Military Review

The new flagship of the British Royal Navy was the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth

165
The new flagship of the British Royal Navy was the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth

At the british royal fleet A new flagship appeared. According to the portsmouth.co.uk portal, the naval command of the mill approved the use of the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier in this capacity.


According to the press service of the British Navy, the Navy command announced the deployment of the first full-fledged carrier group, the flagship of which will be Queen Elizabeth. According to the results of recent tests, during which the air wing of the ship worked out the "intensive flight program", a decision was made about the readiness to fulfill the first operational mission of the British ACG. Deployment is scheduled for next year, it is planned to send an escorted carrier to the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Far East.

The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was officially incorporated into the British fleet in December 2017. Start of construction - 2009 year. Its total displacement is 70,6 thousand tons, length is 284 m, width is 73 m. The power plant is two gas turbines MT30 (Rolls Royce). Speed ​​- up to 25 nodes. Sailing range - to 10 thousand miles. Crew - 670 man.

The 35th-generation Lockheed Martin F-24B fighter aircraft is the Queen Elizabeth’s native aircraft. The staffing of the aircraft carrier aircraft group in the "oceanic" version will be 35 F-9B fighters, 4 Merlin anti-submarine helicopters and 5 or XNUMX Merlin helicopters in the AWACS variant. In addition, the aircraft carrier can take on board army helicopters aviation - AH-64 Apache, AW159 Wildcat and even CH-47 Chinook of various modifications.
Photos used:
royalnavy.mod.uk
165 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Courier
    Courier 20 June 2020 18: 07
    +6
    How many copies are broken about a British aircraft carrier and he has no catapults, and the planes are bad, and he is not nuclear.
    Just like Chinese aircraft carriers.

    But we praise China, but Britain is not, is not supposed.
    1. seti
      seti 20 June 2020 18: 14
      -4
      And for what to praise? Or is he with blue blood and all the others are low-born? Does he have problems or is everything all right with him?
    2. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 20 June 2020 18: 14
      10
      This is because over the past 70 years, the British fleet has been degrading relative to other fleets in the world, and the Chinese are progressing. Even 3-4 decades ago, the Chinese were poor, miserable and despised. And Britain still relatively recently, by historical standards, had a fleet superior to all other fleets of the world combined. Perhaps the British after some time will become poor, miserable and despised, will become the object of robbery of other nations. And maybe China chop off England, for example, Portsmouth, as they once chopped off Hong Kong.
      1. Ded_Mazay
        Ded_Mazay 20 June 2020 18: 17
        +3
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        become the object of robbery of other nations

        Something tells me that there will be nothing to rob ...
      2. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 21 June 2020 08: 31
        +3
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        the British fleet is degrading

        Reducing the number of pennants, this is not degradation.
        Degradation is when the Saxons would build an aircraft carrier from the performance characteristics of the war.
        The Chinese, for all their "progress", will not be able to produce turbines comparable in their characteristics to Rolls-Royce turbines.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 43
          -2
          I am talking about dynamics and trends, not about the current moment. The speed of development of the Chinese fleet is great. It is possible that in a couple of months or years their turbines will be no worse. It sounds like science fiction, but Chinese 2-3 decades are fiction.
          A decrease in the number of pennants means degradation, because if in the 19th century the British fleet could dominate in any water area, now the place of indisputable dominance of the British fleet is only the Irish Sea. Can Britain defeat the Chinese fleet in the Pacific or Indian Ocean? Of course not. And this is an indicator of the trend. Even 20-30 years ago, I could. After 10 years, the British fleet will not be able to confront the Chinese fleet and the Atlantic alone. Britain will need NATO help. And this is the degradation of the British fleet.
          1. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk 21 June 2020 14: 08
            +1
            Quote: Aleksandr1971
            I'm talking about dynamics and trends,

            You simply used the word without knowing its meaning.
            = Degradation, regression - the process of deterioration of the characteristics of an object or phenomenon over time, the gradual deterioration, decline, decline in quality, the destruction of matter due to external influences according to the laws of nature and time. =
            Did the Russian fleet also degrade? After all, he does not have as many pennants as the Navy of the USSR? Despite the fact that the Navy of the Russian Federation appeared patrolmen (frigates) with better characteristics than the Soviet? And the submarines, which were not in the Soviet Navy? Do you think this is degradation?
            1. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 15: 32
              0
              Lawyers, when it is necessary to turn the conversation into empty nonsense (such a need sometimes arises), often begin to demand from the other party to give a definition, such as: "And give a definition of this and that" ......
              So do not engage in idle talk here.
              1. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 21 June 2020 19: 04
                +1
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                So do not engage in idle talk here.

                Well, I won’t, dear Petya1791
    3. WILL
      WILL 20 June 2020 18: 18
      +8
      Quote: Courier


      But we praise China, but Britain is not, is not supposed.

      Well, let’s say China. We also don’t really praise, maybe scolding is wrong ...
      And why tell us praise Britain? Britain - at least 400 years old, is trying to harm our country. The Englishwoman Gadit - a catch phrase ... from the last - look at the TV series “highly artistic”, called “Poisoning in Salisbury” - It’s really breathtaking laughing negative
      1. unknown
        unknown 21 June 2020 05: 55
        -7
        Well, everything is clear, even from the point of view of astrology.
        UK Totem Sign - Rat.
        Even leap sign. Strong, marine, one of the most intelligent signs.
        Totem sign of Russia - Horse.
        There is a vector connection between these signs. Communication Mr. - Servant.
        Mr. Rat, servant-Horse.
        It is not surprising that Britain seeks to manipulate Russia.
        It does not always work: "the upper classes cannot, but the lower classes do not want to."
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 21 June 2020 09: 49
          +4
          You have a refraction of reality. A horse has always been a pure noble animal, unlike a rat living in basements and garbage cans. Books were written about horses, paintings were painted, monuments were even put to them, something like that about rats was not observed. So small Britain will always be the loser.
          1. Greenwood
            Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 43
            +2
            NOT touching the topic of countries.
            Quote: Ros 56
            he even erected monuments, something similar about rats was not observed
            If you did not know, most vaccines are tested on rats and mice. Monuments to the rat are in Russia and abroad.
    4. Thrifty
      Thrifty 20 June 2020 19: 02
      +2
      I am waiting for our commentators to begin to convince themselves, first of all, that aircraft carriers are "weapons of damned imperialism, hopelessly outdated, terribly expensive, useless", which means that the construction of 2 aircraft carriers by the British simply drank the dough.
      1. poquello
        poquello 20 June 2020 21: 50
        +1
        Quote: Thrifty
        I am waiting for our commentators to begin to convince themselves, first of all, that aircraft carriers are "weapons of damned imperialism, hopelessly outdated, terribly expensive, useless", which means that the construction of 2 aircraft carriers by the British simply drank the dough.

