US President Donald Trump has criticised Britain’s aircraft carriers as Downing Street rejected suggestions Britain offered to deploy them to the Middle East.
Trump said: “The British said ‘we’ll send our aircraft carriers’, which aren’t the best aircraft carriers by the way.”
He added: “They are toys compared to what we have.”
The US president also suggested he had dismissed the offer, saying: “I said ‘that’s wonderful, thank you very much’, [but] don’t bother.”
In separate remarks, Trump said of allied support: “We don’t need them.”
Downing Street has rejected claims that the UK offered to deploy aircraft carriers to the region.
The comments follow previous criticism of allied contributions, including earlier remarks this year regarding the role of UK forces in Afghanistan, where 457 British personnel were killed.
The language itself is notable, obviously, as it is unusual to hear a sitting US president describe the military assets of a close ally as “toys”, particularly in public remarks where tone is normally more measured, but here we are.
The carriers
The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are the largest warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy, designed to provide a continuous carrier strike capability. The class consists of two vessels, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, each displacing around 65,000 tonnes. Their primary role is to project air power at range, supporting UK and allied operations across a spectrum of tasks, from high-intensity combat to humanitarian assistance.
The ships operate a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) air wing, centred on the F-35B Lightning II. This allows fixed-wing aircraft to be launched via a ski-jump ramp rather than catapults, reducing mechanical complexity while shaping the type of aircraft that can be embarked. The air group can be tailored depending on mission requirements, typically including fast jets, Merlin helicopters for airborne early warning and anti-submarine warfare, and other rotary assets for transport or surveillance.
In terms of design, the carriers feature a distinctive twin-island superstructure, separating navigation and flight control functions. This arrangement supports operational flexibility and redundancy. The ships are powered by an integrated full electric propulsion system, combining gas turbines and diesel generators to supply power for both propulsion and onboard systems. This configuration enables efficient distribution of energy and supports future upgrades, including potential integration of new weapons or systems.
The Queen Elizabeth class is intended to operate as part of a wider carrier strike group, relying on escort vessels such as destroyers and frigates for air defence and anti-submarine protection. While the carriers themselves have limited self-defence systems, their overall effectiveness is derived from the combined capabilities of the task group, including allied ships when deployed as part of multinational operations.
I really hope the US finds itself in a real messy hell so when they come begging for help we can tell them to go do one.
i sometimes think that. But then I think of the americans i befriended when i lived there, some family-in-law there and the fact that many americans are immigrants from other countries. i dont want people to suffer, i just want that buffoon, his family and sycophants to get their come-uppance.
The child in me sort of thinks that as well, the adult knows that sort of shitstorm will mean we are heading straight into WW3 and that even if it’s not we don’t want the most powerful liberal democracy in the world in trouble.
The US is too vital to the UK’s way of life to just have a tizzy fit and ignore it. However, the big shock is coming when this current storm subsides. Trump will unleash a phalanx of tariffs and threats of NATO membership drawdown. This will place a huge burden on European defence budgets way more than the 5% agreed in 2025. Thankfully, by the time any reduction in US involvement in the alliance begins to bite, he will be gone. The bad news is the damage Trump will do to the US mindset on contributing to NATO in the way seen in the pre-Trump years.
Well, he Will go but the policy Will remain.
You’re more optimistic than I am. It’s clear to me that the America of today has been a long time coming. Bit by bit, starting in the 1980s, the safeguards that protected America and Americans from (corporate and oligarchic) elite take-over have been swept away by a succession of self-serving/ corrupted politicians.
Consequently, I see Trump as a symptom and not the cause of the MAGA cult that has infected American society. It will survive his passing as key figures in what we now call MAGA now control key levers of control like the Supreme Court, the Senate and the national media (and more often than not, the House of Representatives).
The Ancient Greeks told the cautionary story of the Tall Poppies – overly rich and influential people who grew to dominate others and used that power for their own benefit- that needed cutting down to size so they didn’t damage the peace and stability of the host state. This is an external truth that we’ve forgotten and we can see its effects in many countries, most notably in the USA.
We just did 🤷🏻♂️
We need to complete our carrier groups, that’s true. 24 in ’25 was a great target, and we did it. Gratz on that RN, but it’s time to announce your next target: 30 combat drones by 2030, perhaps.
The man forms all of his opinions from his last 30 minutes’ Twitter feed.
I’d like to see a US carrier operating at the limit of our weather conditions.
