Well no the Russian navy is large but can hardly keep it's fleet operation. The squadron send into the Med is a token force with very limited capablities and the aircraft carrier after the operation will nodoubt go in for another long overhaul and refit. While other European nations have smaller forces they keep them highly trained and operational. The UK has just build 6 new destroyers, is building 5 more new nuclear powered attack submarines and 2 aircraft carriers. The French, Italians, Spanish and so on are all improving their fleets with new submarines, frigates and destroyers. Also the UK carriers are the best in the world, even better than the newer Nimitz class or G.R.Ford class. No because they are bigger or can carry more aircraft but because they are cheap to run, need less crew and will be the first fully electric carriers. So in effect the UK could build 3 carrier for the US 1, this would mean victory for the UK.
We have 12 groups floating and 3 more on the way. Who did we pi$$ off that we need to defend against with $800 billion a year military? And don't say China or Russia because China pays $130B and Russia pays $70B. No sir, clearly we are gearing up for an invasion from Mars.
Russia has only 1 aircraft carrier, the Kuznetsov. They were going to make a second, the Varyag, but it was back when USSR split up. They sold the half finished heap to China. So now China has one, a 20 year old piece of crap. No sir, a large aircraft carrier fleet is what USA has. Those other countries can only fantasize about owning anything close to ours. Reserve Fleet: 4 Forrestal class carriers, 3 Kitty Hawk class carriers, 1 Enterprise class carrier, and 1 Kennedy class carrier Active Fleet: 10 Nimitz class carriers Planned for 2015: 3 Ford class carriers. So 19 afloat (9 on mothballs in the reserve fleet), and 3 more on the way. Good luck to Russia and China. They have no chance. We are just....... that....... bada$$..........
That means exactly dick during a sea battle. USA carriers could easily take out UK carriers. All *ONE* of them. They once had the whopping number of 3, but 2 were decommissioned (bye bye Ark and Invincible). If you think UK's one carrier (the Illustrious, built in 1976) can go up against 10 Nimitz class carriers; I want what you are smoking. You do know the US Navy is the second largest air force on the planet, second only to USAF; right? If you took every navy on the planet and joined them together; I don't think they could take on the US Navy on the high seas.
We maintain fleets in two theatres, and also have commitments with a great many allies. As for the largest difference, look at the pay. Your average Chinese soldier makes around $35 a month. Drop our pay to that level, and you will see a huge drop in the cost of our military.
But you get what you pay for. If you put the US Navy and the China Navy in the same ships and aircraft; we would kick their a$$es every single time.
I am talking about the Queen Elizabeth class carriers which are currently being built 2 of them HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. If the UK built a third carrier and converted them all to CATOBAR using the F-35C and built AEW and ASW version of the Osprey, then that would be able to defeat 1 US carrier. However the US carrier has protection that makes it very hard to get to the carrier, with the cruisers and destroyers, all these ships a highly capable platforms that nobody has for air defense. If you include better US missiles and experience then the US has a huge advantage in terms of escorts. I am just pointing out that 3 QE class carriers can be built for the same cost as the G.R.Ford, they need less crew and are far less costly to operate.
And I have not said otherwise. China really only has to worry about 1 Ocean, we have 2+ because of UN, NATO, and other commitments.
I am sure UK will make competent super carriers moving forward. But we have 19 on the water and they have 1. We are making 3 more to bring us to 22, and they will make 3 to bring them to 4. And of course our crews are much better trained, and arguably we have better aircraft, better (and more) theater capable nukes, and other various defenses. And then of course our carrier groups have infinitely more subs than theirs will. So that still leads us back to UK not being able to go toe-to-toe with USA no matter what the future brings. And to be clear, you are saying if UK took their one carrier and then loaded it with all of USA's technology, USA's aircraft, and USA's subs and destroyers, they might have a shot at *ONE* USA carrier. That's pretty funny stuff. How about UK takes their Navy and goes against USA's Navy. I predict UK lasts roughly 15 minutes, assuming they are retreating at full steam and we just mess with them for 13 minutes for fun. - - - Updated - - - Wow. How can you be missing this thread? I am saying their military staff are not as capable as our military staff even using the same equipment.
Fair point with regard to 2 oceans vs 1; but truly - we shouldn't be the leading force for NATO and UN. Let Europe fend for themselves. We have over 450 bases outside of USA. That's crazy. But even with our added responsibilities; nobody could ever fantasize going up against the US Navy; which is light years beyond any other country on earth.