        when this hostel begins to sink the event will be very voluminous
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 44
          +8
          I am afraid that the long-suffering Kuznetsov will drown faster than this "hostel".
          1. poquello
            poquello 21 June 2020 13: 30
            0
            Quote: Greenwood
            I am afraid that the long-suffering Kuznetsov will drown faster than this "hostel".

            he is already as if permissible due to age
    5. Grandfather
      Grandfather 20 June 2020 19: 13
      +5
      Quote: Courier
      But we praise China, but Britain is not, is not supposed.
      duck China does not poison "skripals" ...
    6. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 20 June 2020 20: 49
      +4
      Why praise? Firstly, there is no AWACS aircraft, which significantly reduces the capabilities of the AUG. Secondly, who will be escorted? All six "dering"? And for other purposes, what remains? Well, how is the breakdown? How to cover the flagship with a bullet, especially given the absence of a normal AWACS?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 20 June 2020 23: 07
        +6
        Quote: TermNachTER
        Firstly, there is no AWACS aircraft, which significantly reduces the capabilities of the AUG. Secondly, who will be escorted? All six "dering"?

        Have you tried to look at it from the angle of the NATO NAVY? Or are the British in contra with the Americans? The United States will, along with its vassals from NATO, provide both AWACS and escort aircraft.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 21 June 2020 10: 58
          -3
          Well, it will not be British, but NATO. Coencore is a little different. Given how NATO abandoned Italy, I have no particular hope for this almshouse. Each for himself
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 21 June 2020 11: 02
            +2
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Well, it will not be British, but NATO

            But for us there is a big difference, as for the enemy of the Anglo-Saxons?
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Given how NATO abandoned Italy,

            Make friends again.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 21 June 2020 11: 09
              -2
              Will they have time to run away from Norfolk? Even if they come out in a couple of hours, after "readiness number 1", which is very unlikely. We have already observed emergency exits of the mattress pelvis))) then run for 4 days, if on afterburner. And what will GTU say about this?
      2. Avior
        Avior 20 June 2020 23: 23
        -4
        Type 26 is already being built.
        while for PLO, type 23 is still suitable
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 21 June 2020 10: 59
          -1
          Actually, for an escort aircraft carrier you need 5 - 6 ships, like mattresses. When will there be at least a couple of pr. 26? And so on. 23 it is high time to retire, and how many are left?
    7. bk0010
      bk0010 20 June 2020 21: 53
      +7
      Why praise? They piled up money, which would be enough for a normal aircraft carrier, the displacement of a normal aircraft carrier, and at the exit - the carrier of vertical units, and even those - only a quarter of a hundred. And this is the "mistress of the seas" (former, true). And they also say that you can't drink skill. Have spent on drink.
      1. Grits
        Grits 21 June 2020 04: 27
        +1
        Nevertheless - the latest aircraft carrier with the latest aircraft of the 5th generation of vertical take-off and landing. What will we cover? We can only dream of deploying a full-fledged AUG in the oceans. Well, and a little more envy, powerlessly biting her elbows from the impossibility and inability to repeat.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 21 June 2020 11: 01
          -2
          Russia at this stage has slightly different priorities. And I agree with the coming comrade, with such a displacement it was possible to have a normal air group.
          1. Greenwood
            Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 46
            +4
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Russia at this stage has slightly different priorities.
            I love this phrase. lol It is always used to somehow justify the lack of funding and the loss of production capacity and specialists by Russia in the post-Soviet years. "We don't have that because we don't need it." lol Why not just admit that Russia has no money to build ships of the first rank.
            1. poquello
              poquello 21 June 2020 13: 36
              -2
              Quote: Greenwood
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Russia at this stage has slightly different priorities.
              I love this phrase. lol It is always used to somehow justify the lack of funding and the loss of production capacity and specialists by Russia in the post-Soviet years. "We don't have that because we don't need it." lol Why not just admit that Russia has no money to build ships of the first rank.

              Well, as if there is money for daggers and zircons, they will cover all this shusher
            2. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 45
              0
              Russia has a priority - to stay in power so that friends continue to build a fleet of luxurious mega-yachts. And the needs of the Navy "lake" fraternity side.
            3. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 21 June 2020 17: 14
              +1
              You are so young that you do not remember what happened in the 90s? If some other country had experienced something similar, perhaps we were reading about it now in history books.
      2. unknown
        unknown 21 June 2020 06: 01
        +1
        At the end of the collapse of the British Empire, the metropolis ordered a serious audit.
        The result overwhelmed the customer - the empire turned out to be a PERFECTLY LOSSING ENTERPRISE.
        Investments in the colony did not pay off at all. Created an empire at a loss.
        Only the USA arrived. Because ALWAYS COME ON READY.
        1. Courier
          Courier 21 June 2020 06: 37
          -2
          Yeah. Americans come to everything ready. Somehow they came to New York, and there the Indians build skyscrapers.
          We came to Europe after the 45th, and it is so whole, ready, I don’t want to take it.
          They came to South Korea, and there Samsung already does, they came to China, and he taught them the Internet and touch screens.
          1. poquello
            poquello 21 June 2020 13: 50
            0
            Quote: Courier
            Yeah. Americans come to everything ready. Somehow they came to New York, and there the Indians build skyscrapers.

            colonists for British, Spanish, French, Russian money
            Quote: Courier
            We came to Europe after the 45th, and it is so whole, ready, I don’t want to take it.

            at 37m they came, with business, to Hitler, and then to Stalin they sold strategic materials, etc.
            Quote: Courier
            They came to South Korea, and there Samsung already does, they came to China, and he taught them the Internet and touch screens.

            and this is already on the money of the first two points
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 21 June 2020 10: 46
          +4
          The empire became unprofitable after the agreement of England with the USA on the assistance of England to WWII. States forced the British to open markets (and not only). Therefore, the empire was dissolved (and not because Gandhi directly defeated the British).
        3. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 51
          +1
          In terms of money, the British probably had a real loss in building an empire.

          But in terms of the spread of their people, their genes and culture, the British have gigantic profits. After all, now the English-speaking Europeans of the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and some other small countries, taken together - this is actually the second largest nation in the world after the Chinese (even if these Europeans were once not only English, but also Germans, French, Italians and others.).

          Imagine if our country would have such a profit in the form of people. If North America, Australia and New Zealand would be populated by Russian people.
    8. lucul
      lucul 20 June 2020 22: 50
      +2
      How many copies are broken about a British aircraft carrier and he has no catapults, and the planes are bad, and he is not nuclear.

