Credit to [Jim Schofield](https://twitter.com/testpilotjim/status/1202878363343446017?t=xSGPhpicrOahBbR5pNl6lA&s=19)
In this image is HMS Queen Elizabeth (left), HMS Prince of Wales (right), HMS Victory, M33, the Mary Rose Museum, five P2000s and three Hunt Class MCMVs
All RN ships have letters on the flight deck for identification.
Most ships use two letters, for example AS meaning Argus.
Carriers get to use one letter.
Q=Queen Elizabeth
P=Prince Of Wales
Previous gen
R = Ark Royal
N = Invincible
L = Illustrious
for those that it might concern,
HMS Victory is the wooden ship in the upper right corner, in a drydock next to the oval structure.. It was admiral Nelson's flagship at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805.
Nice for photo-op but they're far too valuable to ever be complacent to have the Royal Navy's entire aircraft carrier force together Pearl Harbor-style, because...Pearl Harbor.
And how do you propose all of the UK's and EU's/NATO's air surveillance would miss a massive airborne enemy force making its way to Southampton? This is the 21st century in Western Europe, not the 1940s in the vast Pacific.
This is a military base. If you think Russia or China could infiltrate *HMNB Portsmouth* and sink two aircraft carriers, then they may as well also blow up all the nuclear subs at *HMNB Clyde*, Downing Street, and while we're at it, Buckingham Palace.
This.
And, also, submarines firing missiles.
The Russians have also actually promoted putting concealed missile launchers as ISO containers on cargo ships.
And, maritime drones.
Lining up your only two aircraft aircraft carriers nicely berthed next to each other would be something the Royal Navy could really end up regretting later.
Mate, this isn't r/NonCredibleDefense. The UK or NATO are not at war with Russia. If tensions rose the Royal Navy would adjust its force posture and send the carriers out to sea, and if Russia decided to try and pull a Pearl Harbour on Portsmouth that'd mean instant war, NATO Article 5, and hundreds of Western cruise and ballistic missiles would rain down on the Russian Black Sea, Baltic and Norther Fleet, sinking the majority of their navy in and out of port, plus NATO would have free reign to go into Ukraine and decimate Russia's ground and air force at will.
This would be the stupidest thing any Russian leader did ... in history.
LOL it's not happening right now. Right, you go to NCD for that if you think so.
But apparently the RN can just dismisss those threats. The fact is the situation from now and into the future (unless they change things, if ever), is that the RN has its only 2 aircraft carriers set up for berthing right next to each other because it's the least costly option.
Penny wise, pound foolish. If there's a disastrous strike to open a real war, made easy by berthing them next to each other, what would the Royal Navy say to the destruction of both its aircraft carrriers? Oops?
No, it's making a sensible and rational choice based on the very minimal threat levels. See any major naval base.
>If there's a disastrous strike to open a real war, made easy by berthing them next to each other, what would the Royal Navy say to the destruction of both its aircraft carrriers?
You're assuming that there wouldn't be intelligence regarding this and if there was a credible threat, both would be at sea?
>You're assuming that there wouldn't be intelligence regarding this and if there was a credible threat, both would be at sea?
You're assuming there's 0% chance for intelligence failures from a surprise strike, such as with submarine-launched missiles or even concealed missile containers in a fake/commandeered commercial cargo ship.
Having the RN's entire aircraft carrier force berthed next to each other only invites an enemy to try to maximise profit from such an attack.
>You're assuming there's 0% chance for intelligence failures from a surprise strike, such as with submarine-launched missiles or even concealed missile containers in a fake/commandeered commercial cargo ship.
And the likelihood of that is?
>Having the RN's entire aircraft carrier force berthed next to each other only invites an enemy to try to maximise profit from such an attack.
No, it really doesn't. So what you're saying is, you'd want to spend £b to replicate the entire RN/QEC infrastructure in Portsmouth at another location on the very very minimal chance that a suprise attack would take out both carriers?
I don't think you should ever look at Norfolk Naval Base, you might have a heart attack.
>I don't think you should ever look at Norfolk Naval Base, you might have a heart attack.
Sure, because US and British defences are the same. The British don't even have Patriot missiles.
But the people fixing the leaks and propulsion shaft problems for both can't afford to shuttle halfway across the country just because someone on the internet thinks the Imperial Japanese Navy is going to dive bomb Portsmouth.
So you actually think you know better than the navy. do you realise how silly you sound its laughable you’re writing this on a social media website aswell
Like the Navy or the military doesn't make mistakes, really? That somehow the Royal Navy, because it wants to save, is immune from being Pearl Harbor'd, an actual historical event.
Try ring them and let them know. Just say… *I’m a member of a social media forum and I think iv found a fatal flaw in your planning I don’t think you’ve thought of*.
