national

British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth makes 1st port call in Japan

102 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

During the port call, the around 1,240 crew members will not disembark from the warship, according to the Yokosuka city office

according to a friend in SK, when the ship berthed in Busan recently, there was an onboard 'Covid-Incident', and those partying on shore were recalled to the ship.....

-12 ( +9 / -21 )

Welcome !! The U.K.’s presence is needed for some stability amongst “The Neighbors”.

11 ( +28 / -17 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

-30 ( +18 / -48 )

During the port call, the around 1,240 crew members will not disembark from the warship, according to the Yokosuka city office.

The Royal Navy doesn’t want it’s sailors to get Covid.

27 ( +29 / -2 )

During the port call, the around 1,240 crew members will not disembark from the warship,

Terrible time to be a sailor. 18 to 30 year olds don't have to worry so much about the virus anyway. Too bad.

-12 ( +10 / -22 )

Crews look forward to Ports-of-Call, especially in countries like Japan, and having several days going ashore. These breaks are important for the health and morale of the crew. The crew will have been doubled vaccinated before leaving the UK. We visited Japan but I never saw it!

22 ( +28 / -6 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

their ships probably wouldn’t make it that far

12 ( +31 / -19 )

Next stop Taipei ? That’ll tick somebody off.

How about offshore Okinawa for a while and do some diving…off the Deck !

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

Exactly. The British Navy have no business in the Pacific Ocean anymore. The sun set on your empire long ago.

-43 ( +15 / -58 )

It is NOT in the best interest of China or any other nation involved in the Indo Pacific dispute to result to any military action, we all know damn well what the outcome would look like. This can only be resolved diplomatically back by economical and military powers.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

If China ever decided to stop acting like an adversary all the time, it's not a far fetched idea! Chinese naval vessels have made port calls to Australia.

Port calls like those, and the one's here, help to foster friendlier relationships.

23 ( +29 / -6 )

jiji Xx  06:51 am JST

according to a friend in SK, when the ship berthed in Busan recently, there was an onboard 'Covid-Incident', and those partying on shore were recalled to the ship.....

What BS! This ship never even called Busan!

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210824007100325

SEOUL, Aug. 24 (Yonhap) -- The British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and its strike group will not make a planned port call at a port in South Korea's southern city of Busan due to the pandemic, sources said Tuesday.

24 ( +27 / -3 )

A British nuclear sub, HMS Artful made a Busan port call and the crew went ashore.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

The Russian and Chinese navies held joint exercises in the Baltic a couple of years ago. So what? It's international waters.

21 ( +25 / -4 )

and do some diving…off the Deck !

It's around 30 meters from the flight deck to the water on an aircraft carrier that large. The risk of injury is great. I've had one mid ocean swim call jumping from less than ten meters above the water and man it seemed to take forever to get back to the surface.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Biden said U.S. would not help a country that does not have a will to stand up against their own enemies. Britain, France and other western countries will not join the fight to help Japan unless Japan shows spirit of "boots on the ground."

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Exactly. The British Navy have no business in the Pacific Ocean anymore. The sun set on your empire long ago.

I have visited German and Swedish navy ships making port calls in Long Beach and San Diego respectively. JMSDF ships too in both US and Canadian ports. Navies make tours of foreign ports all over the world as part of their training, often with cadets from their respective naval academies on board. The British are promoting trade with Japan, South Korea and their neighbors in Asia. Being able to protect their maritime commerce to that region against Chinese encroachment on their maritime rights is a big part of the reason nations have navies in the first place.

24 ( +28 / -4 )

The British Navy have no business in the Pacific Ocean anymore. The sun set on your empire long ago.

The vainglorious xenophobes in the British government and their media backers love this 19th. century style gunboat diplomacy as it harks back to when Britain ruled the waves. The catastrophic failure in Afghanistan tells the real story though; Britain's military is at its smallest since the year 1900 and further cuts are coming later this year. This visit from the Queen Elizabeth, which cost $7.6bn and was beset by a host of problems during the 10 years it took to build, is part of the current anti-China PR. Which is deeply ironic as British imoorts from China increased by 65% after Brexit.

-19 ( +15 / -34 )

Covid has completely disrupted social life.