      So everything is the case)))
      Especially this one:
      or 5 Merlin helicopters in the AWAC option.

      Ie in fact - this aircraft carrier is blind as a mole))))
      1. Avior
        Avior 20 June 2020 23: 22
        -5
        He is incomparably sighted of any other ship except the American aircraft carriers and one French.
        1. lucul
          lucul 20 June 2020 23: 54
          0
          He is incomparably sighted of any other ship except the American aircraft carriers and one French.

          How is he different from our Kuznetsov? ))) On ours, too, only a helicopter AWACS ...
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 21 June 2020 00: 36
            +7
            Quote: lucul
            How is he different from our Kuznetsov? ))) On ours, too, only a helicopter AWACS

            nominally. How would they (Ka-252RLD (Ka-31)) should be 4 pieces in the air group. In fact, there is not a single one.
            In 2009-2014, our TAVKR went with 6-10 Su-33 and several Ka-27 helicopters.
            1. Malyuta
              Malyuta 21 June 2020 00: 59
              +5
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Grigory_45

              I am very sorry hi , in the last "smoky campaign", our TAVKR "destroyed" a couple of air units of the air group, or were there three?
              1. unknown
                unknown 21 June 2020 06: 04
                +3
                About the "smoky hike".
                1. KTU is used as a power plant. And, it is actually "smoky".
                2. The capacity of KTU is not enough. Therefore, it often works in "overload".
          2. Avior
            Avior 21 June 2020 06: 12
            +2
            Only theoretically
            Even if the ka-31 appears there really, like a helicopter AWACS and even for the detection of air objects, it does not fit well.
            The patrol time is 2.5 hours, the British have 2 times more.
            A large antenna ka31 creates problems of operation in the wind.
            The detection range of the Ka-31 aircraft is 100-150 km.
            For AWACS, this is clearly not enough, rather it is for target designation on surface targets.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 June 2020 10: 26
            +2
            Quote: lucul
            On ours, too, only a helicopter AWACS ...

            no. Yes, and the sense of it ...
  2. domashniy domovoy
    domashniy domovoy 20 June 2020 18: 20
    -6
    They decided to revive the colonial empire.
    1. unknown
      unknown 21 June 2020 06: 05
      -2
      Again at a loss?
      1. Greenwood
        Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 48
        +1
        Why "again"?
  3. paul72
    paul72 20 June 2020 18: 21
    13 th
    Will he go to the Far East? And sho wines forgetting there?
    1. Ragnar Lodbrok
      Ragnar Lodbrok 20 June 2020 19: 01
      +7
      No sho. He has such a job, sho.
    2. Grandfather
      Grandfather 20 June 2020 19: 15
      +5
      Quote: paul72
      Will he go to the Far East? And sho wines forgetting there?

      in Russian, speak Russian. you have decided so.
      1. paul72
        paul72 20 June 2020 19: 38
        -2
        Do you have a hutsul govirka? Why?
  4. Cowbra
    Cowbra 20 June 2020 18: 31
    -1
    The only place this nevi piano can be useful is against Argentina at the Falkland Islands.
  5. FIR FIR
    FIR FIR 20 June 2020 18: 33
    15
    The Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier was officially included in the British fleet in December 2017. Start of construction - 2009. Its total displacement is 70,6 thousand tons,

    They built it for 8 years, a decent displacement, only no catapults. I’m trying it on my country all the time. Why the British can, and we can’t. Great Britain is a small country with complexes of greatness, without resources and a future. But they can take and lay down 2 aircraft carriers of decent displacement. Let it be with minuses, not atomic, but they are already in operation. And we cannot really contain one old one. The sailors will begin to minus me now. But this is true. England can, but huge Russia does not. Sad and sad.
    1. Cowbra
      Cowbra 20 June 2020 18: 53
      +8
      England didn’t drop the ground army, and they have no border troops in principle. Remove tanks, motorized rifles, all artillery in Russia in general, including tactics - just for aircraft carriers
      1. strelokmira
        strelokmira 20 June 2020 22: 12
        +8
        England didn’t drop the ground army, and they have no border troops in principle. Remove tanks, motorized rifles, all artillery in Russia in general, including tactics - just for aircraft carriers

        Give her the same territory and minerals that the Russian Federation has, without problems, past the aircraft carriers and all of the above will be
        1. Cowbra
          Cowbra 20 June 2020 22: 48
          +7
          Do you even know that Great Britain was an Empire? The fact that they all fooled - only says that give them the territory-resources, the Anglo-Nazis will rob them, lose them, and again will remain in the same situation. And so they had more resources by an order of magnitude
          1. unknown
            unknown 21 June 2020 06: 11
            -5
            The empire was unprofitable. At first, the British equipped all their colonies. They created production and transport infrastructure. A management system and education. Invested more than received. All lost. For a normal empire, this is normal. The French have exactly the same situation. For the empire to be profitable, you must come to everything ready.
            US example. Neocolonialism, you know ...
            1. Cowbra
              Cowbra 21 June 2020 08: 58
              +2
              What what? laughing Is it robbed for example India? And what did they invest in at least one of the colonies? The empire collapsed only because they did not develop colonies, but stupidly robbed everything into the mother country, unlike Russia. Compare the scale of construction under the Empires in Siberia with us - only Demidov factories and Transib - both in the United States under the Angles or in New Zealand.
              That's why they lost
              1. Greenwood
                Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 54
                +3
                Quote: Cowbra
                The empire collapsed only because they did not develop colonies, but stupidly robbed everything into the mother country, unlike Russia.
                Okay, why did Russia get rid of Alaska?
                1. Aleksandr1971
                  Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 55
                  -2
                  Russia got rid of Alaska due to a gross mistake made by the stupid and overvalued Tsar Sasha the Second and his corrupt camarilla.
                  1. Willywonka
                    Willywonka 25 June 2020 08: 23
                    0
                    ok ... well now would Alaska be part of Russia, what would we see there? Kamchatka, Sakhalin instead of Anchorage? Do not overestimate the importance of territories in the modern world.
                    1. Aleksandr1971
                      Aleksandr1971 25 June 2020 19: 05
                      0
                      If Alaska was part of Russia, it would be poor. It would be the location of military infrastructure aimed at the United States. But the imbalance between US military pressure on Russia and Russian military pressure on the US would not be so depressingly bad as it is now.

                      And if the Central Russian Upland and the Volga region were under the Germans, then these regions would also have lived better. Only the Russians would not be there. Therefore, let the earth be poorer, but under Russia, and not under the enemy.

                      The importance of the territories is not overestimated, but also not underestimated. After all, the United States does not plan to return Russia to Alaska, demanding back 7,2 million dollars. So Alaska USA like it.

