How can other nations even compete?

How can other nations even compete?

Other urls found in this thread:

globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/
navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>divide and conquer
Stop dividing the whites you kike.

Ski jumping should be done on mountains. Nice try though.

>ramp

They cant tbqh.

thats cute.

Sorry to burst ur bubble but in modern times carriers are nothing more than big floating targets for ballistic rockets of all sort.

>A
>FUCKING
>RAMP

It's more respectable to have no carriers than one with a ramp you inbred anglo.

Cute carrier..what is this 1962?

whats in the extra tower?

Fear our might.

Kek is that old Ironsides mid row right side with no name listed.

No ramps, that's how

Ay
If he was retrofitted with some better guns he could actually be used in combat

A second aircraft carrier

They split flight deck operations and Ship operations to allow for another elevator and possibly the stack exhausts.
Both towers can function as the other however.
Just another carrier innovation brought to you by the nation that invented
>The carrier itself
>The angled flight deck
>The steam catapult
>The ski-ramp

Carriers project power and influence. Anyone stupid enough to destroy one will end up in a world of hurt.

Nice try mountain Jew, we aren't falling for it.

>tfw modern ships are all so ugly because muh stealth

Constitution is the only ship in the American navy that has ever sunk another ship.

It's also a Theseus's paradox as it only has 3% of it's original materials

one of the main reasons you still see ships like that docked on waters.
>no need for fuel
>could easily be fitted with modern weapons

last resort type of shit.

10 dollars says the paper machete soaks through by Sunday.

By having Rafales on board and not Typhoon Eurofighters, kek

Stop trying to divide us paki, we aren't falling for it.

Our new carriers are pretty neat but they aren't the best in the world, nor where they designed to be. Our new government doesn't give the armed forces a fair amount of money so they have to be made to be cost effective rather than have high sortie rates. that is why we use a ramp, no nuclear engine and have a partially automated crew.

dank battleship, is it nuclear powered or diesel?

Constitution is not kept around as a last resort....She's kept around for historic reasons, and rig training like all the other nations who keep some of these ships afloat, I think spain has one that sails at least.

You actually think the United States Navy would ever consider the need to put a 1700's frigate into a war situation? Don't be stupid burger.

>paper machete

What did he mean by this?

>tfw space laser warfare soon

She's beautiful. If only we had another 50
May might have the balls to increase defence spending.. I hope.

our subs have sank a shitload of other boats. and our ships have gotten some too

its got so gnarly during the cold war that there was an actual underwater collision between a us and soviet boat. the soviet one was hit from above and sank to the bottom. the us one was able to ballast and limp to a port

mfw dad keeps getting increasingly more senile that now he's past the point of salvation

>a kingdom complaining about redundancy
>anno domini MMXVII

but yeah. that's stupid as fuck. what happens when there's no wind? then we'd really be boned

It's not nuclear powered, she's powered by the same engines in the USS Zumwalt.

Nuclear power is a meme, only of real use to a nation that polices the world like America of course that has a defence budget to build enough of the ships to keep them at sea 24/7

Most people fail to realise that even with Nuclear power the ships need refueling, every 20-25 years, they also require extensive maintenance. This means when they go into dock it can take years to complete, a lot of years, like 4-5 years.
America has currently 10 Nuclear carriers (with another new one in sea trials) and even with this mighty fleet they only ever have a maximum of 2 Nuclear carriers active and on station at once, with "ONLY" 10 carriers there is also something called a carrier gap every 8-18 months where they only have one carrier.
>10 carriers
>1 active
This is why by law the US Navy is supposed to have 11 carriers, they even had to ask congress to waiver this law in order to retire Enterprise early, ideal naval doctrine for them is actually 16 carriers.

Other nations see their carriers and because they're fucking delusional try and make cheap shitty copies of them i.e France and India which is why the French only have one carrier that is barely out at sea and is heavily overworked.

The British know a lot about the Navy and working to a disgustingly small budget managed to build two conventionally powered carriers with highly advanced aircraft aboard, these carriers will allow us to have one at sea 24/7 and do the job they were built for, not just as a flashy showpiece.
Despite
>a fucking ramp
They are incredibly powerful ships, easily the most capable and advanced outside the US

oh fuck meant here but at any rate that is interesting if its true about it being the only surface ship to sink another

>tfw Railguns soon and then we will truly reach the point of no return

If you look at the current fleet you'll see that only Constitution has ever sunk a ship, the rest are all retired now.

Son pls, no bully. We're very proud of you.

Why is this good? I feel bed for you and your pops..

Its *cough* diesel *cough*, more reliable aka Charles de Neverworks and cheap...

Why do they even have parts on top? Seems like an easy target. The whole thing should be built like a tank.

>sea tank
You mean a Dreadnought?

>America has currently 10 Nuclear carriers (with another new one in sea trials) and even with this mighty fleet they only ever have a maximum of 2 Nuclear carriers active and on station at once


Wow.

Just...wow.

You are an idiot.

globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

Not to mention, you don't really NEED more than one aircraft carrier to get your point across.

