Britain is preparing to adopt a second aircraft carrier

100
Britain is preparing to adopt a second aircraft carrier

The second British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales completed sea trials and arrived at the port of registry of Portsmouth, where the ceremony of putting the ship into the British Navy will take place. The ship will be part of fleet until the end of the year. This was reported by Press Association.

Our first Portsmouth Harbor entrance was the successful completion of the construction and sea trials phases, during which the shipbuilding company and partner organizations worked very closely to ensure that Prince of Wales was included in the fleet

- said the captain of the ship Darren Houston.



As previously reported, in mid-September, HMS Prince of Wales set sail from the dock of the Abcock Marine shipyard in Rosyth, Scotland, where they were completing afloat, to pass the tests on the northwestern coast of Scotland, during which the plane first landed on the aircraft carrier’s deck, and its power plant was tested at maximum speed in 25 nodes.

The British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is the second ship of this type and the first serial ship after the lead Queen Elizabeth, introduced to the Royal Navy 07 on December 2017. The construction of the aircraft carrier was launched on May 26 of the year 2011 with a steel cutting ceremony. The actual assembly of the ship from the blocks began in May 2014, all in all, the 52 previously assembled blocks were used in the aircraft carrier design. Launched on December 21 2017 of the year.

Length - 280 m, width - 73 m, total displacement exceeds 70 000 t. Speed ​​up to 25 knots (46 km / h), autonomy is 10 000 miles or almost 300 days of sailing. Crew: command personnel 60 people, personnel 600 people and air personnel 900 people.

The wing should consist of F-35B fighters and Merlin helicopters (in total up to 40 vehicles with the possibility of expanding the wing to 70 units). In the basic configuration on the aircraft carrier will be located 12 F-35B. It is assumed that the ship will be able to carry attack and heavy military transport helicopters, as well as V-22 Osprey convertiplanes.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, laid two years earlier than the HMS Prince of Wales, is currently on a visit to the United States, where flight tests of fighters intended for him will be held. The initial combat readiness of both aircraft carriers is expected to be achieved next year.

100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    17 November 2019 06: 35
    India, China, England, the United States - powers with a powerful economy, can afford to build and maintain aircraft carriers. In our country, they cannot even build a new destroyer (New corvettes without normal air defense (
    1. -8
      17 November 2019 07: 07
      Quote: elfik
      can afford to build and maintain aircraft carriers

      Rather, I didn’t really want to ...
      And more precisely - legs should be stretched over clothes.
      In Naglia, the parliament fought - crying for money.
      1. +7
        17 November 2019 07: 10
        Quote: Victor_B
        Quote: elfik
        can afford to build and maintain aircraft carriers

        Rather, I didn’t really want to ...
        Friends oligarchs more like huge yachts
      2. -6
        17 November 2019 10: 51
        I didn't really want to - is it from the cycle "green grapes"?
    2. -1
      17 November 2019 16: 30
      Quote: elfik
      India, China, England, the United States - powers with a powerful economy, can afford to build and maintain aircraft carriers. In our country, they cannot even build a new destroyer (New corvettes without normal air defense (


      In England, the economy is not particularly powerful after WWII. To the Americans they like to the moon on foot. And to China too. China so far has not the best quality, but over time, the Chinese can catch up with the United States.
  2. -8
    17 November 2019 06: 38
    That’s why the Nuggaxaxes are aircraft carriers? For a long time they haven’t had any colonies to rob .. Russia would frighten heh heh They would sit quietly and shit quietly .. Here they run right on a missile strike (all our thieves were gathered there in London) They'll wait someday.
    1. +14
      17 November 2019 07: 08
      No one dares to launch a rocket. There are children, wives, real estate, accounts, yachts. lol
      1. -9
        17 November 2019 07: 25
        Quote: Greenwood
        No one dares to launch a rocket. There are children, wives, real estate, accounts, yachts. lol

        And who will ask them? Buttons are not their kids - majors are sitting, but ordinary Russian officers who survived in the 90's hehe hi
        1. +12
          17 November 2019 08: 01
          Well yes. Those on the buttons decide when and where to shoot, or on orders?
          1. -2
            17 November 2019 08: 14
            Quote: Avior
            Those on the buttons decide when and where to shoot, or on orders?