                      Alaska would shut up the passage from the Pacific to the Arctic Ocean for the United States. It would provide 1 million bar. oil per day. 1,5 billion dollars worth of gold was pumped out of Alaska. USA at the beginning of the 20th century. Maybe this money would be enough to mitigate the situation in Russia by 1917 and to prevent the Bolshevik revolution.
                      1. Willywonka
                        Willywonka 26 June 2020 08: 57
                        0
                        Simple question ..... We left behind the conditional Alaska, Hong Kong, South Korea or Japan. All these countries were subjected to the occupation of the conditional West. from 40 to 100 years of conditional "occupation". After us there was the GDR, and after the conditional USA - the FRG, after us there was the DPRK, and after the conditional USA - South Korea.
                      2. Aleksandr1971
                        Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 16: 57
                        0
                        I agree with you that the result of the occupation of territories by Russia is much worse than the same occupation by Western countries. But this is the result of the rule in Russia of the anti-people, anti-Russian Bolshevik-Jewish regime. This regime has had considerable successes and achievements. But the negative from him was much greater. And we still reap this negative in our own skin.

                        Nevertheless, the fact that Russia is a more backward state, and the Russian people are poorer than the peoples of the West, is not a reason for first throwing mud at themselves, and then shooting themselves, or giving away their lands under the control of others. Indeed, if you are personally poorer than someone, then you will not begin to harm yourself for this reason.

                        Their own backwardness should be an incentive to get rid of it. And own superiority is an incentive to work to preserve and consolidate superiority.
              2. Cowbra
                Cowbra 21 June 2020 13: 55
                +3
                Could not hold. No way. The example of Petropavlovsk showed that even on the continent - we can’t keep everything - over the ocean without any chance. They grabbed more than they could digest
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 June 2020 10: 27
            +5
            Quote: ignoto
            The empire was unprofitable.

            Ignoto, you have finally gone to alternative worlds.
        2. Greenwood
          Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 52
          +3
          Quote: Cowbra
          The fact that they all fooled - only says that give them the territory-resources, the Anglo-Nazis will rob them, lose them, and again will remain in the same situation.
          Do not confuse the territory of the metropolis proper (and this is what is meant by "giving them our territory and resources") and the territory of dependent colonies. They did not rob themselves. And the collapse of colonialism is largely the result of the Second World War. Before that, the British had successfully exploited the colonies for centuries and only got rich.
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 21 June 2020 13: 24
            -1
            Quote: Greenwood
            They did not rob themselves.

            What to tell you about first? About the Holodomor in Ireland or about the "white slaves" in the United States? The Metropolis is not Ireland ALREADY. And so they even lost it, and Ireland and the United States in general no side to WWII
            1. Greenwood
              Greenwood 21 June 2020 13: 33
              +4
              Quote: Cowbra
              Ireland with the United States generally no side to WWII
              Ireland became an independent state after the end of World War II. Prior to this, under various legal statuses, it was essentially the same colony. What does not suit you?
              1. Cowbra
                Cowbra 21 June 2020 13: 50
                -1
                The struggle for independence, as well as mass emigration - began earlier noticeably. From the USA - again. The direct reason for the uprising is that the metropolis brazenly robbed the colonists without developing anything at all.
                And yes, about WWII. After WWII there was a CHANCE to jump off the hook of a beaten lion - but what is the reason? The fact that the colonies RAPPED, but NOT developed - that is the reason why they escaped. And WWII - NOT a reason
                1. Aleksandr1971
                  Aleksandr1971 27 June 2020 16: 12
                  0
                  The British deliberately did not develop any of their colonies. They only robbed them more or less thoroughly. Colonies developed on their own. If the British themselves came to the colony and made up the majority of the population or a substantial part of it, then the colony became rich, like the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Where the British were a minority, such colonies did not develop (except for Hong Kong and Singapore).
      2. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 53
        +1
        I agree.
        If we replace the Russian population with the British, then the situation in Russia would be very different.
        It must be admitted that the effectiveness of the Anglo-Saxons is significantly higher than ours.
        1. Willywonka
          Willywonka 25 June 2020 08: 30
          0
          Well, yes ..... or in other words - "if you move Russians to the USA and Americans to Africa, then Russia will appear in the place of the USA, and the USA will appear in Africa." Culture is at the heart of everything .... in weapons as well. I am surprised by the reasoning "their plane cannot be better than ours ..", while in fact their hammer is 10-100 times better than ours, their paint is another planet. We are comparing things that we cannot objectively compare with regard to weapons, while in the elementary we have lagged behind for eternity.
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 25 June 2020 19: 07
            0
            Backward (ancient Germans) can suddenly become advanced. And the advanced ones can run wild (Egyptians). Nothing stands still. And we can run wild and break forward.
            1. Willywonka
              Willywonka 26 June 2020 08: 52
              0
              Due to what jerk occurs? What is the basis? First of all, these are institutions. The main Western institution that instilled culture over the centuries was the church, which was separated from the state. Attitude to work, rigidity of the code of ethics, attitude to progress, it's all from there. For centuries, it has been vaccinated. Che that as soon as the British left Angola, they immediately stopped harvesting 3 times a year .... and the war for 40 years. The same thing is happening in South Africa ..... well, yes, Mandella and all that. But to control how the British need experience living with them, as in the Dominican Republic. About 100-150 years or Hong Kong. or Korea. There are countries that accept a different culture as higher, and there are countries with a toxic culture that cannot tolerate interference. LA, for example.
              1. Aleksandr1971
                Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 16: 47
                0
                You are apparently not a very educated person.

                The British never owned Angola. The Portuguese owned Angola. And in a previous post you wrote that the British defeated the Russian fleet near Tsushima. After such messages, the corresponding idea of ​​the author of the messages is formed.

                Institutions not from the moon fall on the people. Institutions are formed by the people themselves in the course of development.

                And the Christian church, as an institution, at some stage could give the people development advantages. But now it’s a brake. The most religious societies are the most backward. For example, the Dominican Republic you mentioned. Or the neighboring, even more religious country of Haiti. In both Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the church institute is very strong.
                1. Willywonka
                  Willywonka 27 June 2020 13: 16
                  0
                  "English fleet at Tsushima" - meaning ships of English construction. As for Angola, the "conditional West" does not matter whether it is the Portuguese in Angola, or Austria in Western Ukraine, or the United States in Japan and South Korea. If the culture of the people perceives progress, in the end everything works out.
                  "the most religious societies are the most backward"? What are you talking about? The USA is one of the most religious countries. The collection of the black Baptist church alone is about 13 billion a year. Basques in Chile are the strongest Catholics. The entire developed world is usually Protestant countries. Haiti is Voodoo, fatalism in its purest form. The Dominican Republic, which gained independence in the 40-50s, gained experience of government under the British for a long time and the difference in development between Haiti is colossal. South Korea is a prime example of transformation through a Protestant church, 26-30% Methodist ... and the world's largest Protestant church by 100k.
                  1. Aleksandr1971
                    Aleksandr1971 27 June 2020 13: 58
                    0
                    You are definitely either very young or ignorant. Educate yourself. "The English fleet at Tsushima" - it was necessary to immediately write about the construction, and not about how the British defeated the Russians. And then you have a third puncture - the Dominican Republic has never been under the British.

