Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "Audacious class - Guide 245" video.

  1. Speaking of speed... I see we have Americas Cup catamarans with foils flying at 40 knots. A sailboat that can out racecar a carrier.⛵
    12
  2.  @acester86  They don't last forever. Most don't daily drive a 30 year old car? Hardware are software change. We have had 10 versions of Windows in 30 years. Powerplants age. Subsystems like electrical,steam and plumbing fail. There is also the manpower issue. Newer ships need smaller crews.
    11
  3.  @Ushio01  the Phantom in 1982 was still state of the art. And in fact was still on active duty in several Air forces today.
    6
  4. Defense spending is a balance of priorities.
    5
  5.  @dogsnads5634  I don't know why you're bringing up the f-14? They're too big to have been considered for use.
    2
  6.  @lanse77lithgow  weapons alone do not make for political decisions. That's two carriers with commitments worldwide. There is no assurance both would have even been available or in the Atlantic.
    2
  7.  @stevevalley7835  you'll have to forgive the Royal Navy for going back to its pre World War II tactical defense thinking. That ship anti-aircraft systems and not combat Air patrol were to be the primary stopper of Air attack. The Gannets, would be useful, but a 24-hour combat Air patrol with the air wings available is difficult to maintain. Also the Cold War threat tended to be focused on Soviet long range bombers with anti-ship missiles. Not dog fighting small A4 and Mirages.
    2
  8.  @OhSome1HasThisName  Kinda changing into non warships, but nothing other than the Sabre; was there was not much of a MiG chaser to be found. From the Meteor to The Phantom. There was not much to rave over.
    2
  9.  @OhSome1HasThisName  yep..... interestingly some Hunters still get flown in Aggressor training by military contractors.
    2
  10. As planes got bigger? Hard to say.
    2
  11. Swords versus plowshares. The UK was getting out of the Empire business. Not to mention 20 years of actually rebuilding a bombed-out country and industry. They made a conscious decision that with the common protection of NATO; the burden of Defense was a shared one. The French and US 6 Fleet were in the Mediterranean now. India had its own Navy as did the Australians and New Zealand. Not to mention the Cold War threat at sea had changed.
    2
  12. There is also the Panama Canal locks to consider as a design factor.
    2
  13.  @TheArchaos  More the Empire was going away. The need for a huge navy no longer made sense.
    2
  14.  @Knight6831  not really. As useful as they may have been; the main Cold War threat at sea was subs. Many of the Essex class were dedicated to anti-submarine warfare. With NATO in the US Navy taking over for the Royal Navy and what used to be the empire. Those carrier dollars might have been better spent on sub hunters rather than Phantoms.
    2
  15.  @johnshepherd8687  I actually second that nomination. The Crusaders served the French very well. And we're optimally sized for a Royal Navy carrier the size of the Audacious class. However, they wanted to continue their buy local policy and spent the 50s with rather disappointing Naval aircraft. I certainly would have rather gone to war in an F-8 then a Sea Vixen any day.
    2
  16.  @trevorhart545  wh sort of drifting off topic here. Personally, I see the f-15 program as more of a bailout for Boeing.
    1
  17.  @Solidboat123  a shorter submission is just to say, the f-15ex is a bailout for Boeing.
    1
  18. In general, NATO gave a blanket to Europe. The UK, the Dutch, the Germans, etc. The USN arried the ball in the Cold War. Thus, they cut budgets.
    1
  19. Less carrier, more National health service. 😷
    1
  20.  @keithmoore5306  The UK in general likes national Healthcare over National defense. Even the average American cares more a Britney Spears pets; than defense policy.
    1
  21.  @keithmoore5306  It is great, if not sick....😷
    1
  22.  @John.0z  you have to look at it in context of the time. First you have several administrations with different defense policies. There's also the factor that frankly NATO was a security blanket on land and sea. As the empire pulled back. The US 7th and 6th Fleet filled the void. The Soviets did not have a aircraft carrier threat. Everyone instead focused on stopping anti-ship missile carrying lumbering Bear bombers. That's the Royal Navy went back to its pre-war concept that ship anti-aircraft defense is the prime focus, rather than combat air patrols. So with the US Navy picking up a lot of the heavy lifting all the European nations cut back on the size of their navies and their capabilities.
    1
  23.  @gamerfan8445  Likely so. As the owner of a old house; a newer one is cheaper to build and run by far.
    1
  24.  @gamerfan8445  Long term? Yes.
    1
  25.  @Carbapenem1917  They are nets. Much like on construction sites to stop falls.
    1
  26.  @gregoryhilton5315  Short answer? NOPE.... Physics... The whole mass × velocity =momentum thing.
    1
  27.  @eamon821  Your still talking 40 year old ships with size restrictions on hanger and elevators. Going clean slate makes some sense over rebuild.
    1
  28.  @jakemillar649 ? The task force could not support all 4. They don't have the fleet oilers to fuel the ships and planes.
    1
  29.  @HighDesertCruiser  only 52 weeks in a year with a content post 3 days a week.
    1
  30.  @johnshepherd8687  I judge NATO in general. Canada and the Dutch had carriers too once. The US defense blanket allowed the USN to carry the load in the Cold War. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Yet, we still remain.
    1