            And then I think that no one can stop you, but here I "decided" in proportion ... Well, no matter how much rope twists ...
            stop Not enough for GB two aircraft carriers - do not fit in two when they go under water ... lol
          2. -8
            17 November 2019 09: 11
            Quote: Avior
            Well yes. Those on the buttons decide when and where to shoot, or on orders?

            Well, different systems are available in Russia .. hi
            For example, "Dead Hand" .. Just don't need to kick me right away hehe Moscow is the capital of course and a lot of things are concentrated there, but NATO got too close .. Therefore, it is better to play it safe, somewhere in a remote taiga hehe
        2. +9
          17 November 2019 09: 43
          Quote: Provincial-M
          and ordinary Russian officers who survived in the 90s
          But why didn’t these Russian officers prevent the collapse of the country? That's right, they waited for the order. Which was not. So it is here. There will be no order.
          1. -3
            17 November 2019 11: 04
            Quote: Greenwood
            But why didn’t these Russian officers prevent the collapse of the country? That's right, they waited for the order. Which was not.

            Well, it wasn’t, you’re right .. They were even afraid to wear their uniforms .. And they were forbidden to wear weapons, but they still took them in violation of an order from Moscow ... Because they started to kill them from around the corner! I'm generally silent about conscript soldiers .. soldier
            Rokhlin tried to unite the military officers in a party against the drunk EBN and other oligarchs who had sucked in the Kremlin .. But alas, "his loving wife killed him with a personal pistol" so it seemed officially .. my heart ached with indignation .. angry
            These are the things that happened in the Kremlin’s kagal in the 90’s soldier
            And we survived in Russia as best we could .. hi
        3. -3
          17 November 2019 10: 02
          I don’t know how they are, but no one will ask you for sure, they have not grown yet)
        4. -4
          17 November 2019 10: 54
          The problem is that Russia (as well as buttons) is commanded by not ordinary Russian officers who survived in the 90s.
          And the popes of these very children-majors.
        5. +1
          17 November 2019 11: 04
          What universe do you live in? Who commands the Russian officers? Who will let their kids in the USA and England kill?
        6. +2
          17 November 2019 11: 05
          --The buttons are not their kids - majors are sitting, but simple
          --Russian officers who survived the 90s heh heh

          Those are already retired for a long time.
          1. -2
            17 November 2019 13: 52
            Quote: Nait
            --The buttons are not their kids - majors are sitting, but simple
            --Russian officers who survived the 90s heh heh

            Those are already retired for a long time.

            Well, how can I say .. In Russia, it is inherited and it doesn’t matter what system soldier
            There is such a profession to defend the homeland of the Russian! soldier

            These are the things going on in the Urals .. heh heh
        7. The comment was deleted.
      2. +4
        17 November 2019 09: 51
        Watch Russia. That's where your money stolen by the oligarchs.
      3. 0
        18 November 2019 17: 54
        Quote: Greenwood
        No one dares to launch a rocket. There are children, wives, real estate, accounts, yachts. lol

        If the West decides to transfer relations with the Russian Federation to the hot phase, then no accounts and real estate in the West will matter.
        Muammar Gaddafi is an example of this - prisoners from the top in such wars are now not taken, and there will be no quiet old age with the loot. In the best case, there will be a tribunal of winners (okhlos needs spectacles, and what could be better to demonstrate the victory of democracy than the trial of tyrants), in the worst they will simply be beaten. So that gentlemen, nowhere to run - have to fight.
    2. +3
      17 November 2019 09: 11
      About robbing the colony.
      After the collapse of the British colonial empire, a serious audit was conducted, the results of which were shocking.
      It turned out that the so-called British Colonial Empire is an extremely unprofitable enterprise. The metropolis invested more than it received. In order to get resources from the colonies, it is first necessary to build industry, mining and processing, train personnel, create infrastructure for transportation and export, increase the merchant and military fleets.
      It is more profitable to capture already developed countries. Like Russia in the 90s.
      1. 0
        17 November 2019 09: 58
        This you tell the Indians and Chinese.
      2. -11
        17 November 2019 11: 26
        Two questions on your comment.
        If it is so beneficial to capture, then why not capture? The same Russia in the 90s? But on the contrary, they still supplied with some legs, helped to survive?
        The animal grin of capitalism, it turns out, exists only in the minds of our propagandists? Or is capitalism not so bad? If he builds industry in the colony, infrastructure, hospitals, trains staff, increases the merchant fleet?
        If he gives more than he receives?
        Then what about the only true teaching?
        1. 0
          17 November 2019 12: 11
          Quote: Chit
          The animal grin of capitalism, it turns out, exists only in the minds of our propagandists?