I don’t think his memory retention is even that long these days, the dementia is definitely showing…
Isn’t the Gerald Ford limping back to the US at the moment? Blocked bogs and laundry room fires and aren’t there still problems with the new catapults?
She’s still alongside in Crete I think.
Yep you are correct 👍
As Halfwit might say…”Up the Crete…”
Not to mention at least our carriers can fly 5th Gen aircraft which their vaunted Gerald Ford can’t and won’t be able to for years until a major refit, which I presume if the Bush is out of action now means they can only operate Super Hornets et al in this current war. As such I wonder if this playground rant is because he wanted a UK carrier to fill in both to maintain mass and aircraft type and it was rejected.
What we do know is that he will want to exploit our forces even as he ridicules them and there is little we can do to prevent that, so it’s vital we independently and with allies prepare for the inevitable stepped US break from NATO that Trump is manipulating here and that will outlast Trump, which I fear sadly we are not taking seriously enough. Thankfully Congress will need to support leaving NATO which these contrived attacks on the Alliance are in part clearly aimed at fuelling but not likely in this timeframe so gives us time, ut equally he can do a lot to reduce physical commitments and one fears he is signalling a green light to Russia to cause trouble on Europes flanks. I think it was Senator Whiteside(?) with no coverage here who last week spelled out the incestuous connections between Trump, Epstein, Mountbatten Windsor, the Russian FSB, Robert Maxwell, Israel, Trump/Epstein Lawyers and many others over many years in schemes we know but the minimum about publicly and I can’t but wonder if Trump’s sudden turning on Poland having praised them not long ago has anything to do with Tusks opening of an investigation into these events to be found in So ite era files that it holds.
Huge irony. The justification for the size of the QEs and their theoretical sortie rates was to stand in for a US carrier. Adm West gave evidence that the US would find such a capability invaluable.
Trump’s mixture of insults, half truths and outright lies is becoming tiresome. I suspect even many in his MAGA power base are beginning to have doubts.
You greatly overestimate the average intelligence of those within the MAGA base.
You certainly have to wonder what the internal comms of the Trump administration look like. Recent statements from the US government have all been criticism of European allies for not deploying forces to support US efforts in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz; now the President is claiming a European ally offered an aircraft carrier full of US-built 5th gen fighters, and he said…no thanks?
Could we allocate the frames or pilots to allow such a sortie rate to be generated?
Do we have the spares and support that would allow such a sortie rate for be generated?
How many times has this theoretical sortie rate been fully tested?
now some of that is down to the wonderful Tech Refresh on F35B slowing the Blk IV software down but there is a level at which the Tangerine King may just have hit one something.
That said during his last term he was talking about USN studying how to make much cheaper carriers by looking at QEC as even USN budgets are finding USD 13Bn carriers a bit of a stretch….
I’m assuming that if a QE was standing in for a US carrier then the US would be providing the jets.
Indeed they might be.
But we are in the era of the Tangerine King so who knows what might happen from one day to the next.
Well he is losing much of his social media lobby, Rogan, Tucker and Kelly all getting rather hostile. They see the runes even if his acolytes and surrogates in Congress can’t yet drag themselves away in any numbers, it’s a dangerous move mind presently but I think once his hold breaks as will likely occur in the mid terms there may be many who see supporting him more dangerous to their careers than having the balls to oppose. How his anger will react to that is rather scary, those Hitler parodies in the bunker might get a little too close for comfort.
Someone should remind this twit that it was the British who invented the carrier, first to deploy an angled deck, first to have armoured decks and belts first to use in anger and first to have steam catapults. In addition in WW2 our carriers in the Pacific could survive a Kamikaze attack where USN carrier just for the most part burnt. As for today yes theirs are bigger but they cost 6 times more??
US carriers were armoured – common myth they weren’t
They were not armoured as well as British carriers just look at the holes in their decks!!
The USN armour scheme was different, with the flight deck not being an armoured deck, which had pluses and minuses of course in terms of damage repair and survivability and of course long term refit potential.
You are spot on. RN carrier design made the flight deck the strength deck with the hangar (s) forming part of the hull. This meant unlike the US who could simply raze the hanger and flight deck and put a new design on the hull, we were stuck, more or less, with the design as originally constructed. Changing it was an expensive and slow process (Victorious) because of the number of structural changes such that the strength of the ship’s hull wasn’t compromised.