I remember pre covid years when navy ships made calls in Nagasaki and there would be a stampede of J girls flooding to Sasebo looking for prince charming.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

Good for them. Another strong reminder to the Commies that if they try anything against Taiwan or Okinawa, Japan and her friends will annihilate them. It wouldnt even be a contest if a coalition of the US, UK and Japan were involved.

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

They'd have no right to be there, and would be chased off by UK and France. The UK has every right to be in Asia due to her trade in the region, and "Freedom of the Seas".

I hope the British sailors enjoy their time sightseeing around Japan!

3 ( +20 / -17 )

Nice to have friends

9 ( +13 / -4 )

The Queen Elizabeth is nice and all, but Japan is the unsinkable aircraft carrier in the pacific.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Thank you very much Your Highness.. please come to the West Philippine Sea and save our country from island grabbers.

14 ( +19 / -5 )

@Luddite

The Royal Navy doesn’t want it’s sailors to get Covid

They’ve already got Covid infected sailors on board.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Nice pic.

-Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

The 26th Chinese Navy Escort Taskforce made a goodwill visit to London in 2017.

WW III will not be fought using aircraft carriers and planes, but with nukes. Lots of them.

Kit like this is used for interventions against weaker adversaries. Even then, as with Afghanistan, having state of the art tech isn't always enough. F35s v Donkeys. The donkeys won.

We'll need the aircraft carrier back soon. In the absence of EU truck drivers, we can use it to ferry food around the UK. If it stopped off in China on the way back, they could fill it with goods, to make up for the stuff we can no longer get from the EU.

Not sure the UK government will be of much use defending Taiwan. Since Brexit, my main Taiwanese suppliers have been blocked from selling to the UK.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

> Alfie NoakesToday  08:27 am JST

The British Navy have no business in the Pacific Ocean anymore. The sun set on your empire long ago.

The vainglorious xenophobes in the British government and their media backers love this 19th. century style gunboat diplomacy as it harks back to when Britain ruled the waves. The catastrophic failure in Afghanistan tells the real story though; Britain's military is at its smallest since the year 1900 and further cuts are coming later this year. This visit from the Queen Elizabeth, which cost $7.6bn and was beset by a host of problems during the 10 years it took to build, is part of the current anti-China PR. Which is deeply ironic as British imoorts from China increased by 65% after Brexit.

British Bad China Good…sound about right to you Alfie?

13 ( +19 / -6 )

Fighto!Today  08:31 am JST

I hope the British sailors enjoy their time sightseeing around Japan!

Keeping up your tradition of never reading an article. Good job, mate.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

I’m English not that it makes any difference. This situation makes me nervous m, fingers crossed.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

This would not be necessary if China did not make threats to other countries.

Killed soldiers at the border with India.

Xi giving speeches about taking Taiwan by force.

Complaining about other countries reacting to an aggressive China makes no sense. Your actions will have a reaction. Especially when you decide to do it by force.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

This would not be necessary if China did not make threats to other countries.

This is nothing but target practice for Chinese forces. In the event of a conflict over the Chinese province of Taiwan this vessel would for an absolute certainty stay well away. This vessel is more for Yemen, various central African countries. Even against Yemen in particular it's vulnerable.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

@ingvar

”This is nothing but target practice for Chinese forces. In the event of a conflict over the Chinese province of Taiwan this vessel would for an absolute certainty stay well away.”

please elaborate.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

If it stopped off in China on the way back, they could fill it with goods, to make up for the stuff we can no longer get from the EU.

That's a good idea. It wouldn't help with the turkey situation, but at least the bairns would get their toys at Christmas.

This visit is getting the desired publicity in the press, and harks back to the glory days of very old, even long before I was born. However, one carrier means very little in military terms. The planes can fly off and throw some bombs in the general direction of people we label "insurgents", but that usually seems to make things worse.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Kobe White Bar Owner

please elaborate.

China has the second most advanced (after Russia) anti-ship missiles. This UK vessel is defenseless against them.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

British Bad China Good…sound about right to you Alfie?

Oh dear. Maybe you should read the words on the page instead of listening to the voices in your head. The posts from GBR48 and Kohakuebisu are worth a look too.

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

The Royal Navy doesn’t want it’s sailors to get Covid.