          In Russia, if anything, capitalism is already 30 years old. Everyone can appreciate it.
          1. 0
            17 November 2019 16: 08
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            Russia, if anything, capitalism is already 30 years old. Everyone can appreciate it.

            in Russia, anything but democracy, and capitalism to call this chaos bureaucrats that now can only be a big optimim.
            1. 0
              17 November 2019 16: 11
              Quote: Neni Lynn
              anything in Russia but not democracy


              I did not speak about democracy.

              Quote: Neni Lynn
              capitalism call it chaos bureaucrats that now can only be a big optim.


              This is precisely capitalism. Oligarchic, state - call it whatever you like, but this is capitalism.
    3. 0
      17 November 2019 11: 41
      Perhaps this is part of the plan. wassat
    4. 0
      18 November 2019 17: 37
      Quote: Provincial-M
      That’s why the Nuggaxaxes are aircraft carriers? For a long time they have not had any colonies to rob anyone ..

      The Angles still have a few bases around the world. Plus, they have responsibilities for NATO - North Atlantic PLO.
  3. -7
    17 November 2019 06: 43
    Russia does not give a damn about it!
    The dangers for Russia are simply zero! From the word "in general".
    So rejoice for the English taxpayers!
    1. +8
      17 November 2019 09: 45
      Quote: Victor_B
      So rejoice for the English taxpayers!
      I agree. We will rejoice for them. At least they see where their taxes go. But where are ours, a rhetorical question ...
  4. +2
    17 November 2019 06: 47
    They refused not only from catapults, but also from brake cables and even gas reflective shields. For this reason, for the takeoff run of the F-35B "short" take-off, the entire length of the deck is needed from its rear edge to the forward springboard. ... In fact, structurally, this ship is a helicopter carrier. In which, by the way, it was proposed to reclassify it at one time.
    1. +3
      17 November 2019 06: 59
      So on the British aircraft carriers there were no catapults and screens, springboards yes, this is their invention, plus they always used VTOL aircraft.
      1. +1
        17 November 2019 07: 47
        Study history. Both Phantom and Buccaneer were based on British aircraft carriers in the 70s. "Always VTOL", this is out of great need.
        1. -6
          17 November 2019 09: 15
          Quote: Nycomed
          Learn the story

          Yes, we know the history and who are the Anglo-Saxons hehe ..
          After the capture of Berlin, the entire system of the colonial west began to collapse, but Israel was formed, this is the world problem now, especially hehe
          1. +2
            17 November 2019 09: 21
            The "colonial system" was destroyed by F.D. Roosevelt, back in September 1941, when he forced Churchill to sign the Atlantic Charter. Hehe ... hi
      2. 0
        18 November 2019 18: 19
        Quote: K-612-O
        So on the British aircraft carriers there were no catapults and screens

        There were - before the "invincibles".
        All this springboard-vertical disgrace began in the mid-60s, when the Laborites first nailed down the CVA-01 (atomic "Queen Elizabeth") directly on the slipway, and in parallel, they generally took up arms against AB. The same "Invincibles" had to be disguised as "solid deck control cruisers"by sticking anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missile systems on them (hello TAVKR).

