Yes,that's the history. Japan and UK once had the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. If there had been no futile World War II, there would be no Soviet Union and no Chinese Communist Party, and the world in the 21st century would be more stable and peaceful.
@@KohyuNishimura Questionable opinion. Communist violence had already taking root in Russia well before WW2 and was spreading in SE Asia. There's no reason to speculate they would not have been aggressive in spreading their murderous ideology regardless of WW2.
@H L Japan is one of the most advanced and prosperous countries on earth with an economy to dream of, if thats what you call dictated to then I'm not sure what you are after, I'l call it more of a partnership. Remember the alternative would be poverty under the jack boot of China & the CCP...
@H L well if those stats are to be believed and outwith the standard of living & poverty issue i would much rather be in one of the pro western nations over like Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Hong etc all are very good places to enjoy life and be free...
@H L the Chinese idea of poverty means $5 a day or less. In parts of California a family is poor on an annual income of $40000. In other words, poverty in china is actual poverty. In the USA it is a measure of relative income compared with others. Hardly anyone in the USA suffers from real poverty. That's partly because the USA is about 6 times wealthier than china, per capita, and partly because there is a social security system in the USA. It is a basic social security system, but china has nothing. Die in the street nothing. Got no money, in china? Don't expect to see a doctor, even basic emergency care will be denied. Have money in china? Kidneys and hearts can be ordered direct off the menu, overnight. Very efficient transplant system. China dream.
@H L I didn't say that emergency care is denied. I said that it won't be given if you can't pay for it. And as for the Chinese social security system...even Chinese people say that in effect, it is somewhere between nonexistent to useless. That's the reason that Chinese people save almost half their income. Now, this might be a good thing. One might argue that western social security systems make people feckless and ultimately achieve nothing. But nonetheless, communist china does almost nothing for its poor. There isn't even an attempt to redistribute wealth and income from the rich to the poor, and if you study your GINI coefficients you will see that china is one of the most unequal countries in the world. That's ridiculous. The USA is capitalist. It doesn't even pretend that it wants to tax and spend in order to transfer money from the rich to the poor. But it does! China is communist, it's all about the clenched fist, brotherly love and equality. But that is pure falsehood. Xi Xing ping is quite good at the clenched fist. But how many billions does he have in a Swiss bank account quietly squirrelled away...?
Magnificent to see us with Japanese and other countries! She’s certainly a beast is our Aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS POW. Just need a little better Air power. And maybe some More Water vessels. To protect us and to help our Allies in There hour of Need. God Bless The Queen 👑
@@JawsFan27 wow thats cool .. well great that you did , had opportunity to be there ..are you a serving member btw, or civilian specialist of some type perhaps? just am curious ,not looking for any real details etc
Yep. A 70,600 ton one (though 150ft shorter she's nearly as beamy as a 'Nimitz' or 'Ford') and able to operate a balanced airwing of over 60, all types if only our pathetic political mediocrities will stop virtue signalling with our still vastly over-bloated foreign aid budget and instead, buy Liz and PoW the required aircraft.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 I would love to see proper air group for her. It's like buying a Rolls Royce and then putting a ford engine in there. we need a drone AEW, cheap reliable and able to stay on station for 12 hours. Just like the V247 from Belle. 6 of these with a solid AESA radar and we could have 2 in the sky all day long with a 3rd for emergencies. I wouldn't send her phat ass into battle with anything less
She is has a specially designed acousticly quite hull and engines. Which make it easier for her escort ship's to detect submarines. While remaining closer to the HMS Queen Elizabeth, allowing them to perform fire control missions. Which is why the HMS iron Duke was able to detect two Chinese submarines instantly.
Serious on paper that small show of sea power out guns and out classes China in every way , with the ability to cross deck and create a wider and longer force projection range , but its the advanced integrated sensor networking that puts them light years ahead , with the ability to use their F-35s and ships to create a kill web of sensors and shooters able to operate from way over the horizon and beyond the range of their own ships sensors . Chinas answer to this , the usual big talk ups about their so called exotic game changing ship killers , sure if one adventures close in shore to China ? but at long range , now way , even China continues to build its new type 03 carrier , and operate one carrier strike group of sorts, when the USA also has "ship killers" say no more .