This meant that the RN couldn’t make radical design changes to their carriers like the US did with the Essex and Midway classes. Of course these US classes are post Treaty designs unlike the Illustrious class.
Worth noting the Malta class were going to follow USN practice – open hanger and a hanger floor strength deck.
Whilst the Midway class design evolved it incorporated much that was learnt from RN experience particularly from HMS Illustrious actions in the Mediterranean. But Unlike the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, for which the armored deck was part of the ship structure, the Midway class retained their “strength deck” at the hangar deck level and the armored flight deck was part of the superstructure.
… and worth noting the Midway Class didn’t enter service till late 1945.
That’s not strictly true and also depends on which class you are referring too. They did not have armoured decks in the way the British carriers did, they did not like the restricted hanger space such decks dictated and thus reduced aircraft movement and overall air wing numbers. Only the Midway Class incorporated an armoured flight deck and attempted to exploit the armoured flight decks of British carriers with extra size to maintain aircraft numbers. However this did not enter service till late 1945. The fact that British carriers had superior armoured metal decks is not in question, the argument only centred around whether the restrictions on hanger space as a result was worth it, some Americans not wanting to accept any design flaw, simply argued potentially having more defensive fighters available to put into the air counteracted this carrier design vulnerability. The fact that from actual wartime experience the US moved to armoured decks on the first carriers actually designed in the war (and everyone since) proves the point of which argument prevailed I would say.
The USA had the same opinion when we sent our carriers to support them in their pacific struggles with the Japanese. Their opinion changed somewhat when the kamikaze planes started bouncing off our armoured decks with minimal damaged whilst theirs suffered significantly. The current situation isn’t helped by Trump suffering from the early stages of dementia. And before anybody questions that…it was my wife who told me and she is always right!!
All the much vaunted British carriers suffered catastrophic hull damage that saw them quickly off to the scrapyard postwar
Not so. Thats a myth pushed around the forums: “the armoured decks made the structure too rigid and transmitted shock to the hull”. The carriers were worked hard and worn out, frequently suffered damage inflicted by the enemy, limited cash to rebuild them.
Back under your bridge, troll.
We’ll just ignore the warped keel on one carrier
At least we won and had the choice what happened to that warped keel after sailing into Tokyo Bay…
As a result of battle damage, please note….
One of the often repeated film clips of a Kamikazi plane striking a carrier off Okinawa is when H.M.S. Formidable was hit. Actor Kenneth Moore (Reach for the Sky) was on board at the time. He describes near naked crew (it was insufferably hot) rushed up to the flight deck to find a modest dent. Air operations resumed soon thereafter. We had to pay for the Second World War, the only nation that fought on every day of the war and made eventual victory a possibility by refusing to surrender. The result was bankruptcy, rationing (I was there!) and shortages for many years after. That meant we had to scrap lots of stuff, masses of kit of all types, get men and women back to civilian life and pay our American allies their interest payments.
That was more to do with the financial state of the UK post war, the utter balls up of the Victorious refit and just the general wear of some of the carriers that were prewar ones, just remember the prewar USN survivor Enterprise was scrapped as well simply because she was worn out and they had Essex’s to spare.
Yeah, early war carriers weren’t worth the refit costs and back then they’d just say, thanks for winning it for us, but I’m going to scrap you for another brand new ship.
Utter rubbish, Just Me. The US navy was fascinated with our armoured carriers from day one, long before the kamikaze attacks proved the worth of armoured decks, albeit they came with a cost in terms of aircraft capacity. When, to cover their temporary shortage, in 1943 Victorious was lent to the US Pacific Fleet and sailed into Pearl Harbour, the US officers crowded on board to admire the ‘Limey flat-top’.
My father was an FAA pilot who landed his 829 Squadron Albacore on the Formidable’s deck in the Irish Sea, the day after she commissioned from Harland & Wolf. For the determination with which he pressed home the attack of his flight he was mentioned in the despatch after the FAA raid on the Italians at Massawa, while Formidable was on the way to Alexandria to replace the damaged Illustrious. He missed the Battle of Matapan, but his CO, Lt Cdr Dyell Stead, was killed in the attack on the Vittorio Veneto. Many years later, when I was in short trousers, we were on the ferry of the Queensferry Crossing when my father pointed out the Formidable to me, anchored below the bridge and waiting to be taken into Thos Ward for scrapping in Inverkeithing. He explained that the ship had been worked so hard that everything from the boilers on needed replaced, but the dent in the armoured deck was still there! The Victorious rebuild clearly illustrated the problems, and a second modernisation was never on the cards.
