Home » News » Around the Globe » Humor at a Carrier’s Expense

Humor at a Carrier’s Expense

by John Reed on October 29, 2010

Here’s British comedy duo John Bird and John Fortune’s hilarious take on the U.K.‘s recent defense cuts  defense dilemmas (it’s three years old but still very relevant). They pay particular attention to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and the F-35s the ships will someday carry. Not always 100 percent accurate, but funny nonetheless. 

What will the once mighty Royal Navy do with just one operational carrier? Possible answer; lots more collaboration with the French. Maybe.

Happy Friday.

– John Reed

Share |

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

Chops October 30, 2010 at 1:51 am

Thats great–at least a good joke can hopefully lighten the British spirits a little during their financial woes.


Richard Groves October 30, 2010 at 3:42 am

. They were funny back in 2000 for the first couple of episodes but it soon gets tiresome, its always the same old formula with no new or novel ideas. They are so left leaning they ignore any problems with left wing issues too which becomes tedious. Think i'll skip watching this as I know what it'll be like.


John October 30, 2010 at 10:51 am

Its funny I laughed while watching this video, the policies created due the ineptitude of our country's leaders are so bad they should be laughed at, I also cringed though the shame of it, cause most of the things said here I more or less know to be true. Afterwards I held my head in my hands and yeld out in shame, shame that my country and my so called fellow countrymen are letting these inept people continue these shameless acts of idiocy and selfishness. Truth be told there is probably only a minority sane people left who give a fuck. I hope somebody kills headboy Cameron and the band of idiot toffs in Westminster, in all partys. I hope the civilised world that exists as it does now fucks up big time and finally collapses so that there will at least be a chance that a useful, dynamic and progressive civilisation will rise from the ashes. Can sensible sane people please fucking do something? Cause as far as being able to laugh at the expense of ones self as well as others is part and parcel of what being British is about, this is beyond my limit and the shame is just too much to bare.


Oblat October 30, 2010 at 1:58 pm

The carriers are a silly anachronism.

It's notable that the major reason always given – retaking the Falklands again – is a joke. Argentina no longer has an American backed military junta and now has the lowest military spending in South America – little more than15% of what the UK spends.


Belesari October 30, 2010 at 7:44 pm

So tell us what should the royal navy's mission be?


Patrick October 30, 2010 at 4:27 pm

It is not exactly on “U.K.‘s recent defense cuts”. I think it is a recording made some years ago. The video was uploaded on youtube 3 years ago.


Ross October 31, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Oblat the falklands excuse is rarely even given by the navy when justifying its future because pretty much the entirety of the nations security and that of exerting force overseas rests upon it ultimately.

Unfortunately so many ignorant idiots get told otherwise by other equally ignorant idiots and thus believe they are unequivocally in the right and thus; no need for a navy. It angers me even more that it is the navy specifically that has been targeted by media and parliament when it has already suffered the vast majority of cuts over the past 13 years or so (having reduced by some 60% under the labour government).

An argument about what to cut shouldnt even exist. its simply political scapegoating because the military is not a vote-winning/changing subject of debate anymore and can thus be eroded away with minimal fuss when compared to the bloated welfare state. Though as we are in this situation it surely should be the RAF that is looked at for cuts over a navy that has lost more than half its numbers and a huge proportion of its capabilities in the past decade, or perhaps the huge % of the army that even to this day remains on a continent facing off against the red threat that hasn't existed for 20 years.


Oblat November 1, 2010 at 7:59 am

I don't think the British public cares a fig for the rivalry between the navy army and RAF. The navy's penchant for unwanted nostalgia has been well established and British governments have long had to bring them down to reality.


William C. November 1, 2010 at 8:25 am

The British government has long had to bring them down to reality? Is that what you call having less than 20 major surface combatants? I think there is a good reason for nostalgia when a relatively robust country (economically) can't afford more than 30 ships.

I get the impression you won't be happy until the Royal Navy has no ships, and the UK's land forces consist of nothing more than a few thousand troops in land rovers.


Ross November 1, 2010 at 9:34 am

the british public are not deciding the fate of the armed forces and i think you will find that there are a lot of topbrass in the military that do 'care a fig' for the rivalry – considering the past half a year both airforce and army topbrass have called for 'cold war relics' like the carriers to be dropped, her amphibious capability removed, marines completely dismantled (because apparently the army or airforce can do all these things…) at the same time as actively attempting to defend many thousands of personnel to be kept in germany facing off a threat that hasnt existed in 20 years, or to keep a personnel imbalance for a branch that hasn't played a major role in any conflict since world war 2.

As i said already though; i do not favour cutting anything except for perhaps the elderly tornadoes that are to go soon anyway. But we are where we are so decisions need to be made – cutting the navy even more after labour's gutting of the senior service is simply outrageous.

u know John Nott advocated prior to the falklands conflict some of the ideas the army/airforce are using today (navy dont need amphib or carriers because airforce can provide aircover anywhere in the world, can transport troops anywhere in the world..) – this was proven horribly inaccurate when indeed the falklands did take place. Now u can throw in the "omg falklands wont happen again" counter, but the falklands is not the only piece of land the UK owns in far-off locations around the world, nor is it the only piece of land that is contested. Furthermore, Argentina are embarking upon a wholesale modernisation of their armed forces at present/in the near future. It is still a huge issue for them.

The age old saying that u prepare for war so that u can maintain peace remains as relevant today as it ever was, Oblat.


Oblat November 1, 2010 at 3:18 pm

The RN is about twice as big as is sustainable so it will shrink to about 10 ships, even less if the UK cant get it's economic act together fast. And pretty much nobody outside the RN and the Pitcairn islands will care.


Ross November 2, 2010 at 10:48 am

about twice as big as is sustainable? shrink to 10 ships?

where on earth are u getting this from? That's completely fucking absurd.

Steve October 31, 2010 at 9:01 pm

Too funny!

Unfortunately most of what the "admiral" said is true….


Jeff Fraser November 1, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Very funny! Poor UK, though. Sad to see them in this state.


William C. November 1, 2010 at 4:14 pm

I don't know much about the British economy, but it seems you have a pretty good GDP, a population 60 million strong, and allies that currently have a pretty strong industrial and technological base. Plus it seems like the British defense industry isn't entirely dead yet.

Maybe my views of the average UK citizen don't line up with the reality or something.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: