Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Britain's New Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth" video.

  1. Aj Dar and well since you're clearly such a brave, fearless warrior yourself why don't you go up to an American serviceman and ask him that face-to-face 😂 I'm British myself so can't really comment for them, but if that was supposed to go for us too, if our 400 years of military history, 1000 before we became a united country doesn't tell you our answer just try attacking us face-to-face, HONOURABLY, no suicide bombers, booby traps, ambushes or shooting up civilians but instead engaging our armed forces directly like the real warriors you big yourselves up as being and see what happens for yourselves
    22
  2. Aj Dar yeah keep beleiving that, I hope you find out just how wrong you are someday. The Russian and Chinese propaganda about those missiles is complete bullshit. The aircraft carrier has proved itself in war, they haven't, and if you seriously think it'll be as lightly defended or as easily taken out as you clearly want to beleive then I invite your two-bit country to try attacking a fully-equipped carrier group with your rickity old Russian contraptions
    20
  3. RE fan don't beleive all the Chinese and Russian propaganda and clickbait bullshit online about it, I very much doubt so much money, time and effort would be put into a fighter that can't fight
    15
  4. Aj Dar wow, you seem to have really thought through that reply, how could I possibly come back from that tremendous display of military history knowledge... oh yeah, because I am a free person who doesn't give a shit what some little wannabe martyr sitting in a cave planning to kill a school full of children says. Fuck off you complete waste of air
    14
  5. Mickeyislowd yup, there you've only got to worry about the deadliest wildlife on Earth being all around you along with lots of big drunk men with guns lol
    8
  6. Aj Dar yeah? Gonna try telling your joke of a navy to actually TRY IT rather than just talking about it?
    7
  7. Aj Dar there WAS NO WAR in Suez in 1956 so I don't even know where you got that complete and utter bullshit 😂 oh we were ready to fight alright (my own father included) but ended up pulling out again to placate the Americans who didn't approve
    7
  8. Aj Dar Hitler is dead and so are all his men and ask veterans of the Battle Of Britain, Battle Of The Atlantic and North African campaign if it was only because of the Americans, who didn't even fucking turn up till three years later
    6
  9. Aj Dar tell that about it only existing by invading countries that couldn't fight back to the French, Spanish, Germans and Russians
    6
  10. Aj Dar China and Russia haven't been at war with us since the 19th century so I can't speak for how things would go since, however when we HAVE fought them before we've defeated them
    6
  11. Blob B depending on circumstances, sure the F35 probably can beat it in Red Flag scenarios but they tend to always handicap one side in some way or only allow participants to do certain things, like with the Typhoons losing so badly in recent excercises in India, that the Indian media lost no time immediately bragging about, despite the fact the RAF pilots were not being allowed to use beyond visual range attacks and of course, couldn't actually shoot any of the Sukhoi's down; the only way we'll know which aircraft are truly superior over others is when they're actually trying to kill each other. Still, the F35 'controversy' has indeed mostly turned out to be bullshit and the UK government wouldn't be prepared to fork out so much buying them if they didn't already know better than any clickbait propaganda-filled, robot-voiced Youtube video haha and that it was one hell of a fighter
    5
  12. Aj Dar are you seriously trying to suggest that the same battle hardened fighters that had defeated Iraq TWICE in real full-on warfare with tanks, missiles and planes were afraid of a bunch of morons with AK's and RPG's and THAT'S why they brokered that deal? You need professional help 🙄
    5
  13. Aj Dar the 'massive help' from the Americans in the FALKLANDS war, that's what it's fucking called or are you an Argentinian now too, consisted of selling us overpriced missiles, jet fuel and ammunition- and THAT'S ALL, they weren't involved in the fighting at all, and the only thing the French did was drag their heels until it was too late on telling us how to disable Excocet missiles the French had sold TO the damn Argies before they could sink our ships
    5
  14. scotsocool yeah but when there's so much chuntering coming from the government about just TWO of these things (despite the fact that they've already been made a hell of a lot cheaper, in my opinion to their detriment by being non-nuclear and non-cat & trap) they're never going to allow for a third or fourth 'waste of money' or 'white elephant'. Well they say that now but if something like the Falklands War kicks off again they'll suddenly be rather glad of those 'white elephants'...