👍 Well put.
👍
Money or lack of it and a significant reduction in defence spending. Most of the RN was very tired post the war.
There is nothing wrong with the carriers, they are very good and exactly what was required, the problem (and this is where he is is sort of correct) that the the governments (both) drip fed the F35B and slow marched its escorts. Most stupidly by agreeing to buy F35A so the RAF can drop somebody else’s bomb, with somebody else’s permission, on somebody else’s behalf……but on our dime, instead taking every opportunity to fill out the carriers air groups.
That pretty much sums things up, we polished his ego hoping to placate him by agreeing the F35As so he could use us as cannon fodder for his nuclear bombs and he tried a similar arm twist with the request for carriers to cover for a semi crippled one and an F-35 absent one which we rightly declined to provide for his ill judged Israeli conspired war. For someone who insists we need to spend more to defend ourselves against Russia he is deeply intent upon strong arming us into attacking Countries not in Europe. His only remote plan is an attempt at weakening everyone he can to help the World hegemony he dreams of for the US. I truly pity the next President who will have a near impossible job repairing the damage, rebuilding external confidence and staving off acts of revenge, while no doubt suffering all manner of sniping from the sidelines about how the Country wasn’t suffering these inevitable repercussions during Trumps stint in Office. As we now know the average US voter won’t comprehend the true cause and effect of their growing troubles.
We have the sun, telegraph and daily mail to blame for this. These “papers” have become by and large US dominated digital advertising platforms. Each of their publications regularly phone up Trump and ask him these leading questions on the UK, Keir Starmer and British forces so they can then publish it as klick bate largely for a US audience.
The days when these “publications” could be seen atleast as patriotic are long gone and there current behaviour is verging on treason.
Spot on Jim and why, because their income is now dominated by US social media and online advertising. So stirring up trouble, undermining Britain, turning US opinion against Britain and turning the uk public against our own Govt for effectively traitorous motivations is a small price to pay for good old profit for the unscrupulous owners. Beating ourselves black and blue has long been a uk sport sadly so had plenty to build upon.
Just ignore it.
They’re great assets that few have, and many would like.
How to define “better” it is a pointless willy’ waving exercise. If their role is sheer strike power with the number of jets that the USN embark, then of course they are not better.
But for a nation of our size vs the US, they are well suited.
Nobody should be comparing to a super power, so that’s fine.
If we stooped to that level, it would be interesting comparing insults….for example in comparing real history, ours, to that of the US, a relatively new nation born from a barren wilderness, and from Europeans.
China also utterly walks all over them.
Maybe ask him as to who trained his SF and where they were modelled from? 😉
Great fun to be had.
The truth is the moment all of Europe tells the US to vacate they’re in a spot of bother projection and intelligence wise.
I agree, it’s also worth noting that for all it’s apparent super power strength and it’s amazing fleet of super carriers the US is able to field a total of 1 carrier on deployment for an active war now that ford is limping home.
Major issue with nuclear powered CATOBAR carriers is they take months to work up the air group.
Queen Elizabeth class has demonstrated in several occasions as has the USS America and Tripoli that F35B and helicopters can be embarked for operations at short notice and also disembarked.
Yes, the often mentioned flexibility and sortie rates as well.
It’s amusing. The guy’s an idiot.
USN currently has 5 carriers at sea.
So should be able to cover for their own losses then, yet it seems are struggling and have lost their 5th gen naval strike capabilities till they find a solution. These super carriers are extremely complex machines and fact is even the US struggle to keep them operable, as demonstrated some years back when one broke down and no dry dock available for it due to theirs in maintenance they had to ask the French to cover the Atlantic for some months. Would be pointless us trying to operate such monsters even if we arguably made some errors with our own carriers.
The Royal Navy has made many very bad choices that have come back to haunt us.
Escorts – the fixation on the perfect has left us with half the number of Destroyers we need, and they are woefully under armed. Same with Frigates, the design process on the T26 was insane – nothing could be chosen unless it coukd be proven to be zero risk – a decade late, very sedate designs built at a glacial pace.
The carriers – glorified helicopter carriers as no one was willing to move back into the fast lane.
