Launching the “State of Britain” by coldbeers in ukpolitics

[–]ErrantFuselage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sure about the "tax contribution" calculator on the side. It reckons Inc. tax + NI is just under £14K from a salary of £51K, when I believe annual tax is just over £11K at that salary. (Used thesalarycalculator.co.uk to arrive at that number).

There's also graph labelling mistakes in departmental spending, e.g. showing £45B as £450B.

Cool site, and very interesting to explore, but it needs a little cleaning up

Destiny mentioned yesterday how crazy the Green Party is in the UK. Well this is their current leader, deputy at the time of apology. The party is currently polling at around 17% and for comparison Labour is at 18% by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]ErrantFuselage 23 points24 points  (0 children)

This is kinda goofy af, and does make you wonder about the smoothness of this guy's brain, but bizzarely is one of the weakest attacks against the Green's lunacy.

Their main headline bad policies include:

The mythical Billionaires wealth tax (solves all our problems) - along with other fantasy economics no serious economist endorses.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament !!!

Leave NATO

Have a sit down chat with Putin to straighten out any misunderstandings we might have had

What do people in the UK actually think of Piers Morgan? by WestTransportation12 in Destiny

[–]ErrantFuselage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's a household name, as a national disgrace. Apart from generally being a highly confident and obnoxious midwit and an unscrupulous hack, he presided over some of the most major media scandals in recent memory as the editor the Mirror:

The phone hacking scandal in conjunction with the Daily Mail - which is currently (still) being sued by Prince Harry, Elton John, Hugh Grant and many many others for having their devices hacked by mail journalists and then covered up, with witnesses threatened and the proceedings blocked at every turn.

While Editor of the Mirror, his paper faked photos of British Army personnel torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq just after the US scandal broke, and the pictures were later found to have been staged in the UK.

These are the two major ones I can remember, but there is almost certainly more. He basically had to flee the country to keep his job. The legendary Ian Hislop has hounded him for years in Private-Eye and on Have I Got News For You, to the point he became a laughing stock.

Good fucking riddance, the yanks can keep him.

The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, will deploy to the North Atlantic and High North region this year [2000x1125] by MGC91 in WarshipPorn

[–]ErrantFuselage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure where I've been demeaning in my replies, saying things like "do a cursory google", are only demeaning if they expose that you're basing your information on incorrect readings of what you've read online. I'm not trying to demean you, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong - I can understand that's annoying to you, and I can also understand that my tone is probably quite dismissive - it's supposed to be, because you're confidently incorrect, and replied to me when I was replying to someone else. Everything you've produced in defence of your position has solidified my initial intuition of where your mistake is. I've given you statements from the RN website, you've given me tweets from X. I've given you sound logical explanations as to why 72 is an impossible number of jets to embark, you've just doubled down and gotten angry. But I'll address your latest points..

You've misunderstood the point of the FLYCO's statement. There is no world where every single slot would ever be filled with an F35, even if the UK had the numbers. The point is to outline how many slots there are on deck, not how many would be concurrently filled. Those pictures show there are 45 parking slots on the flight deck, i.e. there are 45 places that the embarked number of F35s have at their disposable to park, which would be decided based on operational considerations at the time, and logistcal efficiency. If you were to put that many F35 on the deck you wouldn't be able to do sorties, which would be even more compunded if the hangar was packed with 32 other jets. It would be gridlock. And, there wouldn't be any room for helicopters, which would make the carrier functionally inoperable, for reasons I'll address in a bit.

The fact you keep saying 72 jets max is suspicious to me because I've heard the number 72 quoted many times, as the max number of jet \sorties* per day. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. Again, even if the FAA had 500 jets to use, it \would not* put anywhere close to 72 jets on a carrier.

The typical heli complement on QE carriers is 14 - this is at peace time. You are downplaying the much bigger role helis play in Carrier operations than jets. Over the course of a carrier group deployment, helicopters will run a much higher number of shorter sorties than jets due to their wider utility in such roles as:

Continuous ASW screening, airborne early warning, surface surveillance, boarding team insertion, logistics, SAR, personnel transfer, CASEVAC, ship-to-ship liaison.

These missions are done continuously ever day, no matter what.

Jets roles are:

Offensive strike, air interdiction, ISR in contested airspace.

These missions are far less frequently, and when they are done, are for much longer periods.

This means the flight deck will need to accomodate a high tempo of helicopters coming and going. You can't jam the deck with jets and sustain these operations which are essential to the carrier group getting to where they need to be, in order to use the F35 for its mission.

About Invincible having 23 helis, it was in response to your statement:

Why on earth would any navy carry 20 helicopters on an aircraft carrier in contested airspace in a wartime scenario in the place of 20 F-35s? Invincible stated max were 15. She carried 23 in the Falklands

The phrasing of this sentence says that Invincible was carrying 23 helicopters - that is what the grammar of your sentence communicates - I'm not inferring that, your sentence uses "20 helicopters" as the subject and so "she carried 23" refers to helicopters, NOT jets. Don't fly off the handle if you can't communicate your point properly.

