Nonworking: I believe it had to be towed back to port on its maiden voyage, plus numerous breakdowns since.
Silly: that the UK, in it's current state, needs, can economically support, or can even usefully use the carriers.
Silly: that the UK, in it's current state, needs, can economically support, or can even usefully use the carriers.
Not true.
The UK can afford the carriers, you know being the fifth biggest economy in the world. It's all a matter a priorities, and unfortunately in this democracy, the political parties are not interested in defence spending.
He @tygyg1111 maybe referring to HMS Prince of Wales which is also classified as QE class carrier.
The carrier HMS Prince of Wales was indeed towed back when it broke down as it was preparing to sail towards the U.S. for some sort of training.
With respect to U.K.'s economy I can just LOL. Being the 5th biggest economy means diddly squat when the amount of investments, funding needing or being asked by the military to fund Britain's Global ambitions would be financially ruinous for the country. The taxes that needed or will be required will much higher than what the British people are currently paying with the country facing sky high inflation that's affecting pretty much everything else in the economy do you actually think for a minute that the British people would simply accept additional fees to fund their military? The NHS is underfunded and is under duress due to cuts from the preceding Tory budgets. 70% of UK children living in poverty have at least one working parent. Yet, here you are making absurd pronouncements of affordability when the actual reality on the ground contradicts your peculiar fiction.
Not on its maiden voyage as he claimed.
Correct, in the current political climate, defence is not a priority. Therefore it does not get the same amount of spending. The UK definitely could afford an even larger military if it was a priority for the Government, but it isn't. You and I are actually in agreement if you read my post carefully. I state very clearly "the political parties are not interested in defence".
You mean 6th biggest by nominal, 11th by PPP, which is what really matters when it comes to something like this.
As a percent of GDP the UK has one of the highest military budgets in NATO. They are interested in defence spending, it's just being whittled away by corruption.
Well it's finally happened, the UK's service rifle has officially been Americanized fully, 2023.
A new 90 million pound contract with SIG Sauer will give UK troops a new primary arms with the designation of L403A1. No longer sporting a bullpup configuration but more conventional "M4" style of gun the UK has secured its place as a loyal pup to the American anglo-saxon hegemony. Not only will the new rifle not be a bullpup but will also be produced by American gun manufacturer SIG Sauer creating a ever growing dependence on the Americans for their arms for their forces and wreaking in plenty of value to the infamous petrol dollar.
Over the next 10 years from 2023 the UK government is to procure over 10,000 of the L403A1 rifle for its armed forces.
This is what Colonel Paul Cummings had to say on the new rifle:
Source:
So not a bullpup? Also interesting they are sticking with the 5.56mm.
Only 10,000 over 10 years? LOL
General consensus is that because uk recruitment numbers are record low they don't need a lot of rifles. And yes the british army have no intention of fighting anyone with any meaningful capacity, their tactic at this point is to purely rely on American power. They're just there to look pretty and be a paper tiger, the only thing this modern army could accomplish is suppressing its own people which is exactly what the social elite rich want.
Seems to be optimistic thinking given what's going on in Europe right now.
I just realised, 10,000 rifles for £90 million, that's £9,000 per rifle. Are they made out of gold or something?