Because you need to actually see what the fuck is going on on the deck, same reason air ports have towers.

Most of the actual important ship operations are down in CIC below deck.

>ramp

better than Canadian navy

We bought 2 ww2 era diesel subs a decade ago for like 3 billion. one of them caught fire and killed a guy. They've spent mots of their lives rotting in dock nonfunctional.

Canadian navy is a joke.

It has a ramp user

Holy shieeet. Brazil have an aircraft carrier? Didn't know about the existence of this "SS Hue".

The worst part is the US doesn't even use them to get the point across. Carriers have been obsolete for years now, what today's naval war demands is frigates, cruisers and destroyers that can get lots of small missiles out to your target quickly while shooting down swarms of hundreds of similar small missiles heading towards them. Carriers are a sitting duck that's only used against weak third world nations, with the navy practically admitting that they don't have the balls to use them against China if war broke out.

They're the worst type of military equipment: the type that's too expensive to loose.

It was 4, and it killed 23 men.

And the reason they're rotting at the docks is because of Jean-Chretien and his incompetent handling of the deal.

as long as we outmatch france i could give a fuck

>Carriers have been obsolete for years now

Goddamn, another fucking idiot.

Carriers are not obsolete. Indeed, as long as airframes are powered by jet fuel, they will never be obsolete, even if there are no pilots on-board.

War-fighting payload is constrained by fuel load. Carriers place airframes within optimal offensive strike range, anywhere in the world.

How fucking hard is this?

wow
just wow
I'm sorry you're new to this and don't have the reading comprehension to understand what you're reading.
There is currently only two active on station carriers doing the job they were built for.
Your link actually proves that.
I'm not insulting the US Navy I'd have hoped you could tell that from what I'm saying is not to insult but to praise the huge fleet of the US Navy, no other nation can deploy nuclear carriers like you do, not even China for decades to come.

Behead brits.

Correct. You just lack the empire to justify such a waste of money.

>US sails carriers out to China
>launch several long range jet missions against the mainland, score major hits against the Chinese, destroying their major airbases

>Chinese send out every destroyer and cruiser they have to bombard carrier with missiles, torpedoes, aerial bombs, and catapulted chow mein
>carrier sunk when a stray one gets through
>5,000 men killed in one day, tens of billions of dollars of materiel, aircraft, and training investment sunk
>it's the biggest disaster in US history, ameriburgers are furious at a catastrophe that's the magnitude of two 9/11s
>and it was the american's fault for sending their fucking carrier into the South China Sea

Carriers represent too much of an investment in manpower, ships, and aircraft to risk losing. Hence, they will only be sent against a third-world power to project force, as a modern-day equivalent of gunboat diplomacy.

Gary Brecher a.k.a "The War Nerd" on why he considers carrier's are obsolete.

exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/

>implying that ballistic missiles can hit precise target, not to mention it moves.

Even not. If France sends her carrier to Syria, Bachar would simply laugh.

You need to be a superpower to achieve anything with carriers, that is a huge concentration of fire power. Only the US has that.

British innovation. You're welcome!

>I'm sorry you're new to this and don't have the reading comprehension to understand what you're reading.
>There is currently only two active on station carriers doing the job they were built for.
>Your link actually proves that.

10 carriers.

4 in layup.

Five at sea.

One on-station in the Sea of Japan, as always.

That's six at sea, you idiot. Just because a public website claims that three of them are on trials isn't worth very much.

Plus, let's be honest. The US has way more than ten carriers. We just call the little ones amphibious assault ships.

navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

So, by my count, that's 20 aircraft carriers plus two more of the big boys under construction, and the Republicans have taken over all the levers of power and are vowing to build up the military.

Yeahhhh.... Real 'weak'.

All any projectile needs is info to where the target is located, aircraft carriers are massive targets and light up radar displays from hundreds of km's away.

EZ

>Its an American misses the point episode
Your link proves what he said
The US Navy's doctrine for carriers is built around the maintenance needs of nuclear carriers, 2 are all that's needed to project American power, but the complex maintenance required by nuclear carriers means that most are in dock at any one time, doctrine is designed to allow for this

With a well-placed ICBM.

Sure you'll get MAD, but a draw's a draw.

That's we we utilise the battlegroup

>Chinese send out every destroyer and cruiser they have to bombard carrier with missiles, torpedoes, aerial bombs, and catapulted chow mein

WTF makes you think they would be unopposed? Why do you think carriers travel in CARRIER BATTLE GROUPS??? Do you really think chink destroyers and cruisers can survive an onslaught of missiles from American destroyers and cruisers? Do you really think that chink subs can beat American attack subs?

If you had said Russian at least there's a chance. But China???

>aerial bombs

WTF makes you think chinks have the training or AWACS to go up against a USN air wing?

Also: sinking a US carrier is practically begging for a nuclear strike in return.

I wouldn't expect a landlocked country with no military or navy for that matter to understand.

