Jump to content
tanknet.org

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Back in 1984 I sailed around this same harbour and saw what was then one of our largest ships, HMS Tiger being broken up for scrap. To see nearly the same location with this as a replacement, well, lets just say its something I would never have believed 35 years ago.

 

 

In 50 years a member of the generation after the next of tanknetters will probably post the same comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends whether the United Kingdom is still here in 50 years Doug. Im beginning to doubt it.

Give it a few more years than 50, when what was the United Kingdom will no longer be united nor a kingdom. More like 'Airstrip One' by 2084, that is unless a 2035 version of Brave New World has not kicked in by then. Fahrenheit 451 will also come into play, where everyone who is anyway will have four wall to wall internet screens and be living in an internet 'paradise'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im serious Doug. Im not worried about the military threats to these carriers, but the political threat is very real.

 

I understand that Stuart. Either the UK (or parts of it) will become a new Costa Rica under American interests, or be somehow absorbed into being a 'department' of the Prussian / French coalition.

Edited by DougRichards
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, I think that misunderstands the problem. The problem is the SNP are agitating to become independent, so they (ostensibly) can rejoin the EU. And the Labour party have promised to give them a second referendum if they win. They dont want an alternative. They just want any excuse they can have to gain independence, because they, like ours, have a generation of politicians on the make and damn the consquences.

 

Granted Labour arent likely to win, but it illustrates, when people have fears that Brexit will cause the split of the Union, they are probably right. And at that point how affordable these will be, is an open question.

 

Im fearful these will prove a last hurrah. Lets hope im wrong.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.. that's a big problem.

 

A thought I had some time ago since watching some of the parliament debates when May was still PM, I was rather struck in the procedures. In some way, its admirable how so easily points and questions can be raised so quickly and openly. As a principle, it would seem great. But the manner it was being done felt rather toxic. I haven't known anything about the SNP except mention of them here on the forums, but when seeing the kinds of digging for egg trowing arguments by SNP representatives, then I got a sense of how troubling their agenda was. And then there was Corbyn of course with his flare. One thing I noticed was that each time PM May answered a made question, she would always answer by reference to the person asking the question as "my honorable friend" or something like that. Obviously non-existant in US political scene. But from the little of Japanese pailaiment debates that I watched, such usage to that degree of title is not used. So I thought about. Maybe its tradition in UK parliament. Or maybe it was something newly evolved. Maybe its a way to indicate respect to the person even if questioning opinion is vastly different and if the person was from a different part of the Kingdom. To the latter, it almost felt like begging to not separate by using the title. Well just some loose wondering thinking from the observation.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the adversarial Parliamentary system. Unlike Europe, which is collegiate and forced to form Governments, the British response has been to form big power blocks that can bulldoze through what they like, and then swap when the opposing side wins. This had a lot to commend it 200 year's ago. Today, perhaps not so much.

 

Yeah, they always refer to them as an honorable friend or honourable gentleman/woman/member, even if they are insufferable shit. :D Its tradition, we dont call people by names either, unless its a list dating from the Victorian period of descriptive nouns for people who dont know what they are talking about.

 

 

Well, I guess we shall see what will come. In the meantime we Brits can take comfort in at least one thing that seems to be going right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im serious Doug. Im not worried about the military threats to these carriers, but the political threat is very real.

 

You're not worried about military threats to these giant highly vulnerable white elephants. That's reassuring :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Im serious Doug. Im not worried about the military threats to these carriers, but the political threat is very real.

 

You're not worried about military threats to these giant highly vulnerable white elephants. That's reassuring :)

 

For better or worse, they have been protected by the political power of those strong enough to deploy them in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Im serious Doug. Im not worried about the military threats to these carriers, but the political threat is very real.

 

You're not worried about military threats to these giant highly vulnerable white elephants. That's reassuring :)

 

No. Because although military threats there are, I think they are overblown, and overly reliant of Russian hype of weapons that have yet to be successfully demonstrated.

 

You need to stop and consider why the Russians are so deprecatory to British carriers, and struggle to keep a rusty Soviet relic afloat and actually aim im to try and replace it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23000E

 

From back in 1998 when we started posting on this, I was always clear the real threat to these carriers is political. I believe it still is.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

A major power deploying a carrier is the equivalent of placing a political chip on its shoulder and daring anyone in the world to knock it off.

 

It is a symbol of the confidence a major power has in itself.

 

In contrast, a minor power deploying a carrier is just as recognizable, in symbolism far less flattering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much it. Along with political power is economic power. As well as other forms of responsive military power. It's all in a package. Getting a carrier is like getting a new sharp tip for the whole spear. Without it, the weight of the spear is the same but the tip is more blunt so penetrates less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much it. Along with political power is economic power. As well as other forms of responsive military power. It's all in a package. Getting a carrier is like getting a new sharp tip for the whole spear. Without it, the weight of the spear is the same but the tip is more blunt so penetrates less.

 

The quarterstaff is a traditional British weapon and more effective than one might think. ;)

 

 

But there certeainly is the need for an overseas deployable platform to protect all those overseas territories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we still have to defend the Falklands. And I was reading the other day, Argentina was looking at the JF17. No idea how realistic it is they can afford it though.

 

In truth, there isnt THAT much Empire left to defend now. But we still have agreements with a lot of countries on mutual defence. A carrier is still one of the better options to defend Belize, even after all this time. Clearly as a platform, these have a lot to offer British overseas territories in the aftermath of tropical storms, which are likely to become ever more common. Its not going to be short of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's pretty much it. Along with political power is economic power. As well as other forms of responsive military power. It's all in a package. Getting a carrier is like getting a new sharp tip for the whole spear. Without it, the weight of the spear is the same but the tip is more blunt so penetrates less.

 

The quarterstaff is a traditional British weapon and more effective than one might think. ;)

 

 

But there certeainly is the need for an overseas deployable platform to protect all those overseas territories.

There's been a quarterstaff in DOTA IIRC. Was quite good and a common purchase. But it was a mid-game weapon, sold to get better gear later in the game. All the late-game top level weapons (aside from hammers and caster stuff) were super sharp :D

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...