Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Protecting HMS Queen Elizabeth: On The US Destroyer USS The Sullivans" video.

  1. We're also in the process of building more frigates as we speak, if you haven't noticed? The first of the new Type 26's is about halfway done now, HMS Glasgow. Is also new classes of destroyer and submarine on the drawing board too. Everything we presently have is just holding the line till the new stuff's ready
    8
  2. Er, I think the fact there's 8 vessels in that Strike Group and only two are foreign kinda belies that claim?!
    7
  3. Two
    3
  4.  @jonwilko6305  the other will soon either be back or be replaced, officially the Strike Group still has two included
    2
  5.  @ThatCarGuy  oh the Arliegh-Burke's great don't get me wrong, but so's the Daring-class in it's own separate way, and I'm pretty sure making our own ships is generally considered a cheaper option than buying someone else's lol, and the AB is simply not sufficiently superior to warrant the extra expense, or the re-training or re-tooling or re-supplying for it. There's also national pride to be considered of course, and supporting our own shipbuilding industry. We also were originally gonna build twelve Type 45's, the order just ended up getting halved because of government penny-pinching; shame, but 6 is still enough, just, if you only have two carriers to defend anyway and only one to defend at a time, and if you have other stuff like frigates and submarines and patrol-ships available to help make up the numbers and fill in elsewhere, which we do
    1
  6.  @ThatCarGuy  it is NOT better at everything else, the US Navy themselves have admitted that in terms of anti-air and anti-missile capabilities the Type 45 is in fact by far and away the superior ship, look up the Aster missile and Samson radar platforms sometime; and yeah so maybe a bare-bones off-the-shelf Arliegh-Burke class is a BIT cheaper but not enough to warrant the complete change-overs in logistics and supply and crew-training, which would be far more difficult and complicated and expensive than you're making out. Oh sure with an AB-class you get the launchers for the Aegis missile but so what, if we wanted we could just buy some of the missiles themselves and modify our existing ships to fire them
    1
  7.  @ThatCarGuy  and supporting the UK arms industry is kinda important mate
    1
  8.  @airlinesecret6725  well it's just the truth
    1
  9.  @gazza7uk646  and would you care to actually explain why you think that? 🙂
    1
  10.  @glynnwadeson5605  well we have at least 10 fully-active nuclear submarines right now, with more in the process of being built as we speak, including brand-new state-of-the-art Astute-class attack subs, and dozens of non-active older reserve submarines that can be brought back into service should there be a need. As for cost-effectiveness (A) modern nuclear submarines are generally cheapER than big surface ships sure but still aren't exactly peanuts to build, and (B) every navy that is in a position to financially or industrially has a combination of BOTH submarines and surface warships, including all our biggest potential enemies and most of our allies, that's even gonna be the case for Australia soon; and the vast majority of those countries WITHOUT those capabilities, without the strong economies and big shipyards and so on? They just mainly focus on the smallest cheapest surface ships they can make, ala North Korea or Iran haha, along with the smaller and far cheaper but also far less capable diesel-subs
    1
  11.  @ScienceChap  very true
    1