                    You mentioned Spain as opposed to England. And now for you that Portugal, a sister of Spain, has become the same as England. You are not consistent.

                    All religions are varieties of the "cargo cult". In the sense that if you believe in some kind of garbage, then you will be "nishtyak" in the next world for it. And unbelievers in the next world will be "khana".

                    The level of religiosity in the United States is high compared to Europe, but not compared to the Middle East. And then the level of religiosity in the USA is just a classification of oneself as a religion, but in fact people do not believe in the texts of religious books, or do not know their content. Well, what kind of person is not asleep, he will believe that God made the world in 6 days, that the world is a little over 6 thousand years old, that a woman was made of a man’s rib. The ancient Koreans had the opinion that a man appeared after being remade a bear.

                    In addition, the most backward sections of the population are religious in the United States, human debris, which is currently causing riots. Better get acquainted with what is the level of religiosity of scientists in the United States.

                    As for Europe, including Spain, people who consider themselves Christians do not pray every day, they don’t go to church every month. These are pseudo-Christians who accept the evolutionary theory of the origin of species, accept the theory of the origin of the Universe not 6 thousand years ago, but 14 billion years ago, they believe that there were dinosaurs and monkey-like ancestors of man.

                    That is, the religiosity of the European is just following the traditions. For example, I am an atheist, but I celebrate January 1 - New Year. But from this I do not turn into an adherent of the ancient Roman religion and its god Janus (since January 1 is an ancient Roman religious holiday). Only a small percentage of Europeans, from among the backward and stupid, believe in God.

                    You are mistaken in the fact that the breakthrough in Europe is due to the Christian church. Quite the contrary, when the Christian church weakened in the 15th and 16th centuries, then the breakthrough of Europe began. But the institutional separation of the Christian church from the state began with the French Revolution and basically ended by the beginning of the 20th century.

                    So I gave you a short lecture. But you better learn yourself.
                    1. Willywonka
                      Willywonka 3 July 2020 09: 13
                      0
                      "you are definitely young or ignorant" what is certainly here, is a young troll painting posts for 20 rubles, or cheaper?
                      "the Dominican Republic has never been under the external control of the British" - yes, it was under the external control of the Americans under T. Roosevelt.
                      "all religions are varieties of a cargo cult" - we see this now especially strongly, especially comparing Protestant countries with some kind of Haiti, where Voodoo dominates, or with the countries of the Spanish-Iberian culture, such as Mexico or with the countries of the Middle East, such as Syria, Egypt, etc.
                      "the religiosity of a European - following the traditions" - all that we see now in Sweden, for example, is the entire heritage of Protestant culture. The rigidity of the moral code has not gone anywhere, the attitude towards life and progress, this is all the heritage of Protestant culture. And the battle for souls has not disappeared anywhere ... it is in full swing between Catholics and Protestants for Brazil, which in the next 2 generations may turn into a Protestant country, the battle is going on in Southeast Asia. Who has the greatest losses in the flock now? Will we guess?
                      "The Christian Church weakened in the 15-16th century"? What textbooks do trolls use to learn history? You see ... they had competition. When the Catholic Church, which remains the most powerful until now, weakened, Luther appeared and the conditional West received an incredible impetus. The Protestant religion under the conditions of 20 century gave .... adaptation to life in the city (facilitating urbanization), language (English), medical support, etc. Unexpectedly so .... in South Korea there were about 30% of Protestants. Why? Cargo cult? No, of course, facilitating urbanization. People moved from the villages to the city, and the Protestant religion helped them in this.
                      Is the term WASP troll familiar? Wasp did America hear about this?
                    2. Willywonka
                      Willywonka 3 July 2020 09: 36
                      0
                      "I gave you a little lecture" - you made 20 rubles, I suppose. Read DeToqueville, Weber and Huntington. Church in the 20th century has not disappeared anywhere. 450 million in the flock only added ... only in the 20th century are the Evangelicals (Protestants 3 waves). A very simple course that originated in black women. Why does Brazil take him over - just like two and two .... husband thumps, fucks on the side, does not wear a salary at home, in general, behaves like a "macho". Brazilian women convert their husbands .... and religion makes them follow basic rules. It is better for trolls to know that the push begins not with revolutions, but immensely with the rules ... such as working according to the method (Calvinists, Methodists - have you heard about the attitude to the labor code?), Compliance with the rules, etc. That is why - we have a hammer - "pluck out your eyes", and the Americans have "Stiletto" and "Martinez" and that is why we cannot have the 5th generation of the F-35 type, because the question of "service culture" will arise. or we can have them in the number of links - while the conditional West will have> 1000 of them, and everything goes to this.
                      That is, remember, as a lecture .... first, a hammer, and then only an airplane and nothing else.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 June 2020 09: 20
      +3
      Quote: Cowbra
      England nafig did not fall the army

      Britain has aviation, and artillery of all kinds, and armored vehicles - in the volumes in which they need it.
      And it is worth considering that a unit of their equipment is much more expensive than a domestic tank, aircraft, artillery system
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 21 June 2020 09: 27
        0
        What am I talking about? We need tanks, they don’t need nafig - that’s why we have an army and an air force with the Strategic Missile Forces, for example, and they have two aircraft carriers — and none of these!
  6. Deck
    Deck 20 June 2020 19: 11
    -1
    Therefore, they are trying to spit on the English aircraft carrier. From a sense of humiliation. "Trampolines" from the same series
  7. kit88
    kit88 20 June 2020 19: 13
    +7
    Standard armament - "truly English" F-35B, Anglo-Italian Merlin. Arachi, Chinooki ...
  8. paul3390
    paul3390 20 June 2020 20: 13
    +4
    And let the naglitsy let out, well, at least ten thousand tanks? Well, or even armored vehicles? To be at least a bit equal to us? And then it’s sad and insulting for them .. And do not forget - this is a small Naglya on the map, but it sucks resources from colonial times - anyone envy ..
    1. unknown
      unknown 21 June 2020 06: 14
      -4
      The totem animal of Great Britain is the Rat. Sign of the sea.
      The totem animal of Russia is the Horse. The sign is land.
      Britain will be stronger at sea.
      Russia will be stronger on land.
    2. Greenwood
      Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 55
      +6
      Quote: paul3390
      And let the naglitsy let out, well, at least ten thousand tanks?
      If only Russia would release so much. And then for 30 post-Soviet years and one thousand can’t be typed. All Soviet-made.
    3. Willywonka
      Willywonka 25 June 2020 08: 47
      0
      "sad and insulting for them"? sucks resources? Well, yes, they kept 50 million Indians in their fist out of 200 thousand contingent. They left behind a thriving Hong Kong and left there, because the lease ended. They left behind the USA, Canada and Australia. Want a simpler example? They left the Dominican Republic, while Haiti, which gained independence in the 19th century, is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. The British make the best engines in the world for the F-35, they gave Abrams the Chobham, they have the BAEsystem .... they have a reason to be proud. For some reason, corporate disputes are resolved here either in the UK or in Stockholm. For some reason, the oligarch primarily buys real estate there. Why's that?
  9. Alex777
    Alex777 20 June 2020 20: 57
    +5
    England can, but huge Russia does not. Sad and sad.

