Do we really need this much firepower? If we go to war with some shit hole like iraq, would we really need this much to steamroll?
If we go to war with some country that's actually of significance, wouldn't it just turn into throwing as many WMD's at each other as possible, thus still making things like this many carriers obsolete?
Why aren't the Japanese Hyuga and Izumo class carriers not listed there?
don't know. its slightly out of date so that could be why.
because japs pretend they are not "real" carriers
You don't understand. All of the Supercarriers secretly transform into a giant kaiju-killing megazord robot, just in case ayylmaos or Pacific Rim happens.
It's welfare nigger, nothing more.
Those carries are floating welfare cities.
>do we really need this much firepower
Yes.
the ocean being all around us = our superiority
Imagine how smelly the Brazilian and Indian ones are.
the firepower you keep is to keep control over the entire world at once, you are able to fight alone and thus no one bothers anymore because theyd get crushed before they managed a world alliance, and after too.
The chart is ridiculously out of date. Also, the reason you need so many is that you niggers use nuclear powered carriers that are out of service for most of the time.
Go join the Marines and you will want another 10 aircraft carriers. Stomping the enemy is good for saving American lives.
...
>Do we really need this much firepower?
If you want an effective deterrence you do.
>If we go to war with some country that's actually of significance, wouldn't it just turn into throwing as many WMD's at each other as possible, thus still making things like this many carriers obsolete?
No because no one has a fucking death wish.
but again, if we're fighting sandniggers, we don't need that many carriers to carpet bomb them back to the stone age.
If we're fighting like a china/russia/france/UK/india alliance, then it would turn into throwing nukes at each other before an official declaration of war was even made.
No you dont.
Go sink them in the name of our friendship.
Only half of them are nuclear powered. Our "assault ships" are all diesel.
>it would turn into throwing nukes at each other before an official declaration of war was even made.
This meme needs to die.
>If we're fighting like a china/russia/france/UK/india alliance, then it would turn into throwing nukes at each other before an official declaration of war was even made.
No it wouldn't you retard. Real life is not like your video games.
No one has ever won a war by committing suicide and when you enter a war your goal is to win.
We have a small pocket carrier
is that the new poolar vortex?
How have nuclear aircraft careers proved themselves? They dont seem to be that reliable.
Also what do americans think of zumwalt?
No you don't.
Yes. No. It scares the smaller countries not to attack our allies, and also war with another significant power might not jump straight to a nuclear exchange. It's worth keeping around, for now.
No?
I heard it is still going
Maybe not tho
for world wide force projection we need that many or almost that many.
each one of those large ships is a fleet.
1 in the mediterranean, 2 in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic, 1 in the indian ocean at all times.
that's 5 fleets, with a fleet within 3 days of pretty much any place they could need to go.
then you've got carriers that are docked. ships don't just get floated out and spend 50 years on the ocean and then sink, they're constantly docking for repairs and rotation. there's at least 2-3 carriers you'll need in base at any time.
bringing us to 7-8 necessary.
then maybe you have one that's actually on station outside a country we're actively fighting. it can't be one of the 5 in a previously listed spot, not long term. one of those ships heads to a hot spot and a new fleet needs to take it's place of guarding it's ocean.
we're always at war, so there's 8-9 minimum to keep force projection world wide.
the 10th is there as the back-up back-up.
5 guarding set locations
3 docked for repairs and whatever
1 actively bombing shit
1 on back up in case we need to actively bomb 2 things at once.
10 carrier groups.
when we retire this old generation and build new carriers, and if we get out of the middle east (lol) we can get down to 7-8 slightly smaller carrier groups, hopefully.
we can shrink the navy by 25% in the next 20 years without losing force, provided we don't need to increase our relative force projection.
the army, airforce, and marines can be cut down and streamlined much more readily.
we waste a lot of military on cold war shit, still.
>How have nuclear aircraft careers proved themselves?
How have they not?
>They dont seem to be that reliable.
Based on what, a reality that exists only in your mind?