    5
  15. Sturgeon's Law you know the AV-8B is just a breathed-on Harrier right
    4
  16. Aj Dar unless I'm much mistaken we WON in Afghanistan but ok mister Jihad, beleive what you want...
    4
  17. Aj Dar the Vietnam War you would know, if you REALLY fucking knew anything about the wars you're talking about at all, was a war that should damn well never have happened and in this instance (admittedly a rare thing for us) had absolutely nothing to do with us. Not doing something because it would be completely pointless and unbeneficial is not the same thing as cowardice
    4
  18. Aj Dar The Russians fighting each other, likewise, is none of our business- shouldn't be happening and we don't approve but in situations like that we don't send troops in without the UN's say-so and if we did it would only be as peacekeepers or as part of a coalition, is why we've only used planes and missiles in Syria rather than actually getting stuck in
    4
  19. Can't, they're already in the planning stage on the new Dreadnought-class nuclear submarine that's gonna be the new HMS Warspite 😁
    4
  20. mattwho81 exactly, and like I said while I'm sure it's got teething troubles it never would have gotten out of the prototype stage if it was as bad as people are making out
    3
  21. Aj Dar those marines had families and homes to go back to and had they died fighting it would have started a full-on war, not something to be willingly made to happen if it can be avoided (though I frankly don't expect you to understand that)
    3
  22.  @reddoguk7405  agreed and of course, no-one's bad-mouthing the good old Aussies here 😉
    3
  23. TremereTT I wish you weren't right but you are. F35 still isn't as terrible as you're making out but you're right, we should be making our own planes, hell since the ship itself IS British-built if we HAD been making our own fighters to go with it they could be flying off it right now instead of this awkward waiting
    2
  24. "Spanish Ladies", old traditional Royal Navy song, been trying to find what version
    2
  25. No more useless than the American, Russian, French or Chinese carriers; I think if they were as useless as some seem anxious to claim them to be those other countries wouldn't be building new ones themselves too
    2
  26. Wade French it's not just 'part of the equation', it's more important than anything else you've just said, if Britain somehow still had the same sort of size budget (which back in the good old Empire days it very much did) it could be the same ship or better with money to spare but we DON'T, we're a country the size of Idaho with a population and economy to match, yet it's almost as good for a fraction of the cost and while it means we don't have to go cap-in-hand to you arrogant fucks every time we get threatened and can certainly still deal out some punishment offensively it's also been designed as a mainly defensive weapon to 'protect British territory and interests around the world' just like the video said, NOT get in dick-measuring contests with China or be part of 'Team America- World Police'. Different purpose, different budget, different values, different carrier
    2
  27.  @PepRex  huh? No it bloody isn't, they're incredibly heavily defended capital ships surrounded by escorting frigates, destroyers, submarines and support ships and with a screen of aircraft constantly watching over them from above!
    2
  28.  @PepRex  yes if you could launch enough missiles at them AND THEY WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY REACH THE CARRIER you could sink one that way, but the people designing and building and crewing and paying for these ships kinda KNOW that and will have planned accordingly
    2
  29.  @PepRex  in a world of fluffy bunnies and rainbows and unicorns for whatever cocksuckers tried it maybe. What you don't seem to be getting here is that simply HAVING and LAUNCHING the missiles is one thing, actually GETTING TO and HITTING the target is altogether a different matter
    2
  30. Béquat Fougère you stick the right stuff on that deck and there's not a carrier-capable aircraft in the world I couldn't take off from it and land on it again, just because it's currently optimized for the F35 doesn't mean other types can't use it, it's a different shape and has a ski ramp at the end, yeah but the ramp's removable, there's provision for cables and nets and while there's no catapult all they do is ASSIST modern aircraft getting into the air while being able to carry more fuel and weapons as a result, if necessary they can do it using engine thrust power alone; as for space it's as long as a Nimitz and wider than the French or Italian carriers put together so there's definitely room to spare
    1
  31. Vindicare we'll get them again sometime, the government has to see an immediate need and release funding first
    1
  32. randomguy8196 we'll see won't we, none of them have actually been put to any kind of real test in combat conditions ANYWAY, they used to say the same kind of things about the Harrier before 1982
    1
  33. @Hugh Jarce oh because online articles by 'military experts' are the ONLY reliable source of information on this sort of thing
    1