        With the "Queens" the story was even sadder than with our "Kuznetsov" (we managed to put normal fighters on ours). Initially, the fleet wanted a nuclear-powered AB with catapults (in fact, returning to the CVA-01). And then the project came under attack from the Treasury. AEU failed for financial reasons. The catapults were hacked to death in the same way. In the early 2010s, the construction of the second ship of the series came under attack. It was possible to defend it only through joint efforts of the fleet and parliamentarians: the fleet prudently managed to enter into the construction contract fines for refusal to build, exceeding the cost of the ship, and parliamentarians (from the ruling party!) Actually delivered an ultimatum to the prime minister - either Britain is building a second AB, or they will have to be fired up to 50 thousand people, and precisely in those areas that are most important in the upcoming elections. As a result, the "Prince" was defended.
        The funny thing is that initially saving on catapults, the British as a result were forced to pay even more. For among the ejection fighters there is some, but a choice (French or two Americans). And KVVP is now only one - and its price for the British, by a strange coincidence, began to constantly grow.
    2. +1
      17 November 2019 12: 12
      "for the takeoff run of a" short "supposedly takeoff F-35B" ////
      ----
      Why is it "supposedly" short? F-35B takes off perfectly from all UDCs, even small ones. He doesn't need a springboard, so they don't use it. But if the British feel like it, they can easily buy the F-35S or Super Hornets for takeoff from the springboard. Of course, the finishers will have to be mounted.
      These aircraft carriers designed based on the F-35S, but this version was slowed down with certification due to problems with the landing gear and hook when braking.
      The British did not wait and bought the F-35B
      1. 0
        18 November 2019 19: 02
        Quote: voyaka uh
        These aircraft carriers and designed for the F-35S

        Only at the very beginning. And then the possibility of basing normal "penguins" remained only for the media - and the design went along the path of an aircraft carrier with a KVVP. From time to time there were deviations in the direction of catapults - but the Treasury, with an iron fist of budget cuts, returned the project to KVVP.
        In the media, rumors were circulating about the universality of the AB, they say, if there is money, then it will be possible to quickly put the catapults. But, EMNIP, in 2012 it was officially recognized that the new ABs do not have any universality - since 2004, design has been carried out only on the basis of HVAC.
        1. -1
          18 November 2019 19: 26
          There are no catapults. But there is a place on the deck (near the springboard, parallel to it), under which there is the opportunity to mount a catapult. He was left specifically for this occasion.
          But, you are right, the budget for this is not provided.
          But the springboard can be used calmly for other types of fighters, and not the F-35B
  5. +3
    17 November 2019 07: 22
    pushed the boat off the pier
    Desperate, and maybe out of spite ...
    seven feet above the keel .... feel
    1. +2
      17 November 2019 09: 01
      Quote: Mouse
      Desperate, and maybe out of spite ...

      I pushed the boat off the pier
      Desperately, and maybe evil.
      What happened has been dreamed of all my life -
      Galley rower gave the oar.

      Not so that for all - not directly,
      He just closed his eyes for a long time.
      For those who steal quietly
      And placed, only not "in", but "for".

      And how many boats, and not only boats,
      Could we push away from the berths
      For hydrocarbons sold,
      When someone else chose - the right way.
  6. +6
    17 November 2019 07: 23
    Moans will begin now, thank God that Russia is not building aircraft carriers, why they are needed, and others, others, others ......
    1. +3
      17 November 2019 08: 12
      Not the "groans" matter. The aircraft carrier alone, by itself, cannot go on a campaign. We need AUG (aircraft carrier strike group). And what is it represented at "Kuzi"? Tug and tanker. That's all.
      1. -6
        17 November 2019 08: 26
        "Kuzya" is a cruiser and is capable of defending itself.
        1. +2
          17 November 2019 08: 49
          How to protect? By tanker and tug? In addition, another important element dropped out of the Kuzi AUG: a floating dock.
        2. +4
          17 November 2019 09: 09
          Kuzi's defense has been idle for 25 years
          1. 0
            17 November 2019 17: 05
            This is a completely different issue, it must be restored and modernized.
      2. 0
        17 November 2019 10: 06
        Why? we will pull one AUG completely (Kuzya, Ustinov, Moscow, a pair of BOD and a pair of Frigates + 2 nuclear submarines), even one OPEC.
        1. 0
          17 November 2019 11: 08
          RF will not pull! We need to build the entire infrastructure from scratch! The same docks for aircraft carriers, etc.
    2. +2
      17 November 2019 08: 23
      Quote: Thrifty
      Moans will begin now, thank God that Russia is not building aircraft carriers, why they are needed ...