I think their Helicopter Carriers can easily be converted to Jet Aircraft Carriers, but do to their constitution they arent allowed to have offensive weapons,. unless their Survival is in danger, that is why they used that word against China
Carriers are an offensive weapon platform which might collide with Japan's constitution ... besides Japan has a pretty formidable navy as it is. They have more destroyers than Britain and France combined
@blakespower they are modifying them so actually ,or will be .as to their constitution I know Shinzo abe was or had intent to ,modify that too basically to allow Japan to operate with n support Allies . he didnt get that or get to that I know ,but thats the general direction Japan is going , imo .
The UK has plans to retain a QE Class carrier in the Asia-Pacific region permanently. Probably HMS Prince of Wales. So considering Japan is British ally, it would also protect Japanese territory.
Yup, HMS Artful is under there somewhere, lurking about in the darkness, a silent hunter keeping watch for China's underwater canal boats lol, along with any subs the Americans or Japanese have sent of course
@@1IbramGaunt or the Dutch.. They also got some really silent and capable submarines (Walrus class). Also they are currently designing and building new submarines (the A26) together with Sweden (Saab).
@@krultheg3021 well good for them! Was under the impression they'd only sent just the one frigate with this Strike Group, but if they've sent submarines too that's great of course!
@@TT-hd3zi nah pretty sure it's Artful mate, or it certainly was up till recently, although they might've sent a second Astute-class or switched them for whatever reason, who knows
The recent UK carrier strike route with the US and Japanese is an impressive feat of international cooperation. It provides an opportunity for the participating countries to learn from one another's military strategies in times of both peace and war. However, it's worth examining the current state of the British Armed Forces in terms of personnel numbers. The British Armed Forces had approximately 143,200 personnel serving in the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force. It's important to note that this figure can fluctuate due to various factors such as recruitment and retirement rates, budget constraints, and operational requirements. Unfortunately, when it comes to numbers alone, the British Armed Forces may not be as strong as we would like them to be. In the event of a world war, we may not be able to defend ourselves as effectively as we would hope. Therefore, while it's great to engage in joint exercises with our partners, we must recognize that we may not currently have the military might to rule the seas, air, and land. If the situation remains unaddressed, it's likely to worsen over time.
@@TT-hd3zi Nope, far from it. But torpedoes are a bit awkward to stop by a ship only armed with rotary cannon. Especially if they are unsporting enough not to approach just below the surface in a noisy way and leaving a nice visible track. As for other threats.... well during WWII the RN's miniature submarines badly dented Tirpitz by dropping rather large mines under her keel. The RAF dropped a few Barnes Wallis specials that finally did the business. Two Italian Naval Officers riding a "human torpedo" sank a couple of RN 15" battleships in Alexandria Harbour. So even if you are equipped from bow to stern with splendid ordnance you still have to detect the other guy to eliminate the threat.
@Truth is a bannable offence Considering they didn't use any MV-22's in the evacuation or any other rotary ship based aircraft I am not sure what you are getting at here. You realize that it is a long haul inland to northern Afghanistan through Pakistan from aboard ship right? It was WAY more efficient to use our massive airlift capability.
@Truth is a bannable offence The 24th MEU was indeed there but they got off ship at Kuwait and flew into Afghanistan aboard a C-17. There is news video of that happening all over the internet. The rest of the MEU did continue on but none of the Iwo Jima rotary wing aircraft participated in the evacuation. The only aircraft from the Iwo that had anything to do with it was their Harriers deployed during the first three days as armed overwatch. The C-17's flew in aircraft from the US Army 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment which included AH-6 and MH-47's and those are the aircraft that went out and picked up US citizens around the country. I was apart of the 01 invasion of Aghanistan from aboard ship and it was a LONG ride over Pakistan in a 53 and we had to land three times to refuel at special refueling FOB's just to get there. There was zero chance of deploying rotary wing assets from aboard ship to help in this evacuation because it would just not make any sense.
@@joehiggins7830 It's already known though. "The maximum sortie rate is 110 joint combat aircraft sorties in 24 hours. The standard air group of 40 aircraft includes 36 Lockheed Martin F-35B joint strike fighter, and four EH101 Merlin helicopter." "The Navy designed CVN-78 to increase the sortie generation capability of embarked aircraft to 160 sorties per day (12-hour fly day) and to surge to 270 sorties per day (24-hour fly day) as compared to the CVN-68 Nimitz class sortie generation rate demonstration of 120 sorties per day/240 sorties for 24-hour surge. "
@@joehiggins7830 Did you not just read my post? Do the math, i literally gave you all you need. Divided the number of planes by the total hours and there is your answer. But since you have to do everything for people nowdays.... "QE class: The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes." Nimitz class: The flight deck measures 333m x 77m and is equipped with four lifts, four steam-driven catapults and four arrester wires. The carrier is capable of launching one aircraft every 20 seconds. The NIMITZ-class carriers are a floating airport, capable of launching as many as four aircraft a minute. The ship's four catapults and four arresting gear engines enable her to launch and recover aircraft rapidly and simultaneously."
