>>50104583>So you're wrong again - those 3 small carriers gave us no extra flexibility compared to 2 large QE carriers.I wasn't talking strictly about the carriers.
>The Castle Class numbered 2 and displaced 1500 tonnesAnd 7 Island class which displaced 1000 tonnes.
>nother example that shows how wrong you are is the Tide Class. The four 37,000 tonne ships will replace two 16,000 tonne tankers and RFA Bayleaf (37,000 tonnes). Do the maths, as they say.>RFA Bayleaf (37,000 tonnes)You mean 4 Leafs (37, 000 tonnes) that were in the UK navy but decommissioned at an earlier time and the 5 Rover class ( 16,000 tonne) out of which one was scrapped in 2010 and the other two sold at an earlier date? Do the maths yourself.
>Auxiliary fleet tonnage is sharply increasing, as it says on the table >>50103062. From 205,000t to 290,000t. That's a large increase I think you'll agreeI'll disagree, because you carefully dismiss the Royal navy ships which are no longer in service today because they were decommissioned at an earlier date. Again, you're comparing the present strength when ships were already decommissioned before their replacement came out of the dock thus giving an illusion of growth.
>>50104754>>50104815Yes, cold war ended. They decommissioned an entire Cruiser class because it was to expensive to run, among others. You believe this had no effect on the strength of the US navy?
>almost every advanced navyExcept, you know, the new kids on the block, China and India and recently Russia again.