Is the aircraft carrier Sup Forums's new meme project or something? It's just a fucking ship desu
It's not.
realistically though, if war were to break out between any two nuke carrying countries, why would they not use their nukes at somepoint? its suicide yeah, but it was suicide to even cross the threshold of war in the first place.
>Do we really need this much firepower?
No, we need much more, much much more. So much that when someone wants war with us we will just throw carriers at them from supercarriers. This will crush the opposition and all future opposition would fear us that much more.
Oy ! They are just for "choppers"
>How have nuclear aircraft careers proved themselves?
Unlimited range, very high speed, extremely capable power projection. We need so many because the US Navy keeps the peace on the high seas, something no one else is capable of. It's also one of the less acknowledged reasons why globalization is so successful.
You forgot our 9 assault ships that essentially function as modern day escort carriers but good post regardless.
The idea is we can go to war with the entire fucking world because we are virtually the entire military of the western world.
Some of them have fucking ramps !
RAMPS !
they're mobile bases and command outposts. world war is all about logistics
>zumwalt
Testbed of the future, great ships.
Boy if some parts of the civilized world tried actually fucking contributing to global stability we wouldn't have to maintain a carrier fleet in their backyard.
doesn't subs = power. as far as i know carriers don't carry nukes.
Oh well
At least he had one
This is a map of the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 if anyone wanted to know.
I wish you'd send everything you have at the Falklands. I want to see fireworks.
The chart says "aircraft" carriers, which means choppers included. Also the carriers on the left on the US side are all chopper carriers.
>its suicide yeah, but it was suicide to even cross the threshold of war in the first place.
Nigger literally no war in human history has resulted in the desteuction of the earth. Why the fuck would you assume everyone will just go into the next one desiring, or expecting, precisely that?
Easy there Mohammed
You almost lost the first time
>need
SHALL
>Not posting the Swiss Aircraft Carrier fleet
Someone's scared of our military superpower navy
Nuclear weapons do not count as military power. We do have submarines for other things too.
Better have and not need than to need and not have
This
because no war in human history has involved weapons that could destroy the entire planet several times over.
Can you really expect two countries the means to draft up a list of rules saying no WMDs and actually abide by them?
yeah, the day we can trust china and russia to not annex anything is the day we can go down to 6 carrier groups!
i think we'll eventually all agree that everything south of the equator is irrelevant and powerless and stop pretending to care about them.
Red pill me, what is so bad about ramps?
We need more desu
>as far as i know carriers don't carry nukes.
It is the US Navy's policy to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard US aircraft carriers of their planes.
So what you think you know is wrong.
Just choppas.
> Hyuga and a Nimitz-class supercarrier getting snuggly dot png
Every military power in history has always maintained an absolute dominance if they were able to.
America should continue to maintain absolute superiority over our enemies. In fact, we should reduce some of our conventional forces, go back to a draft army, and spend more on anti-missile technology and advanced technologies that will re-define the 21st century battlefield; we should be militarizing space, for instance.
The US has been overcompensating ever since it was first founded.
She's got beautiful lines.
>Can you really expect two countries the means to draft up a list of rules saying no WMDs and actually abide by them?
Yes because people don't go to war with the desire to destroy themselves you fucktard.
you can only approach it from one direction to land
wheelchair access into the ocean is just cruel
that have the means*
And even that was built by the British.
No fixed wing AWAC capability. No capability to fly Growlers.
You're in even worse of a state than last time. Perhaps a friendly war exercise game instead.
you are a landlocked country
what joke is this you silly swissmissman
nobody wants to take lake geneva
Our massive air and sea power are the reason nobody dares fuck with the United States.
>Do we really need this much firepower?
yes
you're stretched like a piece of butter over to much bread
PROJECTION OF POWER
We actually need to stay current and come up with new technology.
Aircraft carriers are obsolete against any country with guided missile technology.