      Really. If Russia had a pair of aircraft carriers with the corresponding AUG, they would have approached the shores of Syria, and what next? What would be left for the "poor boys and girls" from ... you know where from? Sit and shit quietly for yourself? Otherwise, no, and the whole shushara is sleeping peacefully, without fear of any peacekeeping role of Russia ...
      Everything is so cleverly planned here that even after "after" we will not be able to find out where the $ 1 so quietly and imperceptibly sailed away from Russia? By the way, those who settled in GB and "vegetate" in the US know more about this.
      1. +1
        17 November 2019 08: 47
        "Really. So if Russia had a couple of aircraft carriers with the corresponding AUG, would they come to the coast of Syria and what next?"
        But nothing, would have moved from a small puddle (Black Sea) to a slightly larger puddle (Mediterranean Sea), and everything, neither the Suez Canal nor Gibraltar, we control. And they won’t let you go back either, the Turkish Straits are not controlled by us either.
        1. 0
          17 November 2019 08: 59
          Quote: Nycomed
          And they won’t let you go back either, the Turkish Straits are not controlled by us either.
          Reply

          Based on what? It seems to me that in such a situation the United States is in vain preparing the fleet for the development of the Arctic - who will give them the right to crawl there, and even on a quiet polar night? feel
          1. 0
            17 November 2019 09: 15
            So the Arctic, half to half. Take a look at the globe, from above. Yes
      2. 0
        17 November 2019 12: 16
        Quote: ROSS 42
        So if Russia had a couple of aircraft carriers with the corresponding AUG, would they come to the coast of Syria and what next?


        And really - what's next? Dozens of aircraft are based at Khmeimim. From aircraft carriers, by the way, Su-25, Su-35 and Su-34.
        1. +1
          17 November 2019 12: 30
          Quote: Good_Anonymous
          And really - what's next? Dozens of aircraft are based at Khmeimim. From aircraft carriers, by the way, Su-25, Su-35 and Su-34.

          So I say: "What ... boat was sunk?"
          You ask the sovereign - he will tell you who, what, why and why ...
          1. 0
            17 November 2019 12: 31
            Quote: ROSS 42
            And really - what's next? Dozens of aircraft are based at Khmeimim. From aircraft carriers, by the way, Su-25, Su-35 and Su-34.

            So I say: "What ... boat was sunk?"


            More recently, you tried to say something else.
            1. 0
              17 November 2019 12: 43
              Quote: Good_Anonymous
              More recently, you tried to say something else.

              What about something else? What from Hmeimim should Israel be monitored through Lebanon? Or that the presence of AUG affects the intensity of the bombing? What to talk about? What are the necessary ships in Russia at best in projects, and the command depicts the former power of the USSR?
              Here, look at something else:
    3. +1
      17 November 2019 08: 44
      Quote: Thrifty
      Moans will begin now, thank God that Russia is not building aircraft carriers, why they are needed, and others, others, others ......

      But really. Why do I need an aircraft carrier without an AWACS aircraft and with only 12 fighter-bombers?
      1. 0
        17 November 2019 09: 35
        Absolutely logical! good
      2. +1
        17 November 2019 09: 48
        Only Americans have aircraft carriers with AWACS.
        It turns out that all the other aviks of the world are not needed?
        1. 0
          17 November 2019 11: 09
          The British and France have AWACS aircraft
        2. +1
          17 November 2019 11: 16
          Quote: maden.usmanow
          Only Americans have aircraft carriers with AWACS.

          The French also have. And the Chinese have, but they are waiting for an aircraft carrier with a catapult.
          In principle, for the British, his absence is not a problem. They try to conduct military operations together with the Americans. Their aircraft is compatible.
      3. +2
        17 November 2019 10: 49
        Quote: SVD68
        Quote: Thrifty
        Moans will begin now, thank God that Russia is not building aircraft carriers, why they are needed, and others, others, others ......

        But really. Why do I need an aircraft carrier without an AWACS aircraft and with only 12 fighter-bombers?


        With pilots who have never before flown at night ...
        for Kuzi simply has no opportunity for night flights.

        With pilots who have never passed the PBC.
        The only thing they know how to take off and land in the afternoon.
        Все.
  7. +1
    17 November 2019 09: 38
    The fleet of England goes on a campaign in second place ... Cool ships!
  8. -3
    17 November 2019 09: 39
    Colonial fleet for the FORMER colonial super empire .... burping of the past, dreams never come true.
    1. +9
      17 November 2019 10: 07
      Now it would be good to make fun of the British fleet, when they themselves have a complete collapse and corruption in industry.
      1. -3
        17 November 2019 10: 17
        Laughing at his problems, this is a perversion!
        By the way, where did I laugh at the British? Just contact the fact that takes place to be.
        1. +3
          17 November 2019 11: 09
          Quote: rocket757
          contact fact
          I just do not understand what fact?
          1. -2
            17 November 2019 11: 31
            Quote: Greenwood
            Quote: rocket757
            contact fact
            I just do not understand what fact?