Yep. Especially as UK has recorded almost 7 million cases, 37500 yesterday and almost 2000 deaths per-million people as opposed to Japan which has recorded 1.5 million total cases 16700 yesterday in population twice the size and 129 deaths per million people......... Are you sure the UK rather than Japanese authorities decided those sailors and officers aren't getting off the vessel in Japan?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

I think the role of the British Navy should be the protection of the UK and Europe. We don't need two new expensive carriers for that. All major navies sent their ships overseas on goodwill missions to improve friendships and trade. What's the point of being in the navy if you can't sail somewhere, sometimes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

A tad too much whataboutery here but, nonetheless, this absurd hypothetical only exposes the limp-biscuit irrelevance of Brexit-UK as a world player apart from its paralympic power.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

”This is nothing but target practice for Chinese forces. In the event of a conflict over the Chinese province of Taiwan this vessel would for an absolute certainty stay well away.”

@Kobe

please elaborate.

A sitting duck.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

IngvarToday 10:13 am JST

The Royal Navy doesn’t want it’s sailors to get Covid.

Yep. Especially as UK has recorded almost 7 million cases, 37500 yesterday and almost 2000 deaths per-million people as opposed to Japan which has recorded 1.5 million total cases 16700 yesterday in population twice the size and 129 deaths per million people......... Are you sure the UK rather than Japanese authorities decided those sailors and officers aren't getting off the vessel in Japan?

There are free walk-in, drive-in or at home PCR tests available in the UK. Japan's numbers are low because the number of tests is low. How many cases would have been found if Japan had the same system as the UK is anyone's guess.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

It would be the Japanese government that decided sailors from the carrier could not have shore leave.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The Queen Elizabeth is nice and all, but Japan is the unsinkable aircraft carrier in the pacific.

Eh, but it is not mobile like an aircraft carrier. Aircraft from Japan can't patrol the South China Sea. One of the virtues of aircraft carriers is they can bring airpower where it is needed without the need for land bases in foreign shores. Also that mobility allows them to do things that make it hard to find them. Land bases don't move and are easier to target.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

ReasonandWisdomNipponToday  09:16 am JST

This would not be necessary if China did not make threats to other countries.

Killed soldiers at the border with India.

Xi giving speeches about taking Taiwan by force.

Complaining about other countries reacting to an aggressive China makes no sense. Your actions will have a reaction. Especially when you decide to do it by force.

-6( +0 / -6 )

the CCP robots are out in force as usual

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

A tad too much whataboutery here but, nonetheless, this absurd hypothetical only exposes the limp-biscuit irrelevance of Brexit-UK as a world player apart from its paralympic power.

The ironic thing about these two comments is that about two or maybe it is three years ago now the Russian and Chinese navies did indeed conduct a big joint exercise in the Baltic Sea off the coasts of NATO allies like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Chinese ships were on public display in Saint Petersburg and sailed right by the UK. It was a non event because unlike China, UK and the rest of NATO understand the meaning of international waters and didn't make a fuss over the exercise. Russia and China had every right to exercise their warships in the Baltic. NATO observed it naturally but there were no diplomatic protests and no tantrums from any European foreign ministers about it. It was a non-event and unless you are in the defense establishment and pay attention to these things the exercise was not a big deal in Europe or the US. Most people never even knew the exercise occurred.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

There are free walk-in, drive-in or at home PCR tests available in the UK. Japan's numbers are low because the number of tests is low. How many cases would have been found if Japan had the same system as the UK is anyone's guess.

Here is this thing about testing again....... If people aren't sick, they don't get tested. I known from my anecdotal experience, I went into the hospital with an injury in late spring or early summer. A very nice lady approached me and asked in English if I had any coronavirus symptoms. I said "no" and she went and reported that to a nurse and the result was I didn't get tested for coronavirus.

Should Japanese authorities do to citizens and residents as Chinese authorities did to American diplomats? Grab them, hold them down and give them anal swabs for coronavirus?

The bottom line it's almost certain, 99.5%, Japanese authorities decided those sailors and officers aren't disembarking in Japan and coronavirus almost certainly played an important role in that decision.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

A sitting duck.