2 CVF was supposed to get at least one always available, and the ability to surge 2 in an emergency – snort, we can send one out occasionally. The French get more sea time from their single proper aircraft carrier than the RN manages from its 2 CVF.
But the RFA – no fuel, no food, no navy. The RFA is on life support, 2ish tankers on a good day – no stores ships, zip, zilch, nada.
No stores ships, you are a littoral navy.
Are you just trolling because it one sentence you state ‘us’ and then say ‘you’. Are you a Brit or no it is quite a simple question.
As for RN making bad choices it is our politicians that have made those because in the U.K. they are the final decision makers but the USN choose with all its money to develop the LCS and the Constellation class!
As for the French getting more sea time out of their carrier you know that you require 3 vessels as a minimum to maintain one in constant readiness to avoid gaps. It is also worth reading up about CDG’s early service life because like all complex vessels she had some problems just like ours and the Yanks. The French had an 18 month gap when their sole carrier was in refit and we have one in for a planned refit and the other available after a 9 month global deployment within 4 months so I think I know what capability I prefer.
You are wrong on all counts, c’est las vie and all that.
The RN managed just fine for some very considerable time with one operational fixed wing carriers BTW.
The RN certainly ran Ark hard but they knew it was going to be for a limited period of time so refits/upgrades were of course limited to reflect this and she had no armament other than her aircraft and finished her career with concrete in her hull. Eagle spent considerably more time at sea.
Of course Ark was also supported by helicopter carriers Hermes, Bulwark along with Albion for a while during this period.
BTW I think CDG is a fine ship but I would still prefer two QE’s.
Atleast the toilets work on our carriers 😀
Only when we use the correct toilet paper – gen dit
The Royal Navy is not a serious navy.
Ah, you’re back. There’s a “Just me” with a differing pictorial symbol around here to yours, as well as a New me.”
Not me, I’m the genuine Just Me
One with an unmatched past let down by people who have a grasp of essentials to match your own. The R.N. perfected quiet nuclear submarines and these proved invaluable during the Cold War in operations that are only known in minor details from either the R.N. or U.S.N. side. Fortunately, those of us that can read, know how much of a ‘comrades in arms’ spirit exists between the U.S. and U.K. services at all ranks. None of our people would refer to the U.S top brass in the bad mannerly way of Mr Hegseth for example. One fact we can agree upon: The neglect of the Royal Navy unites almost all of the regulars on this site. Now that is the truth.
Have to agree what is the point of an aircraft carrier without all the fleet they goes with if for support. I guess the UK carriers are in dock for repair or refit rather than being available to support UK assets in the mid east region.
We sold the family silver to buy the two carriers – and when wise heads warned it would end in tears – no spend on escorts and the utterly vital logistics ships…..
‘Well, once we have the carriers, the Government will have to find the extra money’ – opined a 1SL
Well, the Government gets a vote, and it decided not to find the extra money leaving the Navy right up merde creek.
The cost of both carriers put together was less than a single Dreadnought submarine. No family silver was sold. Grandma Maggie had already sold all that in the 80s.
We’ll just ignore the capabilities gapped and vital support classes cut back, scrapped earky or pushed back to pay for the two huge LPHs
Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
The RN has allowed its logistics to fade away and die for nearly two decades
‘ to pay for the two huge LPHs’
Get a grip lol
The cost of both carriers was what the NHS spends in about a fortnight. They were a bargain, the only thing our wretched government has done right in the last 20 years!
It’s not an either or. We should be able to afford both and even more ships and even build a couple more aircraft carriers. The problem is defence has been run down for decades, the budget is a joke with how small it is, hardly grown in the last few decades. The budget is a hobbiest budget. Should be well over 120 billion a year now.
Yes, the often mentioned flexibility and sortie rates as well.
It’s amusing. The guy’s an idiot.
And yet former and current governments are still ignoring the current and future world while pretending everything is rosey. It is moving at glacial pace with all the lessons in Ukraine, drones, air defence, artillery etc. sleep walked into the next, predictable crisis with no spare naval assets.
But now we have a president with the guts to call us out for our short sightedness, I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA started to wind down some of its defence agreements with it’s allies who prefer to spend the money on social issues and funding Ukraine/, foreign aid while talking big and tough against russia. What would they do in a real fight and no America to back them up? Our forces personnel are the best in the world it’s just they are the military at the treasuries mercy.
The orange felon is a megalomaniac narcissist bully who feels invincible because of power built by previous administrations he constantly criticises, he contributed nothing.
