Russia calls Britain’s new aircraft carrier ‘convenient target’

[Editor’s note: The Russians could also have pointed out that the F-35 strike fighters the new carrier will deploy are a load of rubbish and beset with so many problems they are years behind schedule and the programme billions over budget.

It also remains to be seen whether the aircraft carrier is an obsolete sitting duck or not, in the new naval environment where hypersonic artificially intelligent cruise missiles are being introduced.

As a Briton, I cannot help but feel that this aircraft carrier and it’s sister ship are nothing more than colossal wastes of taxpayer’s money that will do nothing to keep the British public safe and who’s main purpose is aggressive actions against far flung nations – bombing the shit out of brown people, basically. I would much prefer to see the money spent on these carriers spent on our grossly underfunded schools and hospitals. Ian]

Russia calls Britain’s new aircraft carrier ‘convenient target’

The Russian military mocked Britain’s new aircraft carrier on Thursday, saying the HMS Queen Elizabeth presented “a large convenient target” and would be wise to keep its distance from Moscow’s warships.

The giant vessel, Britain’s biggest warship, embarked on its maiden voyage on Monday, prompting British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon to say he thought the Russians would look at it “with a little bit of envy.”

Stung by that remark and angered by Fallon calling Russia’s sole aircraft carrier “dilapidated,” the Russian defense ministry issued a strongly-worded statement on Thursday, criticizing Fallon and deriding the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

“These rapturous statements … about the supremacy of the new aircraft carrier’s beautiful exterior over the Russian aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov expose Fallon’s utter ignorance of naval military science,” the ministry said.

“Like a bee, the British aircraft carrier is only capable of independently releasing planes from its belly closely flanked by a swarm of warships, support ships and submarines to protect it. That is why … the British aircraft carrier is merely a large convenient naval target.”

The aging Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s only aircraft carrier, and a ship that Fallon has criticized more than once, was by contrast armed with an array of defensive missiles, the ministry said, warning the HMS Queen Elizabeth to keep her distance from the Russian navy.

“It is in the interests of the British Royal Navy not to show off the ‘beauty’ of its aircraft carrier on the high seas any closer than a few hundred miles from its Russian ‘distant relative’,” the ministry said.

Fallon offended Russia’s military in January when he dubbed Moscow’s sole aircraft carrier “a ship of shame” as it passed through waters close to the English coast on its way back from bombing raids in Syria.

Russia said at the time that Britain was staging a show by escorting the ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, through the English Channel designed to distract attention away from the shortcomings of the British navy.

Share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Related Posts:

All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within this post are the full responsibility of the author and NOT Veterans Today Network.
Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by on July 1, 2017, With 5342 Reads Filed under Russia. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

14 Responses to "Russia calls Britain’s new aircraft carrier ‘convenient target’"

  1. largraf  July 2, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Vlad’s even got a sense of humor. I think America lost hers when the Bush’s had the World Trade Center demolished.

    • Andrew_Bukanov(Russia)  July 3, 2017 at 9:31 am

      One hit to the deck, turning it into trash field and all planes will be closed. No sense even to sink such huge vessel.

  2. nwonowarorders  July 2, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    They should rename this tub the Elizabeth May

    • largraf  July 2, 2017 at 11:48 pm

      I think there’s a reason that Russia doesn’t have many carriers. It’s too much like having all your eggs in one basket.

    • Donald Moore  July 3, 2017 at 2:02 pm

      I believe its more of they don’t have really any good ports to have them largraf. To the north in the Arctic they have the most open water but is frozen for most of the year. To the east is the Baltic but surrounded by NATO. To the south is the Black Sea but is almost cut off by Turkey. Its only in the west they have one port watched by Japan so they are almost a land lock nation and don’t really need carriers or two at the most to extend power in a none world war setting. Putin is doing the right thing by building small heavily armed smaller ships with a few larger ones to show the flag with submarines as the best chose.

