Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If I may ask a question to you: Why should Europe support a fellow NATO country? The NATO is an outdated, jingoistic organisation that should have been disbanded when the Cold War, and NATO's purpose with it, ended. NATO has become a threat to world peace now that it is no longer kept in balance by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. In my opinion, the EU member state should leave NATO and integrate their respective armed forces into a single, unified European military instead. That way, Europe won't get drawn into any wars.

In such an event NATO would by definition not be outdated, would it?

Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If I may ask a question to you: Why should Europe support a fellow NATO country? The NATO is an outdated, jingoistic organisation that should have been disbanded when the Cold War, and NATO's purpose with it, ended. NATO has become a threat to world peace now that it is no longer kept in balance by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. In my opinion, the EU member state should leave NATO and integrate their respective armed forces into a single, unified European military instead. That way, Europe won't get drawn into any wars.

In such an event NATO would by definition not be outdated, would it?

What such event? The EU leaving NATO and creating a military of its own? How would that not make NATO outdated? An organisation should never outlive its purpose. What does the EU need NATO for? Isn't the EU much better of taking the reins in their own hands? Not only would Europe be rid of the jingoistic NATO, while still capable of properly defending its borders, it would also make Russia feel much less threatened and would take the wind out of the sails of the Russian nationalists.
The stronger the NATO response is, the more threatened Russia will feel, which will only fuel radical nationalism and agression on their part. It is much better to disband dangerous divisive organisations like NATO. What people in the West may not realise is that NATO indirectly has a very large part in causing the current conflict in Ukraine, as well as the earlier conflict in Georgia. Russia feels very threatened by the needless (and illegal, as they had promised never to do so) NATO expansion towards its borders, for seemingly no other purpose but to work against Russia. It is a major cause for why Russia has been acting so agressive in defending its interests lately.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

And the Dutch sold all of their tanks (and most other equipment), while the panzergrenadier units have been reported to lack ammunition for training
Europe really needs to up its military spending, altough creating a unified army would already go a long way.

Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

Also, I'm curious as to how you define NATO as jingoistic but apparently not Russia?

Jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

The wars/military actions that NATO has "pursued":
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Kosovo
Afghanistan due to Article 5 (attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all)
Anti-piracy in Gulf of Aden (trying to stop Somali pirates)
Intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone and ground attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

There's only one way to solve this!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

So... tell me: If the US (or UK for that matter) was suddenly surrounded by countries in a military alliance with Russia and China, would it feel threatened?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

So... tell me: If the US (or UK for that matter) was suddenly surrounded by countries in a military alliance with Russia and China, would it feel threatened?

Considering the Iraqi WMD debacle...We Brits feel threatened if another country so much as looks at us funny.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

There's only one way to solve this!

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

Also, I'm curious as to how you define NATO as jingoistic but apparently not Russia?

Jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

The wars/military actions that NATO has "pursued":
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Kosovo
Afghanistan due to Article 5 (attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all)
Anti-piracy in Gulf of Aden (trying to stop Somali pirates)
Intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone and ground attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

So when did the Taliban attack America. ?

 loki old fart wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

Also, I'm curious as to how you define NATO as jingoistic but apparently not Russia?

Jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

The wars/military actions that NATO has "pursued":
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Kosovo
Afghanistan due to Article 5 (attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all)
Anti-piracy in Gulf of Aden (trying to stop Somali pirates)
Intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone and ground attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

So when did the Taliban attack America. ?

Believe it was due to the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda or some such thing.

At least it was the right country that time, as opposed to Iraq which had no Al Qaeda connections at all

 loki old fart wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

Also, I'm curious as to how you define NATO as jingoistic but apparently not Russia?

Jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

The wars/military actions that NATO has "pursued":
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Kosovo
Afghanistan due to Article 5 (attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all)
Anti-piracy in Gulf of Aden (trying to stop Somali pirates)
Intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone and ground attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

So when did the Taliban attack America. ?

So giving safe harbour, training grounds, funding most of AQ's needs, etc... which allowed AQ to launch a cowardly sneak attack against civilian targets is doing what again?

The Taliban as the ruling government of Afghanistan were guilty by being state supporters of terror and aiding AQ in essentially declaring all out war on the US. Lesson being, if you're a rouge state and are going to big-time fund/help out a terrorist organisation, you should try at least a little harder to hide the fact and muddy the waters, while also perhaps having a key resource that your enemy wants.
ie: take the Saudi approach to these things.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

Also, I'm curious as to how you define NATO as jingoistic but apparently not Russia?

Jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

The wars/military actions that NATO has "pursued":
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Kosovo
Afghanistan due to Article 5 (attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all)
Anti-piracy in Gulf of Aden (trying to stop Somali pirates)
Intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone and ground attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

So when did the Taliban attack America. ?

