Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise

Navy Lookout ^ | 2/3/2024 | Navy Lookout

[Jim Noble]

Neither of their carriers have proper escorts.

I have thought that Iran (or Yemen) sinking a US fleet carrier might be too risky - but if I were the UK I would not let either of those ships anywhere near the Middle East.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Probably has a drag queen performance space.

[RWGinger]

“Probably has a drag queen performance space.”
You are probably right

[Jim Noble]

Is there any evidence that a “NATO goal” of 2% has any real-world value?

I mean, if the Royal Navy is to go on and fight in a contested environment, maybe 2% is a joke. Maybe they need 10%, or 20%.

Those huge targets (HMS QE II and HMS PoW) don’t have escort forces sufficient to protect them. What’s the Senior Service plan if one of them is sunk? Or both of them?

This “NATO target” nonsense is just that. It has no relevance to real-world dangers, it’s a BS number made up by some bureaucrat somewhere.

[Jim Noble]

But it’s sad that the Eastern European states who never should have been allowed to join NATO to begin with are now acting as if it provides them with some margin of safety, as opposed to placing them in incredible danger.

Our elites are making policy based on “narrative” instead of reality.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "Is there any evidence that a 'NATO goal' of 2% has any real-world value? I mean, if the Royal Navy is to go on and fight in a contested environment, maybe 2% is a joke. Maybe they need 10%, or 20%."

One point of the "goal" -- to which many European nations did not measure up -- is to measure someway any "joke." 2% buys what? And when the nation in question isn't spending....

That Royal Navy was mentioned this day on FR.

Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise Freeper post from UK's Navy Lookout, and comments, 4 February 2024

Britain’s warships have gym where land attack missiles should be Freeper post from Telegraph UK, and comments, 4 February 2024.

[Reverend Wright]

I think 2% or some target like it is necessary, but not sufficient.

(The NATO target was 3% back in the Cold War days, but most countries didn’t meet that, either)

If countries spend 2% or even 4%, but waste it mostly on gold-plated toys like F35 and Abrams, vs artillery shells, artillery guns, land mines, low cost drones, a big reserve army... it’s still not getting it done.

We know from 100+ years of peer war battlefield data that land artillery causes 60-80 percent of ALL casualties.

Yet the USA has a minuscule shell production capacity and one remaining factory in the whole country producing artillery barrels.

All of the US Army leadership has been thru Staff College. And they know that casualty data. But they didn’t tell anyone, and let the money be spent on gold plated toys because the are CORRUPT CLOWNS who planned to cash in on the revolving door (eg Lloyd Austin).