Actually, a lot of those "bases" are simply an office or two on the base of another nation. For example, pretty much every air base in NATO has a detachment responsible for shipping, receiving, and trans-shipping personnel and cargo from one destination to another. Therefore the US "has a base there" technically, but not in reality. The same goes for NATO Naval Bases, where there is a detachment responsible for making sure things like fuel, food, and shore leave can be handled when US ships pull into port. Most of those 450+ "bases outside of the US" have been talked about before in here, ad nauseum. The majority are not bases, but simply a few individuals who handle the affairs of thee US when needed, nothing else. Oh, and also included is every Embassy around the world, and a great many consulates. Since each of these is a "base" for US Marines.
The UK doesn't have any aircraft carriers currently. US crew aren't better trained they have more experience. The UK and US will be using the same jets the F-35. The US escorts use AEGIS the UK escorts use PAAMS for air defence combat systems, the difference is the US ships have more missiles and the US missiles are better, but the systems are about the same capabilities. UK attack submarines are just as good as US attack submarines, the UK could have 5 operational the US would have about 2-3 for defending 1 carrier. No I am saying if the UK built 3 QE class carriers, there own aircraft, used their own systems, new missiles, build new destroyers and cruisers they would defeat the US carrier.
Honestly, I am not convinced the UK can win anything. And its funny to hear someone say UK could but they need American F-35's or American subs, or American anything. BTW - the Brits have one carrier. It doesn't get sunset until 2014 or 2015 or something like that. It might be my American pride, but I think the Americans are the best at anything they set their minds to.
I am British. The F-35 started off as a joint projection between the UK and US, so it is partly British aircraft. The Astute class submarines is British, as is the Trafalgar class. No we have no carrier, we have 2 LPH's or helicopter carriers. No you are just a massive country with loads of resources which used the British system to create the best economy in the world. So no the US isn't the best at anything it wants to be.
Wait, what?!?! We didn't use the British system to create our economy. When we left you folks (against your wishes), you had a fairly despotic King and a Pope replacement called an Archbishop of Canterbury that did whatever the King ordered. We then created basically the first Congress structure since Rome's Senate. The Founding Fathers built it from scratch - we most certainly did not use a "British system". Sure we are a massive country of 3 million square miles with tons of resources, but UK made up that with being imperialists that basically ran around conquering entire continents. It's funny to see a Brit say they are better than us or that we stole all their ideas about how to run a government or build a military. We needed nothing from you folks and made that pretty clear in 1776. If you folks aren't as powerful as us, it's because you folks can't hold a candle to American ingenuity.
Well yes you have used the British system under Pax Britannic to create the currently system under Pax Americana which in economic and cultural terms means the US controls world trade and the money supply. Of course you use markets and free trade the same way the British did. You do know the British Parliament was the one pushing not to give your elected rights in the British parliament not the King. No the King was head of the Church of England and the British Army. So Britain had a nation church backed by the British state which meant the Catholic church a foreign power had less influence in Britain, one of the reasons for the enlightenment in Britain at the time. Have you ever heard of Common Law, Magna Carta or the British bill of right or something, they were used by you back stabers at the time to create your laws. The British didn't go running around taking whole Coninents we were attacked in India by the Mughal Empire and fought back, we trading with Africa tribes to gain influence then took over. North America was mainly a battle between the British and French. Australia and New Zealand we took. I am not saying the British are better than the Americans I am saying the US used the British ideals to create it's country Common Law, Democracy, Capitalism, Scientific and Intellectual freedom. You used our what system, just without the stability of the Monarchy and Church, you took at much as you could from us. No it because Britain is smaller than the US.
It's funny to see how you folks view this, compared to the reality of it all. My favorite is that you called Americans "back stabbers". You do mean that you wanted to suck everything out of us like blood sucking ticks so you could fund a war in Europe. We didn't like the idea of "taxation without representation" so we stood up to a tyrant named King George. And we aren't better because we are bigger. We are just better, period. The size of your island isn't why we invented so much more than UK did with regard to all modern technologies. If island size were the cause, you wouldn't have invented the jet engine. We would have. It just so happens that we invented everything else, including the internet you are typing on and the nukes that keep you free to type on it.
No I called your "founding fathers" back stabers. Some people about 30% of the 13 colonies wanted to say under British rule. No those wars against France and Spain started because they allied with the 13 colonies against the British. We weren't sucking you dry, the revolution started because of a tax cut. What they wanted was fair and equal representation either within the British parliament which just wasn't possible or their own parliament which would be just as important as the British parliament, so of course the British parliament wasn't going to have that. You had representation, but it wasn't equal with the British parliament, your elite backed by the French and then the Spanish didn't like that so they wanted to have the people for them selves by getting independence. The US is more powerful than the UK because it is bigger. Most US inventions have taken place after WW2 when the British were not really in a position to invent things to busy worrying about the USSR. Britain did invent the computer I think and nuclear bomb war created by a number of countries including the US and Britain.