    England robbed half a century of the world. India alone was worth it.
    And there were Canada, Australia, South Africa and further down the list.
    They always knew how to build ships. As it is. hi
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 20 June 2020 21: 26
      11
      England hasn't had its 90s yet.
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 56
        +2
        England will still have 90s. Soon. And all of Europe too
    2. unknown
      unknown 21 June 2020 06: 16
      -3
      And what did Britain export from India?
      The main resource of this region is opium.
      "Tea clippers" remember?
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 21 June 2020 12: 00
        +1
        Head too lazy to include?
        Took your phrase: And what did Britain export from India? google search
        The first line:
        According to estimates by the famous American historian Brooks Adams, in the first 15 years after India’s annexation, the British took £ 1 billion worth of valuables from Bengal [4]. By 1840, the British ruled over most of India. The rampant exploitation of the Indian colonies was the most important source of accumulation of British capital and the industrial revolution in England

        And these are the pounds that can now be multiplied by 1000.
        Have you forgotten the diamond in the British crown?
        Opium .. Whoever hurts.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%9E%D1%81%D1%82-%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
      2. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 13: 59
        +2
        England exported a lot of things from India. Take a look at the British Museum.
        But the main thing that she exported from there is gold. Since the policy of England in relation to the colony of India was to import inexpensive manufactured goods there and to export a loud coin. And Indian opium went to China again for silver.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 21 June 2020 19: 05
          0
          With the sack of China after the Opium Wars, England was the most wealthy.
        2. Willywonka
          Willywonka 25 June 2020 08: 51
          0
          Dear, Spain exported no less gold from America .... for some reason this gold Spain did not make the richest country in the world. And the problem is not the great defeat and loss of greatness as the most powerful naval power. The problem is culture.
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 25 June 2020 19: 10
            0
            For some time, Spain has become the richest country in the world. And Britain now, after the loss of the colonies, ceased to be the richest country. And when there were colonies, it was the richest. And culture is changing for the better and for the worse.
            But the article talks about the British fleet. And its fleet is gradually degrading, despite periodic convulsive movements.
            1. Willywonka
              Willywonka 26 June 2020 08: 43
              0
              Dear, so what's the reason? What is the reason that Spain has lost its greatness? After all, gold was "pumped" be healthy. Gold is not the point, that is, it is not a source of strength. Strength in culture. The world domination of Britain ended in 1905, exactly 100 years after Trafalgar, It finally faded away by 1943, when, according to Churchill, the growth of US GDP during this period put all points over I. Is the culture changing for the better? What can make you work according to the method? What can make you live for centuries to work, and not work to live? What makes you treat progress sanely? What makes you treat human life as the highest value? What makes you stick to the rules - the rigidity of the moral code? This is what is the source of true wealth. The Yankees emerged victorious, not the future rednecks who landed in the Louisiana area and in the South. Although, the lands of the South were much richer. Is the British fleet degrading? Where did you get such nonsense? The British Navy EMNIP has always let us grow up. In the form of Tsushima, for example. And our Brita fleet has never in history been considered as a competitor, that is, the golden rule - Her Majesty's fleet should be equal to the sum of the 2 next largest fleets in Europe. Russia was not included in the calculation, because it did not know how to build ships .... they rotted during and after Peter's reforms.
              1. Aleksandr1971
                Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 15: 56
                0
                The British fleet is degrading with respect to its own power over the past 2-3 centuries. If at the beginning of the 19th century the British fleet was twice as strong as all the fleets of the world combined, then by the end of the 19th century the British fleet was simply stronger than all the fleets of the world combined. By the beginning of the 1st MV, the British fleet was simply the first in the world. And at the end of the 2nd MV, the British fleet became the second in the world. At the end of the 20th century, the British fleet moved to 3rd place in the world. At the beginning of the 21st century, the British fleet is the 5th in the world. In this regard, the British fleet is degrading. In the sense that other fleets are pushing it lower and lower.

                About Tsushima - did you collapse from the oak? The Russian fleet lost to the Japanese, not the British.

                And in Britain, the fleet also rotted from the pier from time to time.

                So, the fleet was built by Richard the Lionheart. But after the 3rd Crusade, this fleet decayed.
                Edward 3rd also built a fleet against France in the Hundred Years War. And this fleet has rotted. Henry 4th also built a fleet. But by the time of the Great Armada, Elizabeth the 2nd had to rebuild the fleet. And then the British rebuilt the fleet from scratch during the time of William of Orange. And even the Bank of England for this they have established.
                And about the Russian fleet, you idle talk. At the end of the 20th century, the USSR possessed the 2nd fleet in the world. Surely several times stronger than the British. And now the aggregate fleet of Russia is stronger than the British.

                The fact that culture is of great importance for the strength of the state - I agree. But only culture is a changeable concept. After all, culture did not fall from the moon. Culture is a product of the activities of the people.