However, his mocking of allies removes that layer of decades of lies whereby the US praised far inferior and far less effective European forces, while Europeans praised a US global leadership they often disagreed with.
If there is a positive side in his annoying and unfair behavior is probably that Europeans are finally waking up, seeing things as they are and hopefully starting doing something about it.
You make valid points very well. However, what President Trump is seemingly overlooking or doesn’t understand, the state of affairs you succinctly describe was by design, a design made in the Pentagon. France in 1961 did try ‘to do something about it’ and it failed. The rest of Europe was happy to be defended by American taxpayers.
Definitely. The winner designed a vassal system, the right to rule in exchange for protection, all empires have done the same. France tried to fight back with their strategic autonomy but it was and is a lost battle, over decades European nations have simply become too small in a world of giants. But the French saw it coming, they realised they could not have anymore a global role on their own therefore aimed for a united Europe, with a leading role in its integration. Now this is being tested, with Europe facing a predator on the west, two on the east, and poisonous nationalist far-right movements within who are playing the game of big foreign powers.
« Lost battle », until now… got to say, French gaullists got to love trump!
The most divisions, aircraft and ships lost against who? The HMG and her glorious treasury. The U.K. MoDs greatest enemy. Nothing will change with politicians in control.
Emperor Donald probably couldn’t name any of the colonials carriers, he is as full of shit as the plumbing on his super carrier. Our “leaders” should learn to ignore everything he says, just ignore him and he will HATE IT.
Who cares what the Wosit thinks, he knows f all about the military. He is taking the US into a Vietnam style war(whoops sorry, Military special operation) and soon.he will be begging for allied support!
The pretro dollar is in decline and the Yanks know it.
There’s nothing wrong with our Carriers and our so call toy navy fly US jets . Although he was wrong to lash out , I think in reality he’s frustrated with Starmer government not giving permission to use our Airfields and how small our Army forces have become because of the lack of funding .Which they is no argument with that one . But one thing everybody knows our men & women of our Armed forces are top class .
To be fair they are not the biggest and they are not nuclear powered.
Trump is a clown, that’s undeniable, but he’s not the enemy. The enemies are the British politicians and the Treasury, who for many years have led the armed forces to a deplorable situation, and increasingly so, they seem to have no end in their task of leaving the country unarmed.
👍
As always there’s an element of truth in his comments and mostly stupidly, the carriers could be seen as toys as we couldn’t send even one of them into a war zone as we don’t have enough escorts to protect them. They are great for what they they are designed for, getting 5th gen aircraft to be able to strike anywhere.
If we’re going to play top trumps (excuse the pun) on equipment though, he probably won’t want to compare the Astutes or type 26s.
Our carriers are a joke and need a massive redesign. Need catapult and arrester wires so we can use typhoons and use the F35 c not the useless F35 b and any future jets we are developing. They need a nuclear propulsion system not gas. Either refit them or sell them and build 2 or 3 new ones. The costly mistake needs to be fixed!
So you really haven’t taken any notice of multiple threads on this site about the carriers then!🙄
Nurse! He’s on the internet again
Typhoons 🤣. They would fall apart as they are not built for the stress of carrier launches or landings!
I don’t think an argument is needed here, just the facts. The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers displace about 80,000 tonnes and the two ships cost around £6.2 billion in total, with a significant portion of that figure arising from political delays and repeated specification changes (including consideration of CATOBAR, size revisions (smaller, back to big) and programme slowdowns). Adjusting for those delays, the underlying build cost is closer to about £4 billion. By comparison, a single Gerald R. Ford-class carrier costs in the region of $13 billion (£11+ billion) for around 100,000 tonnes displacement. Both classes have experienced technical issues, which is normal for complex first-in-class warships, but on a straightforward cost-per-ton basis the QE class compares very favourably and is among the most economical large fleet carriers built in modern times, while also achieving a high degree of automation and reduced crew size.
Sure I heard him slagging off the jets that fly from our carriers, too. You guys also fly them, you mong.
You’re all getting too het up over the rambling verbal diarrhoea of a dementia-addled rapist. He’ll have forgotten his comments even before they’re reported and will probably contradict them the next-day.
He got Ireland and Island mixed up when he couldn’t even remember the name of Diego Garcia, so yeah, tomorrow it will be some new form of rambling nonsense which the US media will sane wash and defend.