            Britain is the former colonial empire, the largest in addition. That it is not now .... it is a fact.
            1. +1
              18 November 2019 03: 29
              Quote: rocket757
              Britain former colonial empire
              Okay And where are the aircraft carriers?
              1. 0
                18 November 2019 05: 17
                The colonial fleet .... without an aircraft, neither there nor here.
                1. +1
                  18 November 2019 16: 31
                  Those. I understand correctly, in addition to the USA and England, other countries like France, Brazil, India, China, Japan, South Korea and even Thailand - colonial empires? lol
                  1. 0
                    18 November 2019 17: 49
                    Can you read some kind of reference literature to understand elementary concepts .... to correct your concepts.
                    1. +2
                      20 November 2019 04: 54
                      I can read a lot of things for fun. But since you wrote some thesis, then argue it, and do not refer to the literature. I ask again: is the presence of an aircraft carrier in the fleet a sign of a colonial empire?
                      1. 0
                        20 November 2019 07: 09
                        Quote: Greenwood
                        is the presence of an aircraft carrier in the fleet a sign of a colonial empire

                        The presence of an aircraft carrier is a sign ... any \ no.
                        The presence of aircraft carriers, the need / desire / desire for protection \ control of long-distance communications, trade routes, COLONIZED TERRITORIES and other, other, not related to the problem of protecting the territory of the metropolis as such.
    2. +1
      17 November 2019 10: 20
      Replace a few words and the RF will suit your description
      1. -2
        17 November 2019 10: 23
        This is a comment to whom?
        1. +1
          17 November 2019 10: 29
          I just noticed how aptly your comment describes Russia, including
          1. -2
            17 November 2019 10: 40
            The term former generally applies to many.
            But everything else, albeit similar, is strictly individual.
    3. -2
      17 November 2019 11: 09
      This dream is not achievable for the Russian Federation! You to the British Kaka walk to the moon!
  9. +5
    17 November 2019 10: 23
    In order to build a fleet, a strong economy is needed, for the construction of an ocean fleet requires enormous money and developed science.
    Unfortunately, the Russian Federation has lost its competence in the construction of ocean-going ships, and we don’t have enough funds
    1. 0
      17 November 2019 10: 46
      Competencies, it’s a bargain, but everything else, just can’t be solved. In addition to objective reasons, the main obstacle is the state of the political, social structure of the state.
      1. +4
        17 November 2019 11: 01
        I agree with this, but to change the situation, it is necessary that citizens change their mind about the role of the state in their lives (because it seems to me that the governance that we now have is the result of our passivity). It seems to me that many of us believe that a person should come who, with a wave of his hand, will solve all the problems and do everything. And therefore, they self-deny themselves from the management process and only wait from the weather god. It seems to me that if we do not manage the state, then they will do it for us without us (as is happening now).
        So, as it seems to me, we should be more active in this regard in order to limit the executive power in our capabilities (and increase the freedom of action of all other citizens).
        1. -2
          17 November 2019 11: 14
          A strange / unfortunate state of society .... big uncles believe that "a magician will suddenly arrive in a blue helicopter ..." or are guided by the rule "my house is on the edge ....".
          But young people, many, were convinced that "young people are dear to us everywhere, they know everything, understand and they can do everything !!!"
          There is no harmony, no compromise, CONSENT both in society and between generations!
          IT IS DANGEROUS!
          1. +3
            17 November 2019 11: 36
            There will never be harmony and harmony between different generations, for each generation thinks that it is smarter than the previous and wiser than the next. It is precisely thanks to these conflicts that opportunities are created to create something new.

