Comments by "Billy Bob" (@davidrobertsemail) on "UK's biggest warship HMS Prince of Wales ready to resume duties" video.

  1. No planes. It’s just a target.
    4
  2. Wonderful the aircraft carrier with no planes is back at sea.
    3
  3. No planes!!!!
    2
  4.  @abrahamdozer6273  are you saying that the original order for 148 f35s was a mistake? That the new order for 74 is enough for two air wings? There are only 28 in the country. What percentage are operationally available from 28? 70%? Carriers in dry dock being refitted don’t need planes. These two carriers aren’t in dry dock they are “Operational” ;-) no planes but “Operational Aircraft carriers”
    2
  5. No planes. These things are a floating target and a reminder of how far our military has fallen.
    2
  6. Yes and actually have planes on them.
    2
  7.  @abrahamdozer6273  so do the Americans and Chinese only have one air wing per carrier? Of course they don’t. We don’t even have one full air wing! Slow walking the purchases and not buying enough of them is a joke. These are big shiny targets that cost a fortune. Please go ahead and defend a carrier without planes!
    2
  8. Carriers without planes, early warning or escort ships. Impressive.
    2
  9. And half an air wing
    2
  10.  @davidhouseman4328  don’t trust politicians to hold on to it that long. They got rid of our last carrier early and gave away our newly modernized harriers for free without any replacements on the horizon.
    2
  11. Lovely target though ;-)
    2
  12.  @luciussander8217  it should have at least 36 f35s There are only 28 in country for BOTH carriers! so only a proportion of those will be available. No early warning. Not enough escort ships. It’s s big fat target.
    2
  13. They don’t even have planes!
    2
  14.  @normanboyes4983  I can wire a plug but even if I couldn’t I could figure out that an aircraft carrier without planes isn’t very good.
    2
  15.  @abrahamdozer6273  sure!!!! It perfectly normal to have aircraft carriers without planes! That’s what the US and China do ;-)
    1
  16.  @abrahamdozer6273  the reality is we should have not retired our carriers and harriers until we had replacements. These two ships are a debacle. Smaller carriers should have replaced our retiring carriers one for one with f35s replacing harriers as available. 28 f35s are in country and MAYBE in the future we may get a total of 74 for two carriers that’s half the original order for both carriers. Not enough escort ships and no early warning. The people defending this debacle as “Perfectly normal” to have carriers without planes need to read the story of the emperors new clothes.
    1
  17.  @abrahamdozer6273  if it was a war we would put two to sea. That can’t happen without planes and even if they had planes they aren’t protected with escorts or early warning. With 3,4 or 5 carriers the argument could be made that one would nearly always be unavailable. As is expected with the US carrier fleet. Two new carriers with an original order for 148 planes were clearly intended to be mostly both available and definitely both available in a shooting war. At the time many people argued for three smaller ski jump carriers so two would always be available and they would be much cheaper and faster to build. These ships are white elephants.
    1
  18.  @abrahamdozer6273  the criticism of these procurements, both the carriers and the planes is completely justified and understandable. They are big enough to be catapults but they went with the ski jumps thus inferior planes. Retired carriers early and junked their planes along with decades of experience operating carriers. No early warning. Completely insufficient escorts and not enough planes.
    1
  19.  @abrahamdozer6273  there’s a whole backstory about the design. First cats then ski jumps then the next government tried to change them to cats but it was unfeasible at that point. The whole time debate about the f35 and which model and it’s limitations and timelines etc. the end result is this debacle. Huge ships, no cats, wrong f35 and no planes. It was all avoidable and all predicted by armchair pundits like me. So when I see an aircraft carrier being described as, “Operational” I just sigh. “I’m from the government. I’m here to help”
    1
  20.  @johnallen7807  the cuts have been from both parties. I agree about the spending though. Procurement is key too. I think buying cheap off the shelf US instead of expensive European or developing expensive home grown white elephants like Ajax.
    1
  21.  @johnallen7807  both parties have stripped the military. GDP Spending during the Iraq and Afghanistan war peaks is questionable as we we’re burning through equipment. The a400 over the Hercules is a good example. As is Ajax. There are plenty of others. The French do well on some fronts but they also pay a high price for their independence in costs. Yes some success such as planes.
    1
  22.  @johnallen7807  I think we are pretty much in agreement. There’s plenty of money the government isn’t willing to pay for our military though. One analyst put it well. “The shop window is full but there’s nothing in the shop” Aircraft carriers without planes. Jeez.
    1
  23. Nope
    1
  24.  @abrahamdozer6273  so half an air wing isn’t enough for two carriers. Glad we got that cleared up. We also agree on the wrong type of carriers and the wrong type of aircraft. We should have had three smaller ski ramp or two flat top catapults. Politicians made these mistakes and people like me can be vindicated for our criticisms of them at the time. The reality is these are a joke and a huge waste of money without planes, early warning aircraft, crew and escorts.
    1
  25.  @john_in_phoenix  that’s a silly point. One or two are in dry dock at any given point. All seaworthy ships that could be active have enough planes. Also f 35cs are being deployed.
    1
  26.  @john_in_phoenix  it’s a silly point to compare the UKs two carriers with half an air wing between them with the US super carriers air wing. This thread is about a UK carrier back “On station” after repairs but it’s got zero planes! Apples and oranges.
    1
  27.  @john_in_phoenix  you are defending aircraft carriers without planes! Are you American? The history of our carrier force is that they were retired early and scrapped to save money. We had modernized harriers and we scrapped them. Now we have two silly aircraft carriers designed by committee with no planes, early warning or escort ships. The scrapping of our carriers and planes caused this debacle.the US has enough planes to cover any delay in f35c deliveries. The UK government keeps cutting the number of planes. It’s plan is never to have enough to fully equip both carriers. In ten years time they will be mothballing o e carrier or selling it on. A ridiculous waste of money.
    1
  28.  @thomasrotweiler  I agree with your original post. Smaller carriers could be built quicker and cheaper snd keep the harriers until f35s were delivered. Politicians have ruined the military.
    1
  29. What a joke
    1
  30.  @asb358  so we have two carriers with half an air wing. We MIGHT get two full air wings eventually in the fullness of time, all things being considered, ;-) You need lots of spares for maintenance and loses to sustain an air wing. These will never have fully operational air wings with 70/80 planes. These are floating targets. Expensive taxpayer funded floating targets.
    1
  31. It’s an aircraft carrier without planes mate. Pretending it doesn’t really need them or that it can realistic share planes is ridiculous.
    1
  32.  @asb358  we ordered 148 planes originally as that was what two carriers needed for training and losses now it’s down to 70/80. Half. The full air wing includes early warning. Still not available. Two 65,000 ships with half an air wing makes no sense. Huge ships without catapults makes no sense. The f35b is a compromise plane because of it weight and lack of range. No escort ships either! 6 destroyers that have a terrible operational record and half the number of required frigates. The whole thing is an incredibly expensive joke. Two big fat targets. As others have pointed out better to have three small ski ramp ships with the required escorts or two large carriers with catapults and much better f35cs I would point out that those saying we have 32 already are wrong. We only have 28 the other three are still in the US and we already lost one aircraft in training. That’s why we need lots more.
    1
  33.  @mikelovesbacon  so the original plane for 148 planes was a mistake? The US carrier fleet has been doing it wrong the whole time? And all our other carriers in the past got it wrong as well?
    1
  34.  @mikelovesbacon  fyi we don’t even have enough for one carrier!
    1
  35.  @verdebusterAP  “Operationally ready” without planes ;-)
    1