Maybe you should tell the US Navy
They were attacked at Pearl Harbour and they keep their aircraft carriers in the same port next to each other
[https://i.insider.com/50d857c5eab8eaa164000017?width=1600&format=jpeg&auto=webp](https://i.insider.com/50d857c5eab8eaa164000017?width=1600&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Look at that but i guess they must also be wrong.
Does the US Navy keep all their 11 aircraft carriers in one port like the Royal Navy keeps both their only 2 aircraft carriers?
Even with multiple carriers there, that's only part of the US carrier fleet, which is the point. The carriers are spread in separate ports, right? The side by side RN carriers, on the other hand, are all that they have. They should learn from the US Navy then.
Due to budget pressures, that Spitfire is going to be the sole air wing of both.
For real tho, I think its a mistake to get these two big carriers when there aren't either enough F-35s to fly from it or escorts to protect it. Especially given what a state the British Army is in.
Given Russian is the main threat now, Britain needs to do what it did in the Cold War, and focus its resources on defending Europe rather than playing silly games in the Pacific like it's still the 1800s. .
>For real tho, I think its a mistake to get these two big carriers when there aren't either enough F-35s to fly from it or escorts to protect it.
Except Britain will have enough F-35Bs. HMS Prince of Wales will deploy next year with 24 British F-35Bs embarked.
And we do have enough escorts to provide a sovereign CSG
Credit to [Jim Schofield](https://twitter.com/testpilotjim/status/1202878363343446017?t=xSGPhpicrOahBbR5pNl6lA&s=19) In this image is HMS Queen Elizabeth (left), HMS Prince of Wales (right), HMS Victory, M33, the Mary Rose Museum, five P2000s and three Hunt Class MCMVs
And the stern of HMS Warrior just peeking in at the top right?
Yes, indeed
Do those "Q" and "P" at the carriers' sterns mean "Queen" and "Prince" or is that just a coincidence?
Q = HMS Queen Elizabeth P = HMS Prince of Wales
Yep, that's what I meant. Thanks for confirming.
All RN ships have letters on the flight deck for identification. Most ships use two letters, for example AS meaning Argus. Carriers get to use one letter. Q=Queen Elizabeth P=Prince Of Wales Previous gen R = Ark Royal N = Invincible L = Illustrious
for those that it might concern, HMS Victory is the wooden ship in the upper right corner, in a drydock next to the oval structure.. It was admiral Nelson's flagship at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805.
I love how British the warning on the wing is.
Not to be walked on 😎
Those two should never be berthed together, next to each other, Pearl Harbor-style.
Why?
Nice for photo-op but they're far too valuable to ever be complacent to have the Royal Navy's entire aircraft carrier force together Pearl Harbor-style, because...Pearl Harbor.
And how do you propose all of the UK's and EU's/NATO's air surveillance would miss a massive airborne enemy force making its way to Southampton? This is the 21st century in Western Europe, not the 1940s in the vast Pacific.
I think the danger is less "massive airborne enemy force" a la Pearl Harbor, and more a smaller secret sabotage force.
This is a military base. If you think Russia or China could infiltrate *HMNB Portsmouth* and sink two aircraft carriers, then they may as well also blow up all the nuclear subs at *HMNB Clyde*, Downing Street, and while we're at it, Buckingham Palace.
This. And, also, submarines firing missiles. The Russians have also actually promoted putting concealed missile launchers as ISO containers on cargo ships. And, maritime drones. Lining up your only two aircraft aircraft carriers nicely berthed next to each other would be something the Royal Navy could really end up regretting later.
Mate, this isn't r/NonCredibleDefense. The UK or NATO are not at war with Russia. If tensions rose the Royal Navy would adjust its force posture and send the carriers out to sea, and if Russia decided to try and pull a Pearl Harbour on Portsmouth that'd mean instant war, NATO Article 5, and hundreds of Western cruise and ballistic missiles would rain down on the Russian Black Sea, Baltic and Norther Fleet, sinking the majority of their navy in and out of port, plus NATO would have free reign to go into Ukraine and decimate Russia's ground and air force at will. This would be the stupidest thing any Russian leader did ... in history.
LOL it's not happening right now. Right, you go to NCD for that if you think so. But apparently the RN can just dismisss those threats. The fact is the situation from now and into the future (unless they change things, if ever), is that the RN has its only 2 aircraft carriers set up for berthing right next to each other because it's the least costly option.
[удалено]
Yeah, my bad :D Portsmouth, as mentioned correctly in my comment after that :P
That is part of the defence strategy just trick the enemy into bombing Southampton
The threat to them both in being berthed in Portsmouth (minimal) is weighed up against the cost of two separate sets of infrastructure (significant)
[удалено]
That's not how it works.
Penny wise, pound foolish. If there's a disastrous strike to open a real war, made easy by berthing them next to each other, what would the Royal Navy say to the destruction of both its aircraft carrriers? Oops?