Sure thing. It's a big ocean and an aircraft carrier is darned small in that big ocean. In an ocean full of container cargo ships and tankers of equal or greater size are you certain an aircraft carrier is easy to find hiding among the other ships, especially if they go EMCON and maybe use some deception tactics? Unless you have been out there haze gray and underway you might not know how hard one of those strike groups can be to find if they don't want to be found. And even if you do, what makes you think it is going to so easy to get past their air wing and four layers of air defense missiles?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

At Japanese hospitals when we have a blood test, these days all samples are tested for HIV/AIDS. When patients attend hospitals they should have a covid test and offer of vaccinations on the spot.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In any future naval warfare between big powers all aircraft carriers will be just superannuated sitting ducks heading for obsolescence down in Davy Jones' Locker. These vessels are just floating pork barrels for politicians who know how to scam taxpayers by appealing to their knee-jerk jingoism.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@ Mr Kipling

Japan is surrounded by open ocean.

There is only one channel to speak of, that between Japan and the ROK. Neither country would welcome an intrusion of PRC warships there, but it includes a passage avoiding territorial waters, so sending through a PRC naval force could not be prevented if the Chinese so chose. If memory serves, at least one small Chinese flotilla passed through the strait during the past few years.

PRC forces already have repeatedly carried out naval exercises passing between islands of the Ryukyu Archipelago and the Japan main islands, and in areas surrounding many offshore Japanese islands. To complain of the arrival of a small contingent of British naval craft in Japan is the height of hypocrisy.

PRC vessels and aircraft repeatedly violate Japanese territoriality along the western bounds of the Ryukyu Archipelago and the Sentakus.

As for the English Channel, Russia frequently carries out naval exercises passing through that narrow strait, but it's a far reach for China which, by the way, has no allies in the region, thus no justification. For Russia, passage on either side of the British Isles is its only route onto the high seas from it's naval station at Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea and it's arctic naval stations. There is, therefore, conceivable justification, despite some British discomfort, for Russian naval passage through the Channel. No such justification exists for the PRC.

Britain has not seized any atolls or rocky outcroppings in the vicinity of the PRC to build threatening military bases on them. Neighbors of the PRC are justifiably concerned and happy to have a show of support by an allied nation.

The strong concern being shown by several non-Asian nations, no only Britain, to the aggressive behavior of the PRC in East and SE Asia, is understandable and fully justified because PRC behavior threatens continued peace in the area and amounts to coercive behavior against some of the smaller, weaker nations.
6 ( +8 / -2 )

Why don't they make ports of call in China? Seems like the best way to defuse tension is to get to know each other, visit and make friendly!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@ Desert Tortoise

Your points are well taken. I do remember those naval exercises, but wasn't there some spluttering of indignation about encroachment and threats from the apoplectic Colonel Blimps and the gutter press?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Hong Kong was always a port of call for the British Navy and Chinese navy ships have visited the UK in better times.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

China has issued new laws about ships in their waters including international shipping lanes as it seeks to dominate the South China Sea.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan is surrounded by open ocean.

Japan has a coastline with the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea......

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

These vessels are just floating pork barrels for politicians who know how to scam taxpayers by appealing to their knee-jerk jingoism.

Well said but they are also to use against third world countries. Against movements born out of poverty and desperation in those countries seeking to overthrow the status-quo.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

What's the purpose of a port of call?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What's the purpose of a port of call?

Resupply with goods marked up 300%.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

vanityofvanitiesToday  08:23 am JST

Biden said U.S. would not help a country that does not have a will to stand up against their own enemies. Britain, France and other western countries will not join the fight to help Japan unless Japan shows spirit of "boots on the ground."

If Japan is defending it's own territory their boots are already on the ground. Duh.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Why don't they make ports of call in China?

Without shore leave what's the point? Drop anchor off Hong Kong and sit there looking cool for a few days, then sail away? I'm disappointed RN sailors won't be allowed ashore in Japan. At least let them off the ship to shop in the Navy Exchange and have a meal ashore on base, maybe bowl a few games in the base bowling alley or play some outdoor sports on the base athletic fields. See if the Brits can play baseball! Anything to get off the ship for a while.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth strike group are a vital element for the Government of Japan/UK to link arms strategically, tactically, and politically to protect right of passage through vital South China Sea trade routes.

There presence is not for the crew to break out the beers and party.

A port call ok fair enough, COVID permitting. Let not lose sight of the mission objective.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

These vessels are just floating pork barrels for politicians who know how to scam taxpayers by appealing to their knee-jerk jingoism.