I always love seeing the other side of the coin. The American Revolution is probably the most misunderstood war the US has ever been involved with. And in fact, ironically most of the "Founding Fathers" themselves did not want a separation from England, simply their "Rights as Englishmen" under the Bill of Rights of 1689. This is why the phrase "No taxation without representation" was so important for the movement. And in fact, the Declaration of Independence did not even start out as that. In fact, originally the purpose of that document was to produce a resolution urging reconciliation and representation of the colonies, and to not force a separation. It was only after the dissolution of state legislatures, the increasing acts against Massachusetts, and the rejection of earlier petitions about having representation in Parliament that the proposed resolution shifted from one to redress grievances to one of Independence. One of the most interesting books I have read was "The Two Georges", by Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss. In this alternate history, George Washington traveled to England and met with King George, being able to reach an agreement that kept the colonies in the Union. The novel name comes from a fictional painting by Thomas Gainsborough (of The Blue Boy fame) which shows the meeting of "The Two Georges" and their successful reconciliation. But no, there was indeed no representation for any of the colonies in Parliament. There was no Aristocracy, therefore no members from the colonies in the House of Lords. And there were no seats for the colonies, so no representation in the House of Commons either. And although there had been proposals to create such for over 2 decades, nothing had ever been done with them. If instead of rushing troops to the Colonies they had passed a resolution extending representation instead, more then likely the US would stil be part of the Commonwealth.
How long did it take to sail back and forth across the Atlantic in those days? I don't know how much it could have worked on a weekly bases with elected people from the 13 colonies voting on matters. Even today UK MP's who are electied in Northern Scotland complain about finding it hard to get to votes because of travel time. Also many of the people in the Lords and Commons had land in the 13 colonies, they could have spoke for the people in the 13 colonies if they had any problems. The other more democratic and realistic idea was to have a 13 colonies parliament but it was rejected. If we are talking about the commonwealth that is very different to what the 13 colonies were asking for. Canada basically had devolution of powers but all it's money, foreign policy, armed forces was governed by the British parliament, would that have stopped the 13 colonies war of independence I am not sure it would have. The main problem for Britain wasn't the 13 colonies but the French and Spanish who took large amounts of territory, this basically destroyed 70 years of work by the British in North America trying to curb the power of France and Spain making Britain safe from invasion.
This would be no different then say an Ambassador Plenipotentiary. Until only after WWII did Parliament generally meet for more then 100 days every year. Call it 3 months, and another month each way for transit, that is still 5 months in the UK or in transit, 7 months back home. And most instructions could be handled via messenger. And this is no different from how Ambassadors have acted for over a thousand years. They have instructions from home, and try to follow them to the best of their ability, but sometimes they do have to make decisions on their own. And if they make to many that those at home do not like, they are replaced at the next election.
Americans were never represented in Parliament. King George was sucking us dry. And most certainly the cheap bastard sent us squat when we were being attacked by the Indians. And as much as you want to fantasize that your silly little island had anything to do with ENIAC, it didn't. It also had nothing to do with the first CPU, which was the Intel 4004. And I find it funny that you think Britain was worried about USSR. NATO was almost entirely paid for with US Dollars. The only thing you folks were ever known for was crappy warm beer and cars that won't run because you people invented Lucas generators (which are about as useless as t1ts on a bull).
I'm not saying England is the third world. But be honest with yourself - UK has been useless for a long, long time. If you think your military machine is even close to USA you are a silly little man. Heck, I am not convinced England could even beat 1991 Saddam's Iraq or present day North Korea. You would have your hands full taking on Myanmar, to be perfectly candid. France could surrender, and then still kick your arse after she laid down her weapons (and trust me, she is really good at that).
See- now you are just making crapola up. You folks were flat busted broke from the French-Indian War which started in 1754. We didn't start smacking you guys around like red headed stepchildren until around 1775. You just wanted to tax the holy heck out of us because you were broke; and we wanted no part of that taxation if we had no say overseas. But we are getting off track here. The laughable idea that your Navy could ever stand to our Navy is beyond absurd. Heck, our Reserve Fleet could go over there and wipe your country out and we wouldn't even have to send our Active Fleet. In fact, we could probably take an old Forrestal Carrier like the Saratoga and give it some sub support and a battleship or two like the Wisconsin; and we could level England with just those. And with our Active Fleet; we could take out your entire military machine in a week. Saddam's military was bigger and better trained than your silly little military; and we rolled through that in 1991 like a hot knife through butter.