Believe it was due to the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda or some such thing.

At least it was the right country that time, as opposed to Iraq which had no Al Qaeda connections at all

By that logic, when Birmingham got bombed, we should have invaded Ireland, because the IRA had bases in southern Ireland.
One of the pretexts for invading Iraq was saddam was funding terrorism. Should we have bombed mac donalds, or invaded america. both were funding the IRA via noraid.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

We have thousands of fusion bombs. Thats the only thing that matters and it has kept the piece for 70 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Russia has no reason to view countries joining NATO as threatening or hostile unless it has intentions to attack them. If it does and then cannot due to fear of the NATO response then NATO is working exactly as intended.

Also, I'm curious as to how you define NATO as jingoistic but apparently not Russia?

Jingoism:
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

The wars/military actions that NATO has "pursued":
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Kosovo
Afghanistan due to Article 5 (attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all)
Anti-piracy in Gulf of Aden (trying to stop Somali pirates)
Intervention in Libya in the form of a no-fly zone and ground attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

So when did the Taliban attack America. ?

Sept. 11, 2001. Should have hit them with 5,000 megatons on the same day.

 Frazzled wrote:

Sept. 11, 2001. Should have hit them with 5,000 megatons on the same day.

The amusing thing is, that line of thinking makes you as bad as them.

Of course you'll deny it, but there it is.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sept. 11, 2001. Should have hit them with 5,000 megatons on the same day.

The amusing thing is, that line of thinking makes you as bad as them.

Of course you'll deny it, but there it is.

Nah... we should've salted the fething soil too!

NATO exist's to stop the europeans from attacking each other. They like to do that as history has amply demonstrated.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

True. But the world has changed since then, as has the average Briton's opinion of war. And Britain is one of the more hawkish, warlike nations in Europe. I can't really imagine Germany or the Netherlands doing the same.

To reiterate the previous quote:

England has no eternal friendships and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.

Our interests would demand that we answered an invasion of the Baltics with as much force as we could muster.

I daresay Russia could occupy them easily enough, but it wouldn't hold them long. There's be five US carrier fleets parked off the coast within about a fortnight, along with a dozen odd British regiments and warships. We retain enough of our amphibious assault capabilities between us to re-enact D-day Mark 2 if we have to. That's assuming Russia launched a surprise assault.

If Russia built up its forces properly, called up the reservists, lubricated the tanks, etc, and made a general push through Europe, to quote myself, they'd probably get about a third of the way into Germany before they were stopped. But then they'd be pushed back and ground up into pieces from there.

This is why Russia will not mess with NATO. Russia has always historically been sane enough to realise that instigating the largest war since WW2 with itself more or less guaranteed to be on the losing side is not a smart move. Better by far to play the Great Game and bite off pieces of influence and land here and there when the opportunity presents itself. Putin is not the first to play this game, and he won't be the last. Russian leaders have been doing it for as long as Russia has existed.

But make no mistake about it, regardless of how some of the media portray him, Putin's no Metternich, Bismarck or Disraeli. He's also no Alexander the Great or Napoleon. He's neither a genius statesman, nor messianic military genius. He's just a somewhat mediocre ex-KGB statesman playing by a nineteenth century rulebook. He'll gobble up two or three frontier territories at enormous cost, squat in power for as long as he can, and then leave his country worse off than he found it. And then we'll probably play the same game with his successor.

Here’s some interesting info about Putin's plans for ending the fighting in Ukraine.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/22899

Vladimir Putin outlined the plan while speaking with journalists at the end of his working visit to Mongolia.

In order to stop the bloodshed and stabilise the situation in southeast Ukraine, I believe that the parties to the conflict should immediately agree on and coordinate the following steps:

1. End active offensive operations by armed forces, armed units and militia groups in southeast Ukraine in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas.

2. Withdraw Ukrainian armed forces units to a distance that would make it impossible to fire on populated areas using artillery and all types of multiple launch rocket systems.

3. Allow for full and objective international monitoring of compliance with the ceasefire and monitoring of the situation in the safe zone created by the ceasefire.

4. Exclude all use of military aircraft against civilians and populated areas in the conflict zone.

5. Organise the exchange of individuals detained by force on an ‘all for all’ basis without any preconditions.

6. Open humanitarian corridors for refugees and for delivering humanitarian cargoes to towns and populated areas in Donbass – Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

7. Make it possible for repair brigades to come to damaged settlements in the Donbass region in order to repair and rebuild social facilities and life-supporting infrastructure and help the region to prepare for the winter.