This is horse shit. Typically you need 3 carriers to get 1 in active duty:
• 1 in active duty
• 1 in training
• 1 in shipyard
Ski jump launch means lower takeoff mass for all aircraft. Less fuel, lower payloads. Many aircraft can't take the stress or have clearance issues on the ramp. Very limiting compared to building a longer ship.
I just wish Europe would pull more of their weight. Specifically the Nordic countries and Germany but I know they have no immediate reason to want to do so.
Ramps work ok but the CATOBAR is a better system if you're wanting to launch jets with more shit/fuel. The CATOBAR is a complex system and it requires maintenance so a cheaper option is just to build a ramp at one end to give the aircraft a little more forward momentum. This allows for a slightly higher takeoff weight but not nearly what the CATOBAR offers.
bullshit dude, if russia and US were to flip their shit and go into a real war, there is no fucking way they wouldn't use their nukes.
the reason why no two nuke carrying countries have gone at it is because this reason, but if say they were to cross that huge line, there is literally no way they wouldn't.
Deterrence, and those carriers do not travel in packs. It allows the US to project their military everywhere at once, in a surge, or phase the ships in and out of maintenance to maintain a constant global presence, and extend the longevity of the ships so they don't wear out too fast.
Also the Nuclear WMD thing is slowly becoming a meme with modern ABM technology. The US is not the only one playing that game.
kek that image is great
Unless they're Vietnamese farmers.
Well yeah,Britain and Argentina where supposed to be mates
And brit tech is great
I'll say it as it is
This country has been hijack and run into a Sithole
No islands war for anytime soon
Apart from Russia. Oh, and terrorists. And Mexicans. And most other countries who watched you guys lose every war you've been in since WW2.
Nobody is actually frightened of the US. It's just that most nations are now beyond the point of starting petty wars. Something the US has yet to learn.
So you must just have the one in the shipyard still?
>ABM obsoletes nuclear weapons
This is not only a stupid but also dangerous meme that needs to go away. There is no safeguard against nuclear weapons once they launch. The only way is to prevent them from being launched in the first place.
Actually thats true.
Russian war doctrine is built around nukes. It is based on the idea that mutually assured destruction wont be that mutual but still very assured.
We could easily nuke and kill every single person on earth if we wanted to.
the only country that's a real existential threat to us is Russia. Even China, Israel, the UK or France lacks the capacity to take out a country as large as ours.
Vietnamese farmers were treated very nicely by our military due to our politicians. We wanted to play nice and try to win hearts and minds. If our goal was to defeat the North Vietnamese, we would have invaded the North, killed as many people as we could, nuked China if they tried to intervene.
Because they're honest to god only helicopter carriers they cannot be used to carry anything more they're only for self defense guys trust us.
still salty bout them nukes, eh Hiro?
>americans think of zumwalt?
Be a lot cooler once they get the rail guns
Which is true. Russia would definitely come out of a nuclear exchange better off than us.
Argentina has great potential, you just need to get rid of your government's corruption and take it one step at a time. And leaving the islanders alone would certainly help your image.
Read the name, wetback.
>yo man, we hav carriers n shiettt
I wonder how many they could crank out a year if they really wanted too? Probably an ass load.
When your main constitutional responsibility is to provide a strong military.. Yes it is. Would you prefer to feed some welfare niggers with that money?
if a nuclear exchange happened, im pretty sure no one would come out it.
We know, jeeze. You're representing two irrelevant countries with your shitposting.
Your missing the new one in your picture.
But they are obsolete; so at this point we can reduce.
Lel nice try, Ivan. ;^)
Your luck is that you guys live in the middle of seas. Thats the biggest advantage you can ever have.
This. Just because they're designed to be easily be turned into jet carrying aircraft carriers doesn't make them as such.
The same as now.
We don't have anymore drydocks that large.
We never deploy our entire arsenal against an enemy for a number of different reasons but primarily because America only sort of wants to pick fights and has no conviction to win them. Our leaders deploy our military to spend our bombs that we bought to fuel the industrial complex, we never intend to "win" Iraq and never had any plans on what "winning" was supposed to even look like