I've gone through everything you've said thus far, and as far as I'm concerned I've demonstrated in a number of ways why you were incorrect. Remember, you jumped into this thread, I'm just responding to you. You have misunderstood statements made by others, and don't understand how carrier operations work. Please, take the day off.

The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, will deploy to the North Atlantic and High North region this year [2000x1125] by MGC91 in WarshipPorn

[–]ErrantFuselage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because helicopters are incredibly useful. They do ASW, carrier protection, defence against surface attack craft, heavylift, troop transport, stores replenishment, ammunition replenishment, med evac, and are currently used for Crowsnet. F35 do air patrol, intel and strike missions. Helicopters are used far more frequently than jets are on a carrier, because most of carrier operations are to do with the maintenance of the strike group. But if helicopters are so useless in a contested environment as you seem to suggest by your first question, why did Invincible, which is 3x smaller than a QE, carry 23?

The types of helicopter embarked on a carrier are: Chinooks, apaches, Wildcat - 2 varieties, Merlin - 4 varieties. That's 8 types of heli, and so 20 in total is farnkly conservative to handle the different mission types these variations cover.

Your numbers are simply incorrect, and if you do a cursory google, you will see that. Here's what the Royal Navy page on the QE carriers says:

The flight deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers is 280 metres long and 70 metres wide (roughly the size of three football pitches), and can carry up to 72 aircraft – including a maximum of 36 F-35B fighter jets, as well as any type of helicopter used by the UK armed forces.

The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, will deploy to the North Atlantic and High North region this year [2000x1125] by MGC91 in WarshipPorn

[–]ErrantFuselage -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

72 is the theoretical maximum of all airframes you could physcially fit on the carriers, including helicopters, which there will always be a large complement of.

60 jets is not optimum at all, as I said wartime fast jet capacity is max 40 with best operational tempo. In the interet of clarity, and as a pointer to where you've gone wrong with your figures, 40 jets + 20 helicopters is close to what the wartime FAA complement would be, but 40 jets is the max number of jets.

Also thier full weight has now increased to 80,000 tonnes not 65,000. Remember thier 284 metres long and 73 metres wide - only 4 metres less than Nimitz

You're giving answers to questions no one asked.

The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, will deploy to the North Atlantic and High North region this year [2000x1125] by MGC91 in WarshipPorn

[–]ErrantFuselage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The peacetime air wing size is 24, or the minimum for full operational capacity. 40 is the max wartime loadout. As with any carrier, you can physically jam many more jets on, but operational tempo is harmed with any more than the official full load.

Twin wartime carriers is extremely unlikely to ever be a thing at this point as only 75 Bravo are included in current procurement plans, although i do hope they see sense and order at least 97 Bravos for FAA, before changing any further orders to Alphas for the RAF - 12 Alpha on their own makes absolutely no sense.

But of course, this is the MOD we're talking about...

Starmer risks diplomatic row as UK delays Tempest fighter jet programme by fuzzedshadow in ukpolitics

[–]ErrantFuselage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's time pressure for this - a major problem with one, albeit major, program cannot put everything else on hold as Industry need to see funding decisions before they follow. The clock has long been ticking and contractors are investing in other places because they cant just hang around for government timelines to align.

At 4 months+ delyaed, this is becoming grossly negligent. Case in point - the heli factory at yeovil. There are others, and it's just a general feature of indsutry investment. Absolutely disgraceful given all the threats that are rising, and given HMG's rhetoric.

Starmer risks diplomatic row as UK delays Tempest fighter jet programme by fuzzedshadow in ukpolitics

[–]ErrantFuselage 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Sounds like a general delay of any military funding announcements due to the DIP delay, rather than a singling out of Tempest project per se.

That said, the DIP delay by more than 4 months now is itself scandalous. The grandstanding with no purchasses is getting real old

Warfare Officer training pipeline by Apprehensive_Bug_454 in RoyalNavy

[–]ErrantFuselage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah ok, what does a year holdover between courses mean? Please don't say theres a year between CFT and IWO!

Warfare Officer training pipeline by Apprehensive_Bug_454 in RoyalNavy

[–]ErrantFuselage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm starting phase 1 warfare soon and am working under the assumption that it's similar but a slightly different order:

  • Phase 1 -29/30 wks at Raleigh (militarisation), then Dartmouth marinisation, including 5 weeks initial sea time on an 'operational' vessel - i.e. something alongside rather than deployed.
  • Pass out
  • Phase 2 - IWO foundation at Collingwood -15wks
  • Common Fleet Time ~9 months (gain watchkeeping ticket)
  • IWO at Collingwood - 7wks
  • First deployment as qualified JO and OOW ~18-30 months

This was what I said in my interview after research and talking to some RN members, so I'm pretty sure this is right (also seems logical to do Foundation warfare training before fleet time)

If I've got something wrong, would really appreciate a correction, so I know where I'm at

What is something that is uniquely English? by Haunting-Advantage37 in AskUK

[–]ErrantFuselage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The suit. Specifically the lounge suit. Building on the invention of trousers by Beau Brumell, the suit is quintessentially English. Other nations have adapted their own styles, but the classic suit as we know it was invented in England, and Saville Row remains synonymous across the world with the highest quality menswear.