Yep, sure thing. I guess that explains why the PLAN is building aircraft carriers as fast as they can. Sitting ducks that won't survive even one missile hit. You know the Navy needs experts in naval warfare like you., lol. How many cruises do you have under your belt btw? Are you a Shellback? Ever conducted flight ops EMCON, no radios, just signal lights? Sitting ducks. Sure thing.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

How many carriers have been sunk in war? Quite a few I guess if they're really sitting ducks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How many carriers have been sunk in war? Quite a few I guess if they're really sitting ducks.

The anti-ship missiles even middle powers like Iran have didn't exist in WW2. Since then NATO powers have only attacked small, weak countries.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

No shore leave only means not leaving the port area. But many sailors need to visit offices and places on the base, such as collecting the post.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

My preferred use of a British aircraft carrier in September 2021 would be to go to Afghanistan and collect some of the people the UK has abandoned there. People with UK citizenship and others who have assisted the UK in its operations there over the years. These people have been left to the Taliban who will see them as collaborators. The way the UK has betrayed people, while even airlifting out some pets for good PR, disgusts me.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The anti-ship missiles even middle powers like Iran have didn't exist in WW2. Since then NATO powers have only attacked small, weak countries.

Well were carrier defenses then comparable to defenses now vis a vis enemy offense capabilities?

I'm guessing with advances in technologies in both areas it would be easier now to sink a carrier than before.

As mentioned somewhere above it's very difficult to track locations on the wide seas but now I guess anybody who says a ship that size can be hidden is joking

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

My preferred use of a British aircraft carrier in September 2021 would be to go to Afghanistan and collect some of the people the UK has abandoned there.

Good idea. Sail into the Arabian Sea then drive over the Hindu Kush.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

China has every right to send her ships anywhere in the world and exercise in international waters.

Just like the UK has every right to send her ships anywhere in the world and exercise in international waters. Which it is doing right now on its tour around the Indo-Pacific and Asian region.

The question is, what does China expect to accomplish by complaining about it and other nations sailing in international waters? Ohhh your ships make us nervous, dont sail in international waters near our country, It makes us scared and angry.

Poor old China jumping at shadows has greater issues than other nations sailing around.

China has sent spy ships off Australia's waters to monitor the US and Australian fleet exercises. They have a right to sail there of course but do they think they have the right to do such things and not have similar actions taken to spy on them in their waters or in international waters?

Navies will sail, that's what they do. You dont build a ship to stay in your own port.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What's the purpose of a port of call?

Resupply with goods marked up 300%.

It is like a flag half way through when you Mario

I only asked because it said above that the sailors weren't allowed off the ship and I don't think these floating fortresses really to be resupplied

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Well were carrier defenses then comparable to defenses now vis a vis enemy offense capabilities?

The defences consist of machine guns used to shoot down incoming missiles. They might intercept a small % of anti-ship missiles but not against China or Russia which have satellite guided anti-ship missiles which fly up then come down right on top of ships.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

History repeating itself, although this time around China is not as tech deficient.

People never learn, looks like down the road we'll have to go through another big conflict.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

ianToday  12:07 pm JST

How many carriers have been sunk in war? Quite a few I guess if they're really sitting ducks.

None since February 1945. Weapons, including defense systems have progressed quite a lot in the last 76 years.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No @zichi - Only blood tests prior to surgery are surgery are tested for HIV, or those on request. Not ALL blood samples.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I don't think these floating fortresses really to be resupplied

Unless they double up as floating farms or fishing vessels and desalination plants (not to mention British engineering. i.e. needing constant repair including replacing parts), I think they need to be resupplied.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Unless they double up as floating farms or fishing vessels and desalination plants (not to mention British engineering. i.e. needing constant repair including replacing parts), I think they need to be resupplied.

Well yes, I didn't think it needed to be spelled out "need to resupply" wasn't meant in absolute terms

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They even need to be refueled I guess, happy? =)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

theResident

No @zichi - Only blood tests prior to surgery are surgery are tested for HIV, or those on request. Not ALL blood samples.

Given many blood samples over the past few years. Often on my forms, it said it would be tested for HIV, so I don't know then, probably mistaken?