  34. @Hugh Jarce I don't have the reliable information EITHER pal and unlike some I'm not gonna make stuff up or exaggerate it. What I WILL say though is that the only true test of a combat aircraft is combat, until there's actually a war directly involving them we won't know how good or bad they truly are either way. I'd also like to point out that before 1982 people were badmouthing the then-new Harrier Jump-Jet in exactly the same ways, basically itself the direct predecessor and inspiration for the F35 in many ways- then the Falklands War happened; where those small, supposedly outclassed little subsonic VTOL jets, operating from tiny carriers in appalling conditions 8000 miles from home, then took on supersonic dedicated air superiority fighters operating from proper airfields that outnumbered them several times over and WON, without a single loss of their own in air-to-air combat
    1
  35. @Hugh Jarce https://youtu.be/tZuznkI4UIk
    1
  36. @Hugh Jarce https://youtu.be/sZrp90C09qs
    1
  37. @Hugh Jarce you must REALLY love the sound of your own voice. Wow. Does everything have to be point-scoring with you? You know what, I give up. I concede the argument purely in the interest of not wanting to go back and forth all night. I still stand completely by what I said and I am not gonna change my mind about that but I can already tell there is no point whatsoever trying to carry on this argument, neither of us are going to convince the other here but you definitely ARE gonna succeed purely in pissing me the hell off, and frankly I've better stuff to do. Oh and I don't give a damn what those 'Pogo' people have to say either way, I wasn't directly addressing them but was metaphorically rolling my eyes generally at the ever-present horde of media military experts online that Dalek was addressing in those videos and his others on the F35, which is why I shared them. If you want someone to debate this properly with, throw your factoids his way instead, bet he'll even make a video about it if it's a good enough arguement, he knows a lot more about this subject and definitely has more patience for people like you than I do
    1
  38. J Burke size is not, has never been and will never be everything my friend, those forces may be smaller in number but they make up for it in skill and professionalism a hundred times over, I'd pit ONE fully-armed section from our SAS against a whole COMPANY of the best Navy Seals and Green Berets you've got and be willing to bet my house on them winning any day of the week
    1
  39. Chris Kelly it isn't "way smaller" at all, where the hell do you get that? 20 or 30 feet either way don't make any difference
    1
  40. Zander Hash and we built something almost as good without having TO spend that much, we simply can't afford the same stuff you guys can anymore and it's nothing to be ashamed of, we don't have the empire anymore it's just us, an Island nation the size of Idaho, with the military budget to match
    1
  41. Mrbrain bob bullshit, there's a REASON it doesn't need 2000 men to crew the thing
    1
  42. Google Acc if you're going to be that way about it probably better not mention Iraq, your allies and 'friendly fire' in the same comment 😉
    1
  43. Google Acc look what exactly did you expect? We're all proud and defensive of our respective countries, I'm not expecting you to suddenly admit that everyone else is right about the United States and YOU shouldn't suddenly expect us not to be patriotic and yes, nationalistic to at least SOME extent ourselves either
    1
  44. Google Acc watch this video of a very enlightened speech one of your own countrymen made, you might well see where I'm coming from then: https://youtu.be/q49NOyJ8fNA
    1
  45. Google Acc yeah that ain't happening, you didn't even bother watching the video did you
    1
  46. Google Acc you really have absolutely no life whatsoever do you
    1
  47. Yeah that's what Hitler thought about his Tiger Tanks, V2 missiles, jet fighters and enormous battleships but which side won WW2 again?
    1
  48. Mrbrain bob The fact is we can do most of what that one Ford class can with one QE class, and have a couple more for good measure, for a fraction of the same cost and needing a fraction of the people to crew her thanks to better automation and computer-controlled systems. And that first part, the cost, is the main thing for us, it's a (COMPARATIVELY) tiny island nation with a miniscule military budget that seems to get smaller every year, the fact we have ANY modern aircraft carriers at all is something of a miracle considering that and it simply isn't something the US has to worry about, but they would were the situations reversed. Oh and one other thing, these carriers combined with our destroyers, carriers and submarines DO make us the second most advanced naval power in the world right now so that's not exactly something to be sniffed at quality-wise
    1
  49.  @derricklanders1205  eh? What you on about?
    1
  50.  @PepRex  not with those anti-missile defences they wouldn't, both on the ship herself and in the escorting destroyers, and the act OF firing those missiles would betray the position of the launchers for counter-attack
    1
  51.  @PepRex  huh? Who doesn't? Not disagreeing but bit confused by that
    1
  52. Teddyballgame no it's not, just bigger and more powerful due to being designed for different purposes and having had a bigger budget behind it. Technology-wise the QE class is as advanced as any ship in the world including the Ford
    1
  53. romeo r it doesn't need to
    1
  54. romeo r and just because the ship doesn't launch them itself doesn't mean they're not still there