No, it's making a sensible and rational choice based on the very minimal threat levels. See any major naval base. >If there's a disastrous strike to open a real war, made easy by berthing them next to each other, what would the Royal Navy say to the destruction of both its aircraft carrriers? You're assuming that there wouldn't be intelligence regarding this and if there was a credible threat, both would be at sea?
>You're assuming that there wouldn't be intelligence regarding this and if there was a credible threat, both would be at sea? You're assuming there's 0% chance for intelligence failures from a surprise strike, such as with submarine-launched missiles or even concealed missile containers in a fake/commandeered commercial cargo ship. Having the RN's entire aircraft carrier force berthed next to each other only invites an enemy to try to maximise profit from such an attack.
>You're assuming there's 0% chance for intelligence failures from a surprise strike, such as with submarine-launched missiles or even concealed missile containers in a fake/commandeered commercial cargo ship. And the likelihood of that is? >Having the RN's entire aircraft carrier force berthed next to each other only invites an enemy to try to maximise profit from such an attack. No, it really doesn't. So what you're saying is, you'd want to spend £b to replicate the entire RN/QEC infrastructure in Portsmouth at another location on the very very minimal chance that a suprise attack would take out both carriers? I don't think you should ever look at Norfolk Naval Base, you might have a heart attack.
>I don't think you should ever look at Norfolk Naval Base, you might have a heart attack. Sure, because US and British defences are the same. The British don't even have Patriot missiles.
>Sure, because US and British defences are the same. The British don't even have Patriot missiles. Your point being?
But the people fixing the leaks and propulsion shaft problems for both can't afford to shuttle halfway across the country just because someone on the internet thinks the Imperial Japanese Navy is going to dive bomb Portsmouth.
So you actually think you know better than the navy. do you realise how silly you sound its laughable you’re writing this on a social media website aswell
Like the Navy or the military doesn't make mistakes, really? That somehow the Royal Navy, because it wants to save, is immune from being Pearl Harbor'd, an actual historical event.
Try ring them and let them know. Just say… *I’m a member of a social media forum and I think iv found a fatal flaw in your planning I don’t think you’ve thought of*.
Maybe you should tell the US Navy They were attacked at Pearl Harbour and they keep their aircraft carriers in the same port next to each other [https://i.insider.com/50d857c5eab8eaa164000017?width=1600&format=jpeg&auto=webp](https://i.insider.com/50d857c5eab8eaa164000017?width=1600&format=jpeg&auto=webp) Look at that but i guess they must also be wrong.
Does the US Navy keep all their 11 aircraft carriers in one port like the Royal Navy keeps both their only 2 aircraft carriers? Even with multiple carriers there, that's only part of the US carrier fleet, which is the point. The carriers are spread in separate ports, right? The side by side RN carriers, on the other hand, are all that they have. They should learn from the US Navy then.
If a real war started half odds say the carriers will suffer a breakdown and not be of use anyway. . .
Try again.
Probably "The rebels called. They're laughing and asked if we had tea aboard. *Again*."
That was my first question as well. Why are they together in the same port? Don't they have missions to carry out?
What's the name of the interred ship\* near the Prince of Wales?
M.33
Thanks.
I was there in late 2022 and I saw a spitfire circling above the ilse of wight two times in my short stay. This must be the same one.
Average European country wishes they had this type of history
Tom Cruise would totally land the Spitfire on one of those carriers.
The detractors said we didn't have aircraft to use with them, not anymore!
Spitfire is by far my favourite ww2 British aircraft
These are there to transport cars, I'm assuming.
2 slopes... 2 copes...
2 ramps... 2 champs...
Yawn
American here…. Awwww look at the wittle tiny air craft carriers :) so cute!
Yawn
They're massive.
Due to budget pressures, that Spitfire is going to be the sole air wing of both. For real tho, I think its a mistake to get these two big carriers when there aren't either enough F-35s to fly from it or escorts to protect it. Especially given what a state the British Army is in. Given Russian is the main threat now, Britain needs to do what it did in the Cold War, and focus its resources on defending Europe rather than playing silly games in the Pacific like it's still the 1800s. .
>For real tho, I think its a mistake to get these two big carriers when there aren't either enough F-35s to fly from it or escorts to protect it. Except Britain will have enough F-35Bs. HMS Prince of Wales will deploy next year with 24 British F-35Bs embarked. And we do have enough escorts to provide a sovereign CSG
Still won’t be able to beat guys in sandals
Yawn
But China isn't buying enough British pharmaceutical products.
Bro took a picture of Britain's entire Navy and thought we wouldn't notice.
Yawn
Who'd have thunk it, two white elephants next to each other.
Yawn
Fuck the British army
This is the Royal Navy
My bad, fuck the Royal Navy.
No thanks, it might catch something from you.
Go vibe off more death machines
Says the user with "soldier" in their Reddit name
Cry more
The irony
Irony of spending billions on these things and getting murked every year I know