So, if Petro Poroshenko agrees to follow Putin’s plan for peace, does that then mean the Russian military forces eeh… excuse me… I meant to say the Russian “voluntaries” currently operating in eastern Ukraine. Will they return back to Russia, if Putin’s peace plan is accepted? Probably not.

Those terms seem to be placing a load of blame on the Kiev government, yet not much on the "rebels". I mean all the points about targeting civilians are clear digs at Kiev, but I'm not seeing anything like "remove all foreign troops from Ukrainian soil" (Crimea's still owned by the Ukrainians according to the international community). That list is nothing but a propaganda piece to pander to Putin's supporters, as look, he's laying out such simple peaceful terms and he really only cares about rebuilding the region right? Just another case of Moscow doing their best to aggravate the situation. =P

So fat chance anyone will take this seriously, leading to Putin gaining more support at home. Like hell the Russians will be withdrawing troops from the area for a good while (look at the other countries they've screwed over in the past few decades that still have soldiers stationed in or near them). Given that the Russians don't seem to quite have a grasp over what territory's theirs and what belongs to others (hey it all used to be the USSR, so that means the Federation owns it all now too right?), Russian troops will be on "holiday" or "exercises" in the area for a good while to come.

Still, nice to see all that new gear being used by the rebels. I mean from a wargaming perspective. Given that the "rebels" are using equipment which the Russians don't export, it gives us so many opportunities for all those shiny new toys to turn up elsewhere. I mean if some farmers with mysteriously Muscovite accents can manage to get a hold of all those guns which nobody can buy that means we'll be seeing some of them turning up in Afghanistan some time soon for Skirmish Sangin.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

Are you forgetting the Queen Elizabeth??
Left dry dock in July. Plus we have F-35's and some Typhoons to play with currently.
Fleetwise, the UK has x2 Astute class submarines, x4 Trafalgar class submarines, x4 Vanguard class submarines, x6 Daring class Destroyers,x12 Duke class Frigates and Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

Are you forgetting the Queen Elizabeth??
Left dry dock in July. Plus we have F-35's and some Typhoons to play with currently.
Fleetwise, the UK has x2 Astute class submarines, x4 Trafalgar class submarines, x4 Vanguard class submarines, x6 Daring class Destroyers,x12 Duke class Frigates and Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier.

The Illustrious was actually only taken off the books officially about a week or two ago. She could be reactivated in short order. The Ocean is also capable of carrying a few fighters with VTOL capability in a bind.

Having said that, I wouldn't want to put Elizabeth anywhere near the field for at least another eight months. They need to test all her systems, break her in and work out all the kinks before she'll be battle-ready.

As a Canadian, what NATO does in eastern Europe is worrying as it'll eventually end up likely showing Putin what he can get away with when he inevitably turns his gaze towards invading our northern territory for their natural resources.

We may be better in a fight, but we're too tiny to stand up against a full on invasion, not to mention the ecological damage conflict in the north would cause. Without full NATO backing, we can easily kiss the entire polar ecosystem good-bye if Russia is allowed to go in and exploit it as they see fit.
Not to mention the small fact that the north belongs to Canada.

 Redcruisair wrote:
Here’s some interesting info about Putin's plans for ending the fighting in Ukraine.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/22899

Spoiler:

Vladimir Putin outlined the plan while speaking with journalists at the end of his working visit to Mongolia.

In order to stop the bloodshed and stabilise the situation in southeast Ukraine, I believe that the parties to the conflict should immediately agree on and coordinate the following steps:

1. End active offensive operations by armed forces, armed units and militia groups in southeast Ukraine in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas.

2. Withdraw Ukrainian armed forces units to a distance that would make it impossible to fire on populated areas using artillery and all types of multiple launch rocket systems.

3. Allow for full and objective international monitoring of compliance with the ceasefire and monitoring of the situation in the safe zone created by the ceasefire.

4. Exclude all use of military aircraft against civilians and populated areas in the conflict zone.

5. Organise the exchange of individuals detained by force on an ‘all for all’ basis without any preconditions.

6. Open humanitarian corridors for refugees and for delivering humanitarian cargoes to towns and populated areas in Donbass – Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

7. Make it possible for repair brigades to come to damaged settlements in the Donbass region in order to repair and rebuild social facilities and life-supporting infrastructure and help the region to prepare for the winter.

So, if Petro Poroshenko agrees to follow Putin’s plan for peace, does that then mean the Russian military forces eeh… excuse me… I meant to say the Russian “voluntaries” currently operating in eastern Ukraine. Will they return back to Russia, if Putin’s peace plan is accepted? Probably not.

To Putin they are the objective international monitors he spoke of

 Iron_Captain wrote:
the Soviets only suffered relatively light casualties.