    1
  55. Tom O'Hara and in a year or so the QE will start getting them, what was your point again?
    1
  56. jaelon meggs we don't all NEED such massive super-carriers though, that's the point a lot of you seem to be missing. We don't have a country the size of all of Western Europe to defend with a population to match, we're a comparatively tiny island nation with lots of overseas dependants and colonies as well as still a major part of NATO, Brexit or no Brexit. We need light, versatile carriers like we had in the Falklands again, mobile airfields and command centres not floating fortresses
    1
  57. jaelon meggs finally someone who gets it. We can do nuclear just like everyone else, we've had nuclear submarines and power stations almost as long as you lot have, but we don't have the money or resources to use them in the same numbers or as freely as you do. We also are a nation the size of Idaho with a population smaller than Texas, we don't need a floating fortress bristling with firepower, we're not trying to defend a worldwide empire or, for that matter a country by itself the size of Western Europe, we just need something to protect our dependencies and keep the Russians and Argies at arm's reach, and we've succeeded in building one of the most advanced and powerful aircraft carriers, not super carriers but just plain aircraft carriers in the world at a fraction of the cost of anything presently existing in the same class
    1
  58. CRCG Central not true, more like five years on the reactor and less than two months for it's aircraft and crew. The QE can refuel everything at the same time and Britain HAS it's own oil supply, it doesn't have it's own Uranium
    1
  59. Teddyballgame the QE was GOING to have those as well and has been built so it can be adapted TO still have them, it was just chosen not to include them, and 'who came first' really doesn't matter here, these are modern ships
    1
  60. jaelon meggs still needs refueling itself too, the whole thing about staying out at sea forever's a myth
    1
  61. Oshani Aird not much faster and what difference does a few knots either way really make in the scheme of things, I haven't heard any complaints about power from the Falklands carriers or the Russian or Chinese barges, and they still need to refuel mate, the whole thing about never needing to's utter nonsense
    1
  62. TideFan Yankee it's just QE actually, it's named after Elizabeth The First not our present queen, the QE2 is a cruise liner (sadly just decommissioned so guess the name's open now). And I both agree and disagree about various stuff you and the others are saying here, but you're actually definitely wrong about the take-off weights thing
    1
  63. TideFan Yankee it imports oil but also owns it's OWN oil supplies actually and we're just starting tapping into new ones down in the Falklands, we're actually ok for oil for a good 30 or so years at least
    1
  64. TideFan Yankee the 'more capable' thing kinda depends on what you're wanting from it in the first place though doesn't it, and the QE at the end of the day really CAN do pretty much everything the Ford can do at a fraction of the cost, sorry but it's true
    1
  65. It doesn't need to, unlike you we have unsinkable overseas land bases all around the world that can launch not only all of those aircraft but considerably bigger ones that can fly further and carry more stuff
    1
  66. Not in automated systems, there's a reason our carriers that're almost as big need half the size of crews :)
    1
  67. jucci crunch they'll have built-in emergency manual overrides for that contingency mate and it'll take a lot more than a Sukhoi with a crude EMP device to knock out THOSE systems, Windows XP they're not despite what you may have heard
    1
  68. Prog X tech, no. Size, yeah but not so much it's actually that noticeable side-by-side, is a lot like the difference between a Nimitz and Ford class
    1
  69. Prog X also the aircraft it uses are the same F35's and helicopters your Marine Corps is already using and as for experience we were using Aircraft Carriers in our navy BEFORE you were yours, the only reason our pilots need re-training is because they've never flown F35's before and it's been a while since we've had active fleet-carriers
    1
  70. rich5817 oh and one other thing to consider, they'll still be more than a match for anything the Chinese or Russians have, or have on the drawing board in development for that matter, without us having to (completely) bankrupt ourselves in order to get to that point
    1
  71. rich5817 go on though, explain to me why I should not be the least bit proud of my country's new flagship because yours are all bigger and better and 'MURICA rolls eyes
    1
  72. Presley Mitchell well since the F35 is 16% British ANYWAY maybe we should say the same thing ;)
    1
  73. Prog X you realise how ridiculously and unnecessarily huge that actually is? Your military doesn't NEED to be that huge and powerful, the next biggest rival fleet is a fraction the size and a fraction the cost, the next time you're having economic issues maybe think about that
    1
  74. Bryan Roberts well glad you feel that way about it, shame the rest of your countrymen don't seem to
    1
  75. Wade French yeah but where's the UK gonna get the money for it, the Americans can afford that kinda thing and we can't at the end of the day. At least this way we have aircraft carriers again, which are now pretty much ready to go, just a shame we don't have the planes to put on it yet gives America a pointed stare while tapping watch
    1
  76.  @wadopotato33  ok well sorry for jumping to conclusions but there are a LOT of Americans on here saying the same kinds of things you were, and ok cool good for you and cheers ☺ well in my case I'm from Sheffield originally but live near York now and my father was from Glasgow and my mother from Harrow near London, so British through and through as were the rest of my family as far back as we can trace our ancestry and I have no shame whatsoever in being proud of that fact. As for having aircraft carriers it's about damn time
    1
  77.  @wadopotato33  agreed, well my thoughts exactly and glad to hear someone else say so. Here's to the Royal Navy and HMS Queen Elizabeth & Prince Of Wales then 😊
    1