Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "What Is A Carrier Strike Group? ⚓ | Forces TV" video.

I believe we will have a Dutch frigate and US destroyer with us, I wonder who else we'll pick up along the way?
95
Don't be foolish, we can wield a position of respected leadership but its much harder with people claiming we should rule.
10
Damn show offs
8
It's succinct answer to the question, not claiming to be news. That isn't what clickbait is.
6
In WW3 the SSBN is still king. Carriers are for the wars we actually fight.
5
Hopefully they won't confirm anything. Silence is golden.
4
We can't compete with China alone, it has 5x our GDP, 20x our population. We would be contributing to an alliance in the context of China.
3
@roddychristodoulou9111 are you simple. You posted this before and got corrected. The strike is the jets. It's a group of ships based round a carrier that conducts strike missions. How is Carrier Strike Group misleading?
3
@roddychristodoulou9111 I'm not the first guy that posted. Though it can be be both, a US CSG will fire tomahawk missiles from its escorts ships as well as bomb targets with its jets. You can question it's cost effectiveness that is an interesting conversation with pros and cons. Saying it's not a Carrier Strike Group is just dumb.
3
@mclarenm1 We are around a fifth of the US population, a twentieth of Chinas. We'll never be a superpower again.
2
@ThePalaeontologist That was my point CANZUK would be an alliance, not a country so shouldn't be talked about in the way as countries. The UK could defend itself, that isn't the measure of a Superpower, it's the ability to effect the rest of the world. In a proxy war we don't have the resources or the men. We are a world power, super power is another level up. The US is the true measure, China position as one is only just being established, there military being pulled along by there economic growth. Population is short hand for potential. We can excel but we will always be limited by simply being small.
2
The decision wasn't even close, conventional was the better choice by a long way. Cost, decommissioning and probably most importantly lack of a support industry for very little gain.
2
@MrKeithblair There isn't just our home islands to defend, also our allies, our sea lanes, our overseas territories. The threat of a response is also part of defence.
2
Two is a good number of carriers. Other ships would be welcome. The type 32 seems the right direction.
2
You need both but Cyber is likely to be a major focus on the upcoming defence review.
2
@bellumgerere it does, I've seen 10 minute videos with the same information.
2
@randommadness1021 the whole point of him being in Britain was that he didn't surrender.
2
@ThePalaeontologist 100 British soldier might beat any 100 other, the point is they would be facing 500 US or 2,000 Chinese. CANZUK isn't ever going to be a country.
1
Nothing has been released changing F35 numbers, what you heard was just speculation. There's a defence review going on, cutting should be looked at as option if only to confirm it's the wrong option.
1
@Dr.D00p wouldn't surprise me either. I think the phrase hunting near the carrier group may be more apt than being part of the carrier group for SSNs.
1
@geraldryan8562 the US don't use nuclear for 45k tonne ships only there 100k. 11 carriers and there refits allows for a constant work load constant we wouldn't get. Even then it's debateable whether there choice is pride or practicality. 70% of the French electric generation is nuclear, giving both better access to expertise and a powerful lobby. Even then it mean France has one carrier not two.
1
@geraldryan8562 also we have our own oil, we don't have our own uranium.
1
@geraldryan8562 what homework, USS America is 45k tonne, and conventional.
1
@geraldryan8562 yes we do what?
1
@MrKeithblair What response are you referring to because it won't be anything military? Alone we wouldn't want to fight China, but we aren't alone we are adding our voice to the chorus.
1
@MrKeithblair No it couldn't be military. That would be a declaration of war on the UK and it's allies. Economically we are considering sanctions over Hong Kong anyway.
1
The Type 45 only makes sense for fleet defence. It great at area air defence and decidedly average elsewhere. Six is a good number. The Type 26 is a much better option for other duties, though overkill in a lot of cases .
1
@TT-hd3zi has there been some announcement because it's been the plan for a couple of years?
1
@TT-hd3zi fair enough, that just sounds like they aren't confirming the particular ship yet rather than changing there mind.
1
@1IbramGaunt they weren't originally supposed to be cat and trap, it was only the plan for a couple of years due to SDSR 2010.
1
@1IbramGaunt Money was the main issue but time was also a factor, with Emals development and installation it would have pushed the carriers back maybe 5 years. The money was never there and that couple of years just thinking about catapults not actually doing anything cost an extra £100m+. And the money isn't just the carrier, Hawkeye is often cited, France just spent $2bn on replacing its Hawkeye. If you gave the Navy the money to change to catapults I think they buy frigates. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
1
@1IbramGaunt Steam wasn't the option on the table. We wouldn't have been doing either ourselves, like France, our last catapult carrier was a long time ago. Steam is a lot more wear on the aircraft and would also require steam generators. Also an empty F35C is 15.5k Kg, Phantom/Buccaneer 13.5k Kg.
1
Nope, must have been something else you saw, claiming QE was nuclear would get jumped on in 10 seconds.
1
@Kav. PA2 wasn't the original design, it was a French adaption of the British design.
1
@Kav. You maybe getting confused with the fact Thales was involved in the original design, but that wasn't PA2.
1