Free tests are available.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Since 1945 there has not been a naval war involving carriers.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The anti-ship missiles even middle powers like Iran have didn't exist in WW2. Since then NATO powers have only attacked small, weak countries.

The old USS Forrestal was about 2/3 the displacement of a modern CVN and didn't have a lot of survivability features modern CVNs have. Find out how much ordnance detonated on her deck in that tragic 1967 mishap off Vietnam. At least ten 1000 lb bombs and dozens of smaller bombs plus rockets and missiles exploded on her deck. It did a lot of damage but it didn't sink her, never threatened her propulsion and even her air conditioning stayed on in the forward half of the ship. Next find out how much ordinance blew up on the deck of USS Enterprise in a similar 1969 mishap. Another ship that didn't have the survivability features of a Nimitz class but nonetheless didn't sink. Not too many anti ship missiles have 1000 lb warheads. Most are 500 lb and below. Modern CVNs are designed to absorb a lot of combat damage and still function. While the US Navy lost many of her earliest aircraft carriers, none of the 33,000 ton Essex Class were lost in combat. Franklin and Intrepid took huge poundings but survived, with Intrepid serving well into the 1970s and now on public display. I have personally seen a tragic mishap on Nimitz where a couple of techs working on a F-14 somehow managed to set off the 20 mm gatling gun and set fire to over a dozen armed A-7s on the forward flight deck. Nimitz class carriers benefitted from the lessons of the Forrestal and Enterprise tragedies. Her automatic foam fire fighting system had the fire out in less than a minute and no bombs exploded. The burned aircraft, what a sight too, were all shoved over the bow, a careful FOD walkdown was conducted, the cats inspected and flight ops resumed by late morning. Some years earlier another big flight deck fire caused by an S-3 landing off centerline and clipping an SH-3 set off about two dozen missiles on deck. Again the automatic foam fire fighting system had the fire out in maybe two minutes ( a darned long time with stuff is burning on your flight deck !). The missiles left some dents in the flight deck and some of the non-skid had to be replaced but otherwise no damage.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

If my memory is correct, Japan's WW2 Shinano aircraft carrier was larger than the Queen Elizabeth, and both are larger than the Asakaze, which was a WW2 carrier for kamikaze planes.

Different eras. I know, just a reminder of naval ships that have been used for military purposes. Apparently the US Gerald Ford is to become the largest. Too bad the US continues to invest so much in moving planes carrying bombs, and so little to improve moving people and goods within the US.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

China or Russia which have satellite guided anti-ship missiles which fly up then come down right on top of ships

Sigh. None of those missiles have a longer range than the air wing on the carrier or some of its longest range air defense missiles. What that means is the carrier air wing and the DDGs are going to be able to engage the Chinese or Russian launch platforms well before they can get close enough to the carrier to shoot. That is why the Chinese in particular are so ardent to have their own carriers with their own aircraft at sea with them. They understand how vulnerable their ships are to the better US missiles without an air wing to go after the missile shooters.

And obtw, the Russians and Chinese will have to find the carrier first. Good luck. The old USSR had better satellite surveillance than either Russia or China does today and the US was able to sneak two CSGs into the Sea of Okhotsk without being detected. How do we know? Their radios were quiet right up until the A-6 that had flown in under their radars pulled up right at their territorial limit and lit their radars up. Then the radios came alive! Admiral Ace Lyons did the same thing in the Barents, sailing the Eisenhower battle group practically to the entrance to the White Sea before two F-14s buzzed a TU-95 Bear being refueled. Ivan had no idea there was an American carrier practically in their innermost sanctuary and it caused a big diplomatic stink.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

They even need to be refueled I guess, happy?

Nuclear powered. No need to be refueled until they arrive home.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sigh. None of those missiles have a longer range than the air wing on the carrier or some of its longest range air defense missiles. What that means is the carrier air wing and the DDGs are going to be able to engage the Chinese or Russian launch platforms well before they can get close enough to the carrier to shoot.

They have missiles many times the range of those aircraft. Iran has missiles greater than the range of those aircraft. China isn't upset about any military threat from the UK because there is no such threat. China is justifiably upset with the provocation. Especially provocative given UK military capability or lack thereof vis-a-vis China.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nuclear powered. No need to be refueled until they arrive home.