                Once Iraq was the owner of a rich culture, but now it is an untenable uncultured state and the lair of Hell. The world is full of similar examples. I really hope that England, too, will turn into a likeness of Iraq. And that Russia will be reborn as a rich cultural state, ruling other nations.
                1. Willywonka
                  Willywonka 27 June 2020 17: 39
                  0
                  At the beginning of the 19th century, the British fleet was not stronger than all the fleets of the world, there was approximate parity across Europe. See Trafalgar, that is, approximate parity between Britain on the one hand and France + Spain on the other.
                  As for "collapsed from the oak" .... do not tell me whose buildings were the Japanese ships?
                  About "the English fleet was also rotting at the dock" ... where does this nonsense come from? The rotting fleet was in Europe in Russia and Turkey. Almost all pennants, but what are there pennants, the entire Peter's fleet perished. So I rotted for the same reason why we have vodka and not whiskey, that is, not aged wood, and the shipyards were far away, which is why we had to drag along the shallows.
                  "culture is a product of the people's activity" Is this chito? Culture is an inherited skill, a habit. The shortest definition. Cultural differences are attitudes towards progress, the rigidity of the moral code, attitudes towards work, attitudes towards women, attitudes towards money, etc. ... there are about 21 markers in total. So, Iraq may have had a "richest culture", but due to objective reasons it ceased to be competitive, and England, in addition to being the largest empire in history, gave the richest offspring.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Aleksandr1971
                    Aleksandr1971 27 June 2020 18: 06
                    0
                    The habit did not fall from the moon, but developed over the years and generations. And this habit is being lost. Lost and acquired and culture and all its markers. Including due to objective reasons. England, too, will lose its culture, however, as well as other nations for the reason that everything is temporary. You yourself noted that England was someone, but only now it is different. Persia was also someone under the Achaemenids, and now in the ass. Where I want to go to England as soon as possible.

                    The Russian fleet also rotted. But the article is about the English fleet. And you are not familiar with the history of England. Her fleet rotted many times. Teach the materiel before entering into a discussion from the depths of your ignorance.
                    1. Willywonka
                      Willywonka 3 July 2020 08: 40
                      0
                      Of course, the "habit" has not fallen from the moon, but has been inoculated for centuries. The Church as an institution instills this habit, namely the Protestant culture. Accumulation, working according to the method, attitude to life, all of this comes from there.
                      "rotted too"? Yes, the British never considered the Russian fleet as a competitor from the word in general, even though in quantity he violated the rule "Her Majesty's fleet must be equal to the sum of 2 subsequent fleets of other countries." The problem is not only poor quality, the problem was, and it has been almost throughout history, in the supply. At one time, Catherine abandoned the islands in the Atlantic, as a negotiating position, for this very reason. And in Great Britain, the post of head of the Admiralty was second in importance after the post of head of the Treasury.
                      "will lose its culture" - yes, as it were, a charter of liberties for 1000 years already, the largest empire in history -100 years, and as if peacefully released everyone. They left behind a rich legacy, prosperous countries and cities that adopted their culture.
  10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 June 2020 21: 47
    +8
    Quote: FIR FIR
    England can, but huge Russia does not. Sad and sad.

    So it is, alas.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 21 June 2020 14: 02
      +5
      I believe that Russia will be able to build the Big Fleet when the current anti-people thieves regime is dropped.

      Moreover, Russia will have to build a strong army because the international situation will push it - Russia will inevitably be subjected to a massive military attack and military-political, cultural and national defeat if it does not have adequate adequate armed forces.
  11. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 21 June 2020 00: 38
    0
    Quote: FIR FIR
    there are no catapults.

    the second side, the Prince of Wales, are going to be completed with catapults, under normal take-off and landing aircraft (F-35C)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 June 2020 10: 24
      +2
      Quote: Gregory_45
      the second side, the Prince of Wales, are about to be completed with catapults

      Nope. He is already on trials, there are no cat remote controls on him.
  12. unknown
    unknown 21 June 2020 06: 07
    -8
    The totem animal of Great Britain is the Rat.
    In astrology, it is considered a maritime sign, like the Monkey.
    A monkey is a totem animal of Japan.
    Totem animal of Russia - Horse. The sign is land.
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 21 June 2020 07: 06
      +4
      Zadolbal the same thing to write
  • svp67
    svp67 20 June 2020 18: 35
    -3
    The new flagship of the British Royal Navy was the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth
    To the big warbler - A BIG torpedo ...
    1. Evdokim
      Evdokim 20 June 2020 18: 59
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      To the big warbler - A BIG torpedo ...

      Not just BIG, ROYAL !!!wassat
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 20 June 2020 19: 04
        -1
        Not just BIG, ROYAL !!! wassat

        I agree, the caliber is 650 mm.
        1. Evdokim
          Evdokim 20 June 2020 19: 11
          -5
          Quote: Aviator_
          I agree, the caliber is 650 mm.

          Super-duper-hyper-fuck ammunition - BIG ROYAL torpedo, fuck what caliber !!! laughing wassat
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 20 June 2020 21: 55
          +1
          We no longer have such torpedoes.
          1. Observer2014
            Observer2014 21 June 2020 01: 54
            -1
            Quote: bk0010
            We no longer have such torpedoes.

            yes And you think in military technology. hi Yes. After the Kursk, this torpedo was removed from service yes650 mm torpedo was considered the culprit of the tragedy. What led to its removal from combat duty. And she oh my gosh and on the wake of the trail and all that.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 21 June 2020 13: 13
              +1
              And there was also the fastest watch in the world ... wink
    2. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 20 June 2020 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      The new flagship of the British Royal Navy was the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth
      To the big warbler - A BIG torpedo ...

      Correction - "big rocket ..."
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 20 June 2020 18: 39
    0
    At 70 thousand tons of displacement is not a very small air group.
  • donavi49
    donavi49 20 June 2020 18: 54
    +3
    Meanwhile, breaking the news, all the Egyptian power surfaced that supposedly entered Libya to help Haftar. As I expected, this is another parade for the delight of Field Marshal Sisi.


    Nevertheless, he threatened Erdogan with his fist, saying that Sirte would be Libyan (LNA), and also promised Egyptian support to the ward (Tobruk) in these difficult times.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 June 2020 19: 00
      +6
      Egypt is not up to Libya. Ethiopia began to fill its grand
      reservoir overlapping the Nile. Slowly, three years stretch.
      And when it is full, Egypt will be without the main breadwinner.
      This is Sisi’s nightmare, not a Libyan circus.
      1. svp67
        svp67 20 June 2020 19: 08
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This is Sisi’s nightmare, not a Libyan circus.

        But this is a "casus bell" ... I remember Israel faced something similar
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 June 2020 19: 11
          +1
          Egypt is completely alone. For Ethiopia - all black Africa.
          The hydropower plant will be the largest in Africa and one of the largest in the world.
          And the Arab Sudan Ethiopians bribed, promising to build a separate for him
          hydroelectric power station.
          1. svp67
            svp67 20 June 2020 19: 20
            +4
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Egypt is completely alone.