  3. paul becke  July 2, 2017 at 4:46 am

    If I were our Defence Minister, I’d suggest to the Russian MoD that really our carrier is too beautiful for them to use for target purposes. How if we kept it out of the way in some back-water – as a kind of symbol. Just not sure what it could be a symbol of. Maybe a symbol of our Imperial War Museum… ?

    • paul becke  July 2, 2017 at 3:12 pm

      Well, an exhibit, rather than a symbol. Though I doubt if the Thames could provide a berth.

    • largraf  July 2, 2017 at 11:53 pm

      Yeah, that’s it, a symbol…….like bringing a beautiful musket to a Star Wars fight and asking the enemy not to destroy it. Well, I maybe the Brits incorporated anti-grav technology into it. Or inter-dimensional travel.

  4. Donald Moore  July 1, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    One thing I do know you have to have aircraft for them to be functional. They don’t have the over priced, well documented failure F-35’s for them so all it can do now if float around to look impressive. I also read that the Brit’s don’t have the money to buy aircraft for both of them so they plan to swap the aircraft back and forth to them. In other words at least half the aircraft or more will be out of service by them pulling double duty. They might divide the aircraft up into two instead so the vessels are expected to carrying thirty-six F-35s and four helicopters, then 18 F-35’s will be on board, really impressive. The only defense they have are CIWS other then their aircraft. They will have some Type 45 destroyers that can’t operate in heat and Type 23 frigates that really aren’t that good for that type of job.

    • Nexus789  July 1, 2017 at 10:49 pm

      It also seems obvious given the limitations of the JSF that they have to fly with F22s riding shotgun. Big problem for the UK, Australia, etc. is that they don’t have any F22s. It strikes me from what I’ve read is that they are relying on ‘stealth’ and ‘coms’ to give it an advantage. What happens if the other guys ‘jam’ its coms. CIWS will be next to useless against the new missiles entering service and we should not forget the hidden threat – subs. How many schools, hospitals, etc. could they have built for the price of these things.

  5. David Odell  July 1, 2017 at 8:59 am

    The Russian spokespeople rarely lose an insult contest. The comparison of budgets makes it impossible for the big spenders to have any leverage in such exchanges. That cast iron and concrete bath tub looks like a juicy piñata to sub commanders. It probably even has a boutique shop selling women’s clothing.
    I guess we found where the money for sprinklers in the high rises went.

  6. Gary Kraut  July 1, 2017 at 8:26 am

    It´s a mirror image of all of us, and we write the year 2017. The fact that we still build such a scheisse, shows our miserable character and intellectual poverty.

  7. haroldsmith  July 1, 2017 at 6:49 am

    I almost wish that some forward-looking navy somewhere would sink one of these imperial monstrosities, say with a volley of (relatively) cheap cruise missiles. Not only would this ultimately save lives all over the world, but the taxpayers would save a fortune and be forever be indebted to anyone who could dramatically demonstrate the obsolescence of these expensive targets.

  8. JohnZ  July 1, 2017 at 5:25 am

    why do these stupid Brits continue to antagonize the Russians? Because the zionists told them to do so.
    The British leadership, if one could call them that as they are not leaders but bitches for israel, and no better than what we have , here in the states. Rotten, ignorant and corrupted.
    The U.S. also continues to build more of these useless floating money pits namely the latest George H.W. Bush; ironic we should have a carrier named after one of the most corrupted and evil presidents ever to sit in the Awful office.They will be sitting ducks for the latest in hyper-sonic, smart anti-ship missiles. Hope these oversized targets have enough life boats for the survivors, if there are any..When the shootin’ starts, I wouldn’t be caught dead on one of these…..uhhh wait a minute….
    As for the F-35, this turkey should be an embarrassment to Americans. An aircraft built on graft, kick backs and every form of corrupting influence. Time for the entire debacle to be exposed before the American people.
    But we know that won’t happen, not in the government run CMMM.
    Good luck all you Limeys, when you have to slug it out with the Russians. Oh, did you forget about the U.S.S. Donald Cook yet?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network