Yes, still needed if you want it in absolute terms

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Britain may be a puppet of the US like every other western and most Asian countries but their navy could do serious damage if they wanted to. The visit to Japan is just a PR stunt and a subtle warning to china that china has no friends.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Nice big boat and in good shape for how old it is.

thankyou HMS for your presence.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

zichiToday  12:52 pm JST

Since 1945 there has not been a naval war involving carriers.

Correct but carriers have participated in wars/combat continuously since WWII; Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf war I & II etc. Planes from the HMS Queen Elizabeth in this article carried out combat missions on her way to Japan.

https://www.forces.net/news/f-35s-fly-first-combat-missions-hms-queen-elizabeth

Those who downplay the aircraft carrier and the roles they have and continue to play do not understand or appreciate their value.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

British or English ?

Kinda difficult to be English when your from the United kingdom.

Its a strike group ready to strike so don't be surprised if war happens.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

vanityofvanities

Biden said U.S. would not help a country

Biden says whatever his handlers write on the teleprompter. Fact is the current administration shows no willingness to stand up to CCP China, and the recent disaster in Afghanistan has only increased XiJipings ambitions to blockade Taiwan. (In the middle of the CCP-claimed 9 dot line, remember).

And when that happens one aircraft carrier from around the world UK will mean nothing.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The crew will have been doubled vaccinated before leaving the UK.

Theyre double vaccinated but still afraid of covid? Hmmmm.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Those who downplay the aircraft carrier and the roles they have and continue to play do not understand or appreciate their value.

They are valuable for bombing desperately poor countries. Whether governments which have overthrown the corrupt Western backed regimes or insurgencies seeking to overthrow corrupt Western backed regimes.

Against China or Russia, they are target practice. Nothing more. That's if China or Russia wanted to sink them. They may be more useful for Russia and China in continuing to drain state coffers.

Find out how much ordnance detonated on her deck in that tragic 1967 mishap off Vietnam. At least ten 1000 lb bombs and dozens of smaller bombs plus rockets and missiles exploded on her deck.

Are you serious? I'm not familiar with that incedent but obviously the explosive energy was directed into the air. Russia in particular has hypersonic anti ship missiles. If they stuck a hunk of iron, not more than a few kgs, in the warhead the kinetic energy alone would without doubt sink an aircraft carrier in the event of a direct hit.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Kinda difficult to be English when your from the United kingdom.

How do you reckon that, then?

Some 80-odd percent of the population of the UK are English.

Can’t say I’ve ever found it difficult to be English…

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Since 1945 there has not been a naval war involving carriers.

Total rubbish

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The defences consist of machine guns used to shoot down incoming missiles. They might intercept a small % of anti-ship missiles but not against China or Russia which have satellite guided anti-ship missiles which fly up then come down right on top of ships

More nonsense

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

China can hold naval exercises as it wants as long as it doesn't break international conventions and impede on another countries territorial waters uninvited.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Mr KiplingToday  07:19 am JST

Just imagine if the Chinese navy was holding exercises in the English channel?

That's what everyone is afraid of. It's just a matter of time before someone pulls an old map from some ancient book that says all the sea belongs to China anyway.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hong Kong was always a port of call for the British Navy and Chinese navy ships have visited the UK in better times.

Not just a port of call, it was British and had a naval base and shore establishment in HK. "Honky Fid" was always a brilliant run ashore.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The question now is will China attack the ship. Clearly the Brits are now saying that UK stands with Japan and the US.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Japanese and British have been allies for many decades.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

tortoise:

It was a non event because unlike China, UK and the rest of NATO understand the meaning of international waters and didn't make a fuss over the exercise.

Seems like it's Kyodo News who's making a fuss of this.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The pathetic chess of imperialist interventionism again.. The faded empire that ceased to exist wanting to still have its little piece of the world that it lost a century ago..

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The question now is will China attack the ship.

Why on earth would China attack a carrier task force for sailing in international waters and doing exercises with its friends and allies? Such an unprovoked act of war would be astounding.

Clearly the Brits are now saying that UK stands with Japan and the US.

Clearly the Brits have been with the US since WWI and Japan since the 1950's. That would be no surprise to China. China must be very insecure if it was to even be contemplating an attack on UK forces just for being in Asia.

Both the Brits and the US are allied through NATO membership in any case. An attack on one is considered an attack on all.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites