Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "USS Gerald R Ford vs HMS Queen Elizabeth - How Do They Compare - Aircraft Carrier Comparison" video.

  1. There are multiple articles about Dutch, Swedish and German subs having managed to sink almost entire Carrier Strike Groups (sinking the super carrier itself plus several escort ships all while being actively hunted) in such training and getting away, all with just one sub. Those are easy to just google. And if those navies can, I'm sure the Royal Navy can too. As for the radar being better, the UK has had a significantly better radar than any other country since it was invented (radar for military use was invented by the UK) and it could be that they quite simply never lost their advantage. I believe that the new F35 II's electronics, including radar systems, are British made so that implies the Americans had a reason to outsource that to Britain. Especially since it's not something America likes to do without reason. While I don't know whether these specific stories about the UK always detecting the subs are true, it does sound plausible
    13
  2. Global power is not just about hard power, it's about soft power too. For example, if you need to get China to do something, who is more likely to get them to do it? The UK is a global power because it influences you when you do something together, it influences the EU (for now) when the EU decides on something and it influences a multitude of countries when it engages in talks with the G20 and such and because it generally has good relationships with countries that make those countries sympathetic to the UK's cause. The UK is a global power because its voice is heard everywhere and because it influences everyone in some way, and of course its vast number of alliances. Ask yourself, if things ever escalate between the UK and US, who will be more likely to build a big alliance? The UK will almost certainly have the entire EU backing it (in or out doesn't even matter much), if China had to choose between the US and EU they'd more likely pick the EU at this point, if Russia had to choose they'd more likely side with Europe, if all of the African countries had to choose they'd more likely side with the one who gave them by far the most foreign aid (EU), etc. etc. etc. And what countries could the US count on? South Korea and Japan? Even Canada is questionable at best The ability to build a strong alliance through soft power beats hard power. In a US vs the world scenario your hard power is useless. Hell, in an EU + Russia scenario alone your hard power is already useless. Hard power is something that needs to be combined with soft power if you want to be a true global power. Another example is Russia vs US. One on one you might say Russia's military is so powerful that they even have a chance against the US, but if you take soft power into account... the EU is highly likely to side with the US (at this point it's already RIP Russia), China is a lot more likely to side with the economies it's become dependent on than Russia, etc. etc. etc. And what does Russia have? Belarus and maybe a few countries like Kazachstan? Comparing power is not about hard power only. Hard power probably is even less important than the ability to draw countries to your side to form one big block of hard power. There is an official list of countries with the most soft power and countries like France and the UK are always on top. Why? They have a very strong diplomatic network and a lot of countries that would love to help them if they ever need to get something done. The US obviously also is strong on this list, but not above those two. Think of any possible country attacking the UK that is capable of surviving the following alliance of countries that is likely to side with the UK; there is none. It's always pretty much the world vs that one country
    6
  3. I'm not British, I'm Dutch. But it makes sense for me to mention soft power's importance because it's the EU's main focus. Anyway, soft power is hugely important and shouldn't be forgotten. Especially in everyday situations, soft power is a lot more useful. This is no longer a world of empires that use hard power to expand their influence, this is the world of using soft power to get others to do what you want them to and to get others to follow your agenda. Let's look at the Iran deal, for example. Why is it that when talks came to a conclusion, the big news was announced in a joint press conference by the EU's foreign minister and Iran's foreign minister despite the US and other major powers being part of the talks? Why is it that this year, it was the EU's foreign minister and Iran's foreign minister that were nominated for a nobel prize for their role in the Iran deal and not anyone from the US? Because the EU shaped that deal. The EU got iran, Russia, China and the US to agree on that deal. The EU acted as a mediator between the world and Iran. Even the US was influenced into doing what the EU wanted them to do in that deal, even though Iran is just about their arch enemy. That is real power, not having a bunch of tanks that you can't realistically use against anything other than some 3rd world country. Even Syria's soft power could counter America's attempts at regime change by bringing in Russia. America's hard power has been made useless by Syria's soft power. As soon as Russia was present in Syria, the US using hard power against Syria was already no option anymore.
    3
  4. Ross Penny Exactly. The EU spends 90 billion of the total worldwide 130 billion foreign aid budget, the US spends 30 bn. China doesn't hand out the money for free but rather loans it to those countries for a profit, and I'm sure that's billions as well. Especially the foreign aid is useful, as it's a yearly fee those countries get for free and in principle whoever gives it is free to stop it at any time. The EU is currently using this power to make African countries enter into deals with the EU to keep migrants from coming, for example. These are deals that these countries actually don't want to engage in, but if they don't the EU will cut their foreign aid. This is how power is projected nowadays, not by military means. And if we're to measure soft power, the EU would be first place, the US second place and China probably third place. Those three countries/unions have immense power to make others follow their agenda, including world powers
    2
  5. No you weren't.... nor was the US navy even the strongest navy at the time.... wow
    2
  6. LPforFun I meant the Royal Navy
    2
  7. +John Santola Firstly, I'm not British. Secondly, the US has today the biggest navy in the world, if you don't count the EU. In the past, this was very different and the UK was known to have the biggest. Just pointing out someone's mistake. That guy literally said the US was the only one to have aircraft carriers in WW2, I mean come on...
    2
  8. And how much is total defence spending of the US' GDP?
    1
  9. Matias Makinen Well the aircraft on carriers are usually part of the Navy. In the UK you have Fleet Air Arm, literally the air arm of the naval fleet. It's part of the fleet, same in the US Navy
    1
  10. You can say what you want about aircraft carriers, but whenever a war is fought with a more modern military than that of the typical 3rd world country, all it takes is one submarine to create a billion dollar wreck. Better leave that thing at home in a real war
    1
  11. Several countries already have in training with the US. The Swedish navy once sunk a US carrier in training with a sub. The Dutch navy sunk half a Carrier Strike Group (or carrier support fleet) and got away unscathed sinking the carrier, a cruiser, a US nuclear submarine, several destroyers and frigates. I know that submarines from my country used to get right under the surface less than a metre from Russian warships during the Cold War to spy on them. In 2015, France sunk a carrier and "most" of its escorts (destroyers, other submarines, etc.), but it's unknown if that one got away. Canada sank one too, as did Australia and I think Germany. Submarines are extremely powerful if an attack is carried out correctly and not even a carrier strike group is safe. It literally only takes one submarine and a good crew. So whenever the US faces a country with a military more impressive than that of Saddam Hussein or a random terrorist group, better leave those carriers at home because you never know.
    1