I suppose senior officer afloat , as a guess Id say the admiral or Commodore aboard the Queen Elizabeth , but I could be wrong .. and in time of crisis ,or wartime , admiral commanding would probly be designated ,or maybe flown aboard ..
😭 *Ayang dr. Pit...* *Tolong* Romi Yang...😭 Ayang.... *Huuu...Huuu...* *Ayaaaaaang dr. Pit.* Romi sudah kerja tetapi tidak ada Romi menerima Gaji satu Rupiah pun. Tolong Romi *Ayang dr. Pit.* *Romi bekerja* untuk membiayai operasi bedah jantung Romi. *Huhuhu...* 😭 *Ayang... dr. Pit ..* Huhuhu.... Romi uang untuk membiayai operasi bedah jantung Romi, Ayang.... *Huhuhu...*😭
Glad to see the UK navy coming back, hope to see you and (Japan) go nuclear for your carriers before China. I know wanting Japan to get nuclear carriers is pushing it based on their self defense doctrine, but UK could do it. Keep putting the pressure on China. Keep it up.
We don't need Nuclear carriers, the U.S doesn't need nuclear carriers, they are completely pointless for the cost. Every other ship in any carrier strike group needs to take on fuel, as well as the aircraft on board. U.S carriers would be half the price if they went conventional with absolute minimal capability loss
@@kennybuckley6185 Always that one person looking to argue on a comment praising the UK. You people need thicker skin. Nuclear carriers are better in every single way. Nuclear carriers carry enough fuel for the entire fleet as they don't use it themselves. They are the support ship. Ignorance is bliss. "The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
We can barely make reliable Destroyers, let alone a nuclear carrier! We should ask the frogs for tips on shipbuilding, and a sufficient military complex aswell including their own jets and nuclear warheads....
@@ThatCarGuy Just to be clear. Ford came in at estimated $17.5B (inc R&D), and the price of Lizzie approx a quarter of that. Defence spending is a huge focus in the UK. The running costs of a nuclear vessel are considerably more, both in and out of it's lifetime, and the maintaining of airframes with the jets needing a catapult keeps them out of the sky for much longer periods. Nuclear ships can dock in very few ports due to national gov't refusals, and can rarely be fixed anywhere other than US homeland docks. As with most things in life, with a classic election phrase, "It's the money, stupid". Something you don't seem to grasp.
There are large part of the world that do not welcome nuclear vessels in their waters or docked in their ports. A nuclear propulsion is not vital to carrier operations, but the UK government and RN both felt that conventional powdered ships give more opportunity for international relations plus increased transit opportunities in difficult area were important. But, no, you are right. If Merica does it, it can be the only option right?
Hmm, what's missing? Oh yes, the embarrassing fiasco that is HMS Diamond, still rotting away in Italy, waiting for someone to get their s#@t together and fix the damn thing...
Considering it's a maiden carrier deployment, for most of the British ships involved, then losing one ship, through technical difficulties isn't a bad return. Once the type 45s are upgraded and refitted, this kind of thing won't happen again
not the US n Natos fault after 10 yrs of training the afghan army couldnt or wouldn't fight ,and the talibn got their butts kicked every time they tried a stand up fight why do you think they reverted back to insurgency force when Nato was in combat role took that lead in Afghanistan from about 2006 to 2012 .and even after that the talibn spring offensives were aimed basically at afghan forces ,who still had US support n airpower ..n in all that time the talibn never took any major cities . nope it was only after that support gone a token force by tht point basically ,with a peace deal signed ,by the trump administration . it was only after tht and the afghan forces collapsed ,and collapsed is the word but how long was the US and Nato supposed to stay and hand hold them anyway,another 20 yrs ?
@@RoadstersRegistry how long was the US n Nato supposed to stay & hand hold the afghan army , who literally when push came to shove couldn't stand on own 2 feet ..6 out of 7 Corps in the Afghan army surrendered without fighting or very little . but while the US n Nato were there almost 20 yrs no major city was taken even during the talibns spring offensives . so wasnt US or Natos fault the Afghans couldnt stand on their own, who by numbers outnumbered the talibn 4 or 5 to 1 , had their own tanks, artillery and air support . by all that shouldve been able to hold n fight on their own , in other words