            As if looking at how he is "sponsored" I would not say so ...
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 20 June 2020 19: 22
              +1
              Egypt finances Saudi and Emirates.
              But to fight Ethiopia deep into Africa, they will not climb. Not crazy.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 20 June 2020 20: 44
                +3
                So it has been more than once in the days of the pharaohs seems. Not?
              2. Local from the Volga
                Local from the Volga 20 June 2020 22: 04
                +4
                why go deep down ?! Ethiopian Air Force has 20 ancient planes, of which su 27 sk, more or less fresh and as many as 8!)
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 20 June 2020 21: 56
        +3
        Slowly - it's 25 years. 3 years is all that remains downstream without water. 3 years is an occasion for war.
        1. Maxwrx
          Maxwrx 20 June 2020 23: 43
          +1
          Not completely without water, but it will drastically reduce runoff, Egypt agrees to hydroelectric power stations, but if they extend this period by 10 years, well, there are other requirements regarding runoff in what months in what volumes
      3. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 20 June 2020 22: 31
        +4
        It seems Egypt is well armed, for that region. Will they fight Ethiopia Or at least they bombed hydroelectric power stations?
  • APASUS
    APASUS 20 June 2020 18: 58
    +1
    a decision was made on the readiness to fulfill the first operational mission of the British ACG. Deployment is scheduled for next year, it is planned to send an aircraft carrier with escort to the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Far East.

    And what are the operational goals of the British ACG to support the shaken US influence? Maybe they want to prove that destroyers like Daring do not boil because of warm water overboard .........
    The latest British Type 45 destroyers, also known as Daring type destroyers, can fail in warm waters - making it dangerous to send them to strategic areas like the Persian Gulf, the Daily Mail writes. According to the publication, the vulnerability of the most modern warships of the country caused an angry reaction of deputies and the former commander of the British Navy at recent parliamentary hearings.
    As the newspaper clarifies, the problem is related to the cooling units of gas turbines, which are included in the integrated electric propulsion system of destroyers type 45. "Design defect", explains the publication, can lead to the ship being completely de-energized.
  • hostel
    hostel 20 June 2020 20: 59
    +3
    70 thousand tons for 24 ATS is too much. What are the goals for internal volumes?
    1. Arthur 85
      Arthur 85 20 June 2020 22: 49
      +1
      The club Admiral attends. A club that Admiral ignores ...
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 June 2020 00: 41
      +1
      Quote: alberigo
      70 thousand tons for 24 ATS is too much. What are the goals for internal volumes?

      The Queen can take on board up to 65 aircraft. Plus, it can accommodate up to 600 marines - and this is the volume.
    3. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 21 June 2020 11: 20
      0
      Stocks of fuel and ammunition.
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 20 June 2020 21: 00
    +1
    Well, they have at least this is new. And here we have ... The crippled pre-Avianosets and the Frigates. Although the situation is starting to improve with the Premier League, that’s good.
  • stels_07
    stels_07 20 June 2020 21: 26
    -2
    Somewhere sad Kuzya
  • Comrade Michael
    Comrade Michael 20 June 2020 22: 31
    +1
    Good aircraft carrier. We don’t have that.
  • Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 20 June 2020 22: 48
    -1
    And why should he do this in the Persian Gulf and in the Far East? The greatness of the former empire itches? Where is the indignation of the unworthy public?
    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 21 June 2020 12: 57
      +3
      Quote: Arthur 85
      And why should he do this in the Persian Gulf and in the Far East?
      For some reason, it seems to me that if Russia had sent Kuznetsov to these regions, you would not have asked this question, but would have limited yourself to the dry "must means must". Double standarts?
  • zwlad
    zwlad 20 June 2020 22: 50
    +2
    Penguin carrier built.
    Now they will think where to send it, and why
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 21 June 2020 07: 10
      +2
      Okay, at least we don’t have such problems
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 21 June 2020 11: 17
    0
    Was once the sovereign of the seas, now at the catch of her former colony. Even China's carrier fleet will soon be more powerful.
    1. Willywonka
      Willywonka 25 June 2020 08: 55
      0
      It somehow does not oppress them ... They live in peace with themselves and with their neighbors.
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 25 June 2020 09: 52
        +1
        Well, someone likes to stand in a pose, I will not argue.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 21 June 2020 11: 59
    +1
    For such a price (ship + F35V), you can build a normal aircraft carrier with F35S or F18 or Rafal (to choose from and for insurance)
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 June 2020 12: 35
      +2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      For such a price (ship + F35V), you can build a normal aircraft carrier with F35S or F18 or Rafal (to choose from and for insurance)

      The cost of Nimitz (without an air group) is about 4,5 billion, Ford cost 10 (but he is the head one), Korolev - 3,1 billion.
      Rafal is no cheaper than the F-35, in addition, the deck version of the latter is not accepted by the Navy
      Or did the words normal ship carrier mean a ship like Charles de Gaulle?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 21 June 2020 13: 17
        +1
        Yes or a little more with em catapult. About Rafal and F18, I mentioned only that there is a choice, and not one uncontested and complex machine.
        3,1 billion Elizabeth + F35V or Nimitsts 4,5 billion + F35 V ..... here it is necessary to calculate.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 21 June 2020 13: 30
          +2
          the British would not consider the French Rafal in principle, they do not have their own deck, so either Super Hornets or Lightnings remain. They relied on a promising fighter - in addition, they are participants in the program for its creation. But, since the F-35C is not communicated and not accepted by the fleet, they are satisfied with the F-35B vertical lines - therefore there are no catapults and finishers on the aircraft carrier

          But, as I think, and based on the huge reserves in terms of volume and mass, with modernization, both of them can be established. The queen, too, is heavily underused for defensive weapons - only three Phalanxes, although places for air defense systems are reserved
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 21 June 2020 13: 32
            0
            In the Case of F35B, only Harrier .... no one else.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 21 June 2020 13: 33
              +1
              Harrier is morally obsolete. He flew his age
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 21 June 2020 13: 38
                +1
                What I’m talking about. The F35S has a not-so-prominent replacement for the F18 and Rafal. Ф35В alone. And a comparison of the capabilities of the F35S and B is not in B.'s favor. Moreover, there are no savings in Elizabeth and F35B - de Gaulle (type) with the F35C.
  • geologist
    geologist 21 June 2020 14: 57
    -1
    From the theory of evolution, we know that as soon as someone reaches full perfection, he immediately ceases to develop further. What for? The British are strong at sea, which was proven relatively recently, bending Argentina, that is, in any part of the planet, they can knock anyone out under equal conditions. So the other poor and weak need to develop. Who will be the master of the sea? Probably the new overlords of all the elements and not only water, land and air, but also space.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 June 2020 07: 59
      0
      They could and could - different things ...... with modern anti-ship missiles (even at that time, half of the Excozets and bombs did not explode) and navigation of the SuperEtandora would inflict "unacceptable" damage to the British ship group. I doubt that Britain alone is capable of such a daring operation right now.