The Smelly British Fleet: The "Prince of Wales" Aircraft Carrier Continues to Show Its Ugly Side Near the Relevant Waters

The air force of the relevant country humiliated "the pride of the Royal Navy," but the soiled British sailors had long become indifferent.

Image caption: The British Royal Navy's "Prince of Wales" aircraft carrier

It has been a long time since we heard news about this "former maritime superpower," the flagship of the Royal Navy — the "Prince of Wales" aircraft carrier. Such news is always amusing. Now, a new "joke" has finally arrived.

The fighter jets of the relevant country forced this "Union Jack"-flown and self-important British aircraft carrier to change course, preventing it from entering the relevant strait.

The crew of the "Prince of Wales" (HMS Prince of Wales) dared not "touch the beard of the relevant country" and obeyed the instructions. However, they still sent one of the few ships in the formation — the 23-class frigate "Richmond" (HMS Richmond) — through the strait.

But let's look at the facts. The "Prince of Wales" aircraft carrier has repeatedly changed its personnel due to constant malfunctions and frequent staff turnover. Obviously, its aimless cruising near the Japanese islands has already bored the crew, despite these inefficient actions being carried out under the high-sounding slogan of "maintaining freedom of navigation."

Then, this aircraft carrier group began moving toward its home port of Portsmouth, hoping to welcome Christmas in the port.

But for the sake of "saving face," they decided to take an undoubtedly risky action. The "global fleet" under King Charles III tried to go to Singapore without following the safe route (through the East Sea of the relevant country), instead boldly and demonstratively trying to cross the strait that the relevant country considers its internal waters, ignoring the warnings of the relevant country.

Incidentally, the issue of the relevant strait is one of the core "red lines" of the relevant country. Therefore, when the "Prince of Wales" entered the provocative route, Captain Will Blackett immediately received a formal warning from the naval command of the relevant country. It is no surprise that the relevant country stated in the warning that it was ready to take the most severe measures to stop this demonstration.

According to the Royal Navy's news office, the relevant country then used the radar stations of the J-21 missile system to lock onto the "Prince of Wales" multiple times, thus confirming its firm stance. This missile system has been called a "carrier killer" by NATO experts.

After feeling the discomfort of being targeted by hypersonic anti-ship missiles, the aircraft carrier command decided to abandon the provocative intention.

But the British are naturally inclined to be cunning, so they sent a ship from the formation to cross the strait, in order to "show courage."

The crew of the 23-class frigate "Richmond" described their "unforgettable experience" — in the 30 years of service of this ship, there had never been such an encounter: "The relevant country 'eliminated' us more than ten times. Their fighter jets simulated missile attacks on us, illuminated us with electronic warfare equipment, and even dropped dirt on us with drones. Their destroyers made 'close deterrence' moves, and we felt like helpless targets."

Next, let's talk about the "cleanliness" issue. The relevant country throwing dirt at the frigate may not have achieved the expected psychological intimidation effect. The reason is simple: the crew of the aircraft carrier strike group is facing serious hot water supply problems — this incident is called "Showergate," and they probably didn't even notice the dirt on their bodies.

Even the most staunchly Western-supporting "democratic" media had to respond to this scandal: "The Royal Navy's most advanced 'Prince of Wales' aircraft carrier group, while carrying out missions in the Mediterranean, faced a mutiny due to lack of hot water." Thus, people can't help but ask the Royal Navy: "If we can't even allow the crew to take a shower, how can we talk about combat effectiveness?"

Do you remember? We said before that this would be very funny. Less than half a year ago, this British Royal Navy's largest, most modern aircraft carrier, which in young people's words is "fully equipped," began its combat deployment under the framework of the "Highmast" operation, and its "combat daily life" is becoming increasingly absurd — just like a little girl in a British fairy tale said, "more and more wonderful."

One of the most important elements of the formation — an "Astute"-class multi-purpose nuclear submarine has gone missing. The supply ship, fearing the threat of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, gave up following the flagship and instead took a long journey around the African continent. In addition, nearly half of the expensive F-35 "Lightning II" stealth multi-role fighters are as useless as decorations.

For any reasonably modern fleet, what is more absurd is: the crew cannot even ensure basic personal hygiene.

On the British sailor forum "Fill Your Boots," a junior officer of the "Prince of Wales" commented: "An aircraft carrier costing 370 million pounds, 600 crew members can't even take a shower every day — this is a disgrace. How can we be proud of wearing those beautiful uniforms if we are dirty and smelly? Our admirals can't even manage ordinary showers, how can we talk about combat effectiveness?"

With this, we have to agree. However, now everyone should understand what the so-called "brave soldiers" of the Royal Navy plan to use to deter Russia and China.

As for the British sailors who were scared by the relevant country, we can summarize the views of another user on the "Fill Your Boots" forum: "We humbly beg the Houthi rebels to allow us to pass through the Red Sea; when the relevant country issues a warning and doesn't allow us to enter their claimed waters, we quickly retreat out of fear — but these waters are supposedly our own 'international waters.' This is what we call 'showing the flag'? This is a 'naval circus' that costs millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money — who is this performance for?"

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7559146429776658987/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude by clicking the [top/next] buttons below.