The bloke was making the point that a nuclear carrier will have places it cannot go (in peacetime). So chill out and just accept it. I am sure he didn't need a 40 line lecture quoting events from the '80s and '90s. The other factor is the sheer size of a Nimitz will also reduce options. And then you go off on your pro nuclear anti UK stuff I see Car Guy. No doubt you will throw the 'troll’ word at me as you have before. But trolls don't dissect your comments as I have frequently. Let me take ONE piece of your ignorance: "The QE class can go on mission for 45 days, the Nimitz can go on missions for 90 days." And then fabricate that food is some sort of limit. It isn't. Just as its not with a CVN. Both carriers require RAS and have supply ships in their Groups. CVN's also require weapon and aviation fuel replenishment. So there is NO benefit to a nuclear carrier above a conventional carrier. And especially not at treble the build cost and $12 Bn more per ship to operate. Of course having 3 times the number of crew in a Nimitz requires more .....food! You do what all Yanks do: You project what the USA does as the way things should be and when folks disagree you then get arrogant. Chill out dude and discuss do not dismiss. And we need NO lectures from you.
8
What a load of ignorant Socialist claptrap. We have 21 F-35s: 8 are on QE in the Pacific, 3 are on PoW in the North Sea, 3 are in California integrating all F-35 weapons and that leaves 7 at RAF Marham to train the new pilots. If you have a beef direct it at Lockheed Martin for being slow on deliveries for our 48 paid for aircraft rather than act like a Corbyn.
3
@lewisallan9963 You only have to look at the costs of nuclear carriers and the arguable case falls apart. The latest US carrier cost $18 Bn and the next cost $12 Bn. We built two world class carriers for $10 Bn. And that is before we get to the costs of a mid life refuel and end of life disposal.
2
Brian Coley Did you forget WHY the Harriers were scrapped? In 2010 the UK was in a huge economic bind and hard decisions had to be made. Any spare cash had to go into the future (F-35 / QE / Tides etc) not prolonging the past. By the way Ark Royal was already as good as scrapped by 2010 so that would have left Lusty which was falling apart after 30 years service and would have been a total waste of cash to keep running until 2017 when QE came along. And as for your comment about T23s: "two have so far been prematurely decommissioned due to hull damage and mechanical breakdown." Sorry but that is incorrect. Of the 16 built 3 were sold in 2006 / 08 to Chile and only Monmouth has been decommissioned for disposal. All the rest are going through a mid life upgrade.
2