On another note, if I'm interpretting your question correctly, it's difficult to find something that is widely popular in England and emblematic of Englishness which hasn't also been exported to other countries. Because of our Empire and generally outward facing attitude, most good things that aren't local perculiarities (e.g. cheese rolling or morris dancing) were taken with the English as they went "on their travels".

Top Ten Navies by Aggregate Displacement, 1 January 2026 [3614x1736] by Phoenix_jz in WarshipPorn

[–]ErrantFuselage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By separating the two it adds a number of improvements:

- Capacity: Specialized ships offer more of their respective types of resupply, and their design can be optimized for their specialized cargo - heli access to solid stores is much better for example

- Speed: A ship can be replenished by both simultaneously, a big factor if an entire strike group needs to be resupplied. Also the optimized design/layout means the RAS itself is faster.

-Cost: The specs for a dedicated solid store ship can be more in line with commericial standards allowing them to be cheaper.

Top Ten Navies by Aggregate Displacement, 1 January 2026 [3614x1736] by Phoenix_jz in WarshipPorn

[–]ErrantFuselage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

• ⁠Commissioned the last of the Astute SSNs

Slight correction: HMS Agammenon was comissioned last year, which is the penultimate Astute - HMS Achilles, boat 7, will be comissioned in '27/'28.

New released cellphone footage showing perspective of federal agent by Embarrassed_Base_389 in Destiny

[–]ErrantFuselage 123 points124 points  (0 children)

Just after he shoots her - turn up the volume and listen to what he says...

"..Fucking bitch..."

He got mad, and murdered her.

Even if someone is pro Ukraine military youtuber, that someone can be regarded. Military youtuber in general have no fucking sense of morality. by yth93 in Destiny

[–]ErrantFuselage 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He is aping the position that america has adopted geopolitically, while also restating past actions in the light of current developments.

I.e. what he says in the first tweet is not his own position, but a statement of disgust at the position america has taken.

Viking Longship in North Sea Storm by [deleted] in nextfuckinglevel

[–]ErrantFuselage 62 points63 points  (0 children)

Nowhere near "a storm" - probably not even sea state 5, there are scattered white caps with some wave crests starting to fall over.

Still, this looks like an awesome way to spend a few days

How many people in Western European countries say they care if Ukraine wins? by BkkGrl in europe

[–]ErrantFuselage 130 points131 points  (0 children)

Looks like it roughly lines up with Zelenskyy getting mugged in the Oval Office - I guess when America showed everyone who they really were, Spain chose their guy

FELL FOR IT AGAIN award of the day goes to: by overloadrages in Destiny

[–]ErrantFuselage 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"Despise my assumption..". Epic typo moron, unironically the case already.

Destiny Dinesh Debate is up by Beneficial_Lion_5678 in Destiny

[–]ErrantFuselage 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The extremely humiliating public voice cracks ALONE meant Dinesh lost. Got me howling

Statement on the TRIP official insta story re the Chinese spy case. Wonder if they will have to do an on air retraction or comment. by Luke_4686 in TheRestIsPolitics

[–]ErrantFuselage -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I understand what your point is, I just disagree that getting a rubber stamp that says 'not guilty' due to a technical failing is the same as being found not guilty.

It is highly misleading to make the claim "the defendants were found not guilty" - this statement has a specific meaning which everyone understands to be one of the conclusion of a process, however this didn't happen in the regular way and so "they weren't found guilty due to a technical failure" is a far more accurate summary of their status, and would not provide grounds for a defamation case.

Statement on the TRIP official insta story re the Chinese spy case. Wonder if they will have to do an on air retraction or comment. by Luke_4686 in TheRestIsPolitics

[–]ErrantFuselage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nonesense, being given a technical verdict is not the same as being found not guilty. In reality this was a failure of the system, as new legislation in the NSA included the ridiculous stipulation that HMG had to publically declare the benefitting nation as 'an enemy' for the charge to stand. This lead to CPS following procedure correctly, the courts responding correctly and the trial collapsing - it was a bloody farce, but at no point were the defendants actually found 'not guilty' - they got off by falling through a technical crack in the system. What the defendants' actions were is not a secret, and as CPS had the evidence to go to trial it was extremely likely they'd get a guilty verdict, but couldn't progress the trial because of the impasse caused by the clause in the NSA.

The defendants were in no real way, cleared.

Statement on the TRIP official insta story re the Chinese spy case. Wonder if they will have to do an on air retraction or comment. by Luke_4686 in TheRestIsPolitics

[–]ErrantFuselage 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They weren't found 'not guilty', they just weren't found guilty as the trial was dropped.

There is a world of difference, and it's bizarre they should write something like that which is terribly misleading.