Light casualties? No. just, no.

The Soviet lost around 28,000 troops, 53,753 were wounded and 415,932 became critically sick. These are not light numbers.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those 1,551,038 men are divided over many small national armies with only a limited amount of cooperation. And judging from the difficulty the EU has with even setting up small military missions, most of those are far from battle-ready.

This is all nonsense. Do you even have a source for this?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Meanwhile, Russia has about a 100.000 in mechanised and armoured divisions that only need a single command to get rolling. They will have covered a huge amount of territory before Europe will be able to put up an effective resistance.

I am beginning to think that, at this point, you’re just throwing words around without any validity to them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And American soldiers are not that great of a help when they are an ocean away. It will take a lot of time before they will arrive.

American troops are stationed several places around Europe, notably Germany.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Should Russia attack NATO, it is likely China will take its chance as well and invade US allies in the Far East.

It's not within China’s interest to start a war against the US. China has invested millions of credits in the US and other western countries. Besides, China and Russia aren’t best buddies for life. Are the Chinese really going throw away all they have accomplished for the sake of a suicidal Russian president’s illegal war? I personally doubt it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is only logical. Look at large-scale convential wars of the past. Weapons have only gotten deadlier since then. It is actually a pretty conservative estimate.

I don’t trust your sense of “logic”. So far, you’ve have said many fanciful things in this thread. Please excuse me for remaining ever wary of your claims.

Besides, the Russians are far more likely to be the ones suffering the most casualties, since they have to operate in lands unfamiliar and hostile to them and their opponents are dug in and only need to hold out for reinforcements, while the Russians must work against the clock.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But many others do, and I am sure most of them would put the safety of their children over Estonia.

You can’t make that claim. You don’t know what other people feel and think about such things.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I think most Europeans disagree with you. At least, almost all Europeans I know, and I know a lot of

You know a lot of them? Like, all 700 million of them? I take it you don’t.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why are you willing to die in a war you don't want?

Why are you so willing to throw the Baltics to the wolves? Do you not have any compassion for other people? Or are you just fine with seeing humans of other nationalities suffer, just as long it isn’t your glories motherland that is being threatened?

I don’t want war, nor do I want to die. But I do want the Estonians and the other Baltics to live their lives peacefully. They deserve it after what they have been through under the forced communist rule. Besides, I couldn’t give damn about the Kremlin’s falls sense of entitlement. Not matter what Putin might think, Eastern Europe is not his to dominate.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If I may ask a question to you: Why should Europe support a fellow NATO country?

Because NATO is a collective defense system. All NATO members are allies with each other, and as such, a declaration of war against one NATO member means war with all other members of NATO.

This link should help you out with your understanding of what NATO is about.
http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

 Iron_Captain wrote:
NATO has become a threat to world peace now that it is no longer kept in balance by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

Cold War isn’t exactly what I would define as peaceful.
Europe has never been more peaceful since the disbanding of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The only threat to Europe’s peace other than terrorism is the Kremlin’s hysteric paranoia of being encircled.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

To Putin they are the objective international monitors he spoke of

I don't think Putin can even spell "objective"

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

To Putin they are the objective international monitors he spoke of

I don't think Putin can even spell "objective"

Sure he can. He just spells it "R-U-S-S-I-A-N"

squidhills wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

To Putin they are the objective international monitors he spoke of

I don't think Putin can even spell "objective"

Sure he can. He just spells it "R-U-S-S-I-A-N"

F-R-E-E-D....F-R-....F-R-E-E-D-O....by Ivan, goddamn it! RUSSIA!

Putin will not invade europe with tank divisions. All baltic states got russian minority witch can be exploited the same way as in Ukrane. Then he will(already is) take control of corrupt or just crasy politicians, crime groups and infrastructure corporations and one day you just wake up in his grasp.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Lets see.
According to der spiegel the german airforce is well under funded.
We sold the harriers, and some mrca"s
The challenger II's are in mothballs. and the crews released from service.
we have no planes for the aircraft carriers we've got. (thanks to the f35)
We are well prepared.

We have no aircraft carriers at all at the moment, never mind the planes to launch from them

Are you forgetting the Queen Elizabeth??
Left dry dock in July. Plus we have F-35's and some Typhoons to play with currently.
Fleetwise, the UK has x2 Astute class submarines, x4 Trafalgar class submarines, x4 Vanguard class submarines, x6 Daring class Destroyers,x12 Duke class Frigates and Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier.

The Queen Elizabeth is not operations worthy. It isn't due for operational capability until 2020.

So about all it can do at the moment is float. It still hasn't had all of the fittings installed, has no crew, nobody in the royal navy has any experience on an aircraft carrier that big.