Carriers don't sail on their own. They sale in a group which consist of destroyers and other ships with anti-air and anti-missile capabilities to shield the carrier. The carrier is also equipped with defense for missile attacks.

As a matter of fact, whatever US naval assets, it does not influence the trend : China rise as the world economic superpower.

She first has to reach the level before any real military competition starts. And China is already busy at arming herself with a two digits military budget growth per year.

As of 2030 - 2035, China will be a gigantic economic superpower. When she uses 5% of her GDP for her regional supremacy, US will simply have to let it happen.

Even now, while US has still a military edge, they do not confront China for fear of the consequences. Hopefully, China will be a benevolent empire satisfied with some tribute and mark of respect.

>oh hi there!

I'm not saying that they'll be unopposed. I'm saying that the Chinese would be willing to lose dozens of their own ships to destroy a single carrier, and possess the manpower/productive capacity/political will to sustain more losses than the US.

It's essentially a replay of Japan vs USA, but in reverse.

>WTF makes you think chinks have the training or AWACS to go up against a USN air wing?

Quantity>quality. Carriers within range of the Chinese mainland are well within the range of Chinese airbases, so prepare to get swarmed with every kind of land-based missile and aircraft that they have, as well as their sea-based force.

Perdix drone swarms.

>ballistic rockets
Do you know what ballistic means you fucking pocketknife?

Battlegroup's only have a finite amount of missiles on board. The Soviets developed long range cruise missiles that were to be launched by TU-26 Bombers with the aim of launching a large volume that would overwhelm the guided missile defenses of a battle group, that's why the US was frantically trying to implement the AEGIS system in the 80's on its ships to overcome this tactic. The Chinese tested a ground launched ballistic missile which they claim can be updated mid-flight so as to accurately target an aircraft carrier. Furthermore ballistic missiles have been developed to carry multiple independently targeted warheads making the job of the battle group even more difficult and this doesn't even take into consideration that a larger volume of missiles can be fired from ground installations.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

Regret.

>experimental sci-fi shit

>I'm saying that the Chinese would be willing to lose dozens of their own ships to destroy a single carrier,
Doubt it. Especially since 5,000 dead American servicemen is a guaranteed escalation.

>and possess the manpower/productive capacity/political will to sustain more losses than the US.
Their ability to build naval vessels could be wiped out by the USAF in a couple of weeks. Our shipyards are safely beyond their reach.

>>WTF makes you think chinks have the training or AWACS to go up against a USN air wing?
>Quantity>quality.
>[CITATION NEEDED]
All evidence from the past 40 years points in the opposite direction.

>Carriers within range of the Chinese mainland are well within the range of Chinese airbases,
Which are well within range of US airbases in the Pacific, and even within range of USAF bombers stationed at home.

>so prepare to get swarmed with every kind of land-based missile and aircraft that they have, as well as their sea-based force.
I know you believe that naval warfare is like a Japanese anime with a billion missiles flying every where all at once. It's not.

>superpower by 2030!
Where have I heard this before?

A significant portion of Chinese GDP is Fake GDP. That's true for the US as well, but China has only managed to hold off capital flight / depression through force of law.

They are not in the shape they pretend to be in.

well, it doesn't anymore. it's being deactivated

we're gonna fuck you up good bong

Shut up

LUL AT ALL THE BUTTHURT MURRICANS

>MUH 11 CARRIERS
>MUH POWER PROJECTION

carries are a obsolete concept for a floating airfield to wage war in oceans or on coastlines next to 3rd world nigger shitholes.

If it gets next to any capable millitaries range it will get sinked either from the coast, either by sybmarines which was proven by many times over and over again.

Each Arleigh Burke class destroyer can carry up to 96 long range anti-air/anti-missiles. Cruisers carry even more. And each carrier has 3 8-cell Sparrow medium range launchers and 4 21-cell point defense RIM-116 launchers.

So each ship effectively has 100 missiles ready to intercept without even having to reload.

>mfw germany has no fuckin aircraft carrier

...

Read the article wikipedia article user.

It will come in due time, worry not. You'll see for yourself, US bro.

old, china has 2 now

>next to
Super Hornet has a combat radius of 450mi without in-air refueling. Tomahawk's up to 1,550mi.

The only thing experimental about them is longer loiter times. As it stands they can be deployed from ships already and were tested for air deployment in October last year.

Drone swarms will protect us until laser cwis is perfected.

W-we have feminine little boats :3

Hey burgers you ever taken your F-35 off of any sweet jumps?

You're dead kiddo

>claims
Russia and China have always resorted to hyperbole and untested claims when describing their weapons. Nothing has changed.

I see your Long Duck Dong 21 and raise you an Aegis:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

Senior Systems Engineer Raytheon Missile Systems. Check ehm.

>including our LHD/LHA as carriers
>not including japans helicopter destroyers
>see flag

checks out

Good thing we have the only capable navy then

with having x10 your population

What happened to the other 50%?

Haha it has one of those ramps. Aircraft carriers with ramp are second tier

>ramp has a railing
I bet they also eat with a plastic knife.