In recent years of military news, India has smashed fighter jets and Britain repaired aircraft carriers, which can be called the leading role in the funny world. It is better to say that India is a former colony after all, and it has been established independently for less than 80 years. And Britain, as the empire on which the sun never sets, has fallen to this point, which is very embarrassing.
The problems of British aircraft carriers are constant)
In February this year, the "Queen Elizabeth" aircraft carrier, which was about to participate in NATO exercises, canceled its trip for some reason, and less than a month later, the "Prince of Wales" aircraft carrier came out with another piece of bad news. According to a source on the British side, the British Navy's maritime planning team has held a serious discussion on the issue of an aircraft carrier to alleviate the shortage of funds. They believe that if the British Navy wants to maintain its combat capability, it needs to be increased, and the "Prince of Wales" aircraft carrier is only a reserve asset, which not only occupies a lot of money, but also rarely uses, and to solve this problem, it is better to dispose of the aircraft carrier, for example, sell it to allies.
This matter was **, and the UK immediately fell into a quarrel. A spokesman for the Royal Navy denied this claim, adding that the British Navy is fully committed to making good use of the two aircraft carriers, and everyone should not think too much about it. However, some official sources said that it is a fact that funds are tight, and we still hope that the financial department can allocate more funds than selling aircraft carriers.
On the surface, this matter is a bit like the British Navy using the sale of aircraft carriers as a threat to force ** to give more money. In fact, for the British Royal Navy, which is much less powerful than before, it may have been a mistake to build these two aircraft carriers in the first place. In 2010, the British defense budget review report said that two aircraft carriers could be built, but only one aircraft carrier was needed to serve, and the second aircraft carrier was mothballed. In other words, Britain also knew that it could not afford to raise two aircraft carriers. In 2014, the British side said that only by having two aircraft carriers could it maintain the UK's "international outlook". The British naval commander at the time insisted that as a "global leader", Britain must have aircraft carriers ready to go at any time, one in service and one on standby, which was already quite a low standard.
This is not wrong, at present, most of the countries with aircraft carriers in the world are also arranged in this way, but the military should always be based on pragmatism, instead of taking into account international prestige and doing something beyond the scope of capabilities. Now it is true that the total tonnage of British aircraft carriers is second only to the United States and China, but the third place in the world gives it a good fortune, not as much as a negative impact. I remember that at the end of World War I, Britain launched the "Intrepid", which was also a face-saving project, which caused countless turmoil in the future. At that time, Britain's national strength was far stronger in the world than it is today, and it could not hold such a big face. Today's Britain, its colonial and international influence have fallen to the bottom, and it still wants to use two aircraft carriers to support the scene, so why bother.
Britain has only two aircraft carriers to support the scene).
Therefore, an aircraft carrier is the best choice for the UK at present, and these two aircraft carriers are underfunded when they are built, which inevitably leaves a lot of hidden dangers, and now the UK has experienced black swan events such as the epidemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the economy has further declined, and there is no money to completely ** These problems, forced maintenance will only make the British Navy worse.
However, it is not easy to sell the aircraft carrier. The vast majority of countries cannot afford it, and those that can afford it will not pick up garbage. Among Britain's core allies, the United States will definitely not buy it, and Australia's budget for expanding its navy is also quite limited, which is not much higher than the cost of the "Prince of Wales".
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi).
Counting them up, it may only be bought by India, a well-known wronged man. Indians have money and demand, and have always had a dream of three aircraft carriers, but because of frequent breakdowns and slow construction of aircraft carriers, the service speed of new aircraft carriers cannot keep up with the retirement speed of old aircraft carriers. If you can get the British aircraft carrier, not only can you quickly have a new aircraft carrier, but also the aircraft carrier tonnage will break the record, and Modi's vanity will be greatly satisfied. The most important point is that when the British sell it, they can sell it at a low price, such as 1 pound, and they can earn it back in maintenance fees and carrier-based aircraft, which not only gives favors but also makes money.