            Everyone has their own thoughts about what changes are necessary for society. But in my opinion, we must more actively express our position. And then, perhaps, something can be changed.
            1. -1
              17 November 2019 12: 21
              You can evaluate past and current events in different ways.
              My opinion, the opposition of generations in everything and everything, is not productive. Some compromise is needed if complete harmony is not achievable.
              Society needs changes, and even more so for ours! Without the active participation of the masses, this will not happen.
      2. +3
        17 November 2019 11: 11
        Quote: rocket757
        Competencies, baiting
        For the availability of competencies, specialists are needed, and where to get them when there is a crisis in the educational system in the country. And who will go to work for cheap pennies ?!
        1. -2
          17 November 2019 11: 26
          Quote: Greenwood
          Quote: rocket757
          Competencies, baiting
          For the availability of competencies, specialists are needed, and where to get them when there is a crisis in the educational system in the country. And who will go to work for cheap pennies ?!

          Everything is solved, if done wisely ... it is natural to invest enough money, effort!
          Will it be or not ??? I can’t say, not sure.
          1. +1
            18 November 2019 03: 30
            Quote: rocket757
            if done wisely

            lol
            "By the mind" is not about the Russian government.
            1. 0
              18 November 2019 05: 10
              And what's so new about this?
              You count, and how many governments say citizens that they are smart ???
              1. +1
                18 November 2019 16: 28
                Judge by business. The British have an aircraft carrier, we do not. The British have a high standard of living, we do not. In England, more than 300000 Russians live permanently, and not the British in Russia.
                1. +1
                  18 November 2019 16: 58
                  Quote: Greenwood
                  Judge by business. The British have an aircraft carrier, we do not. The British have a high standard of living, we do not.

                  We have raspilneftegas, a sawmill and several thousand cellists who support the welfare of the union kingdom. There is also such a dude as shaving, also a citizen of United Kingds.
                2. 0
                  18 November 2019 17: 43
                  Quote: Greenwood
                  Judge by business. The British have

                  Ha, ha, is this supposed to interest me?
                  To me such nonsense as the desire to envy someone, to overtake and surpass, is not interesting from the meaning at all.
                  1. +2
                    20 November 2019 04: 57
                    Quote: rocket757
                    as a desire to envy, overtake and overtake someone, is not interesting from the meaning at all.
                    This is all from the realization of their powerlessness (I mean the powerlessness of our country). lol
                    1. 0
                      20 November 2019 07: 14
                      Quote: Greenwood
                      Quote: rocket757
                      as a desire to envy, overtake and overtake someone, is not interesting from the meaning at all.
                      This is all from the realization of their powerlessness (I mean the powerlessness of our country). lol

                      It’s pointless to discuss stupidity.
                      I remind you, HISTORY is a very useful subject. It is worth filling the gap if you have passed by earlier.
    2. 0
      17 November 2019 11: 11
      You are one of the few who soberly assess the capabilities of the Russian economy! To reach at least the level of England, it will take decades and the absence of corruption, which is currently impossible!
  10. 0
    17 November 2019 11: 53
    He laughs well who survives his opponent!
    Just going to see it.
  11. -2
    17 November 2019 14: 57
    England is trying to revive the power of the fleet
  12. 0
    18 November 2019 02: 55
    Quote: Greenwood
    No one dares to launch a rocket. There are children, wives, real estate, accounts, yachts. lol

    How much this nonsense you can print is already sick of you. In an endangered period, all your children will be sitting in bunkers in Argentina or Africa, possibly with their moms and folders.
    1. +1
      18 November 2019 05: 18
      Quote: KJIETyc
      How much this nonsense you can print is already sick of you.
      You will read as much as it takes until you learn to wits and wits and knocks all your jingoistic patriotic nonsense out of your head. That's it, Soviet times are over, no matter how bitter it was to realize it. We have "dear Western partners" all around.
      Quote: KJIETyc
      In the threatened period
      There will be no threatened period. "Western partners" do not think like Hitler and other narcissistic dictators of the past. They will buy whomever, blackmailed whom should be squeezed by sanctions and seizure of accounts. No one will attack with tank armies and fire missiles. Why destroy the territory from which you can get money with a more competent approach. This is what is being done now. The USSR has collapsed, and the former republics, one after another, go into the western sector of influence. In Russia itself there is confusion and vacillation.
      Quote: KJIETyc
      your kids will be in bunkers in Argentina or Africa, perhaps with their moms and folders.
      The kids both lived in London and will live on. Although, as an option, they can, after the protection of the folder, briefly return to Russia to a tasty position in some state corporation or ministry and carry out regular brilliant reforms here designed to improve our life with you.