Why do we always send our shitty looking ships after Russia?

It's fucking embarrassing, why not send out a Type 45 or something?

Other urls found in this thread:

news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-ship-shadows-russian-submarine-in-english-channel-10869536
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because our Type 45s have better things to do than to follow Russian rust buckets.

I apologise I forgot to put the link

news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-ship-shadows-russian-submarine-in-english-channel-10869536

Please sell us some Type 26s when they're rolling off the lines, our ANZAC frigates are worse than your Type 23s.

Were making 8 of them FUCKING 8 it's a travesty and humiliation

What's the point of having a submarine if you're just going to keep is surfaced like this and allow everybody to see it?

Because even painted bucket > rusty bucket.

You leave HMS Somerset alone, she's pretty in her own way

If we discovered it snooping around unde the ocean that could of caused a huge escalation

Soon

Literally next month I think

fuck yes. Can we go have another kick are the argies?

please. please. please

If Vatnikia has anything that is modern and it works in its navy it is subs. Further more, it is stereotypical for them to have the best subs in the world.

it has a fuggin ramp

Eine verfickte Rampe!

There is nothing wrong with a ramp, It's just that they have bad taste.

I think your engineers miscalculated the deck of your ship

>two towers
FOR WHAT PURPOSE

it means you can have a shorter runway for takeoff. This way aircraft can be virrtically landing at the back at the same time other are taking off from the front.

We had it on our old carriers for the Harriers

To reenact 9/11 in the ocean

what exactly am i looking at here friend?

Maybe you Brits will have better luck with planes buzzing around your twin towers then we did.

I bet it's CIWS is shit.
>not even nuclear
Just nuke us

Splits up control of the ship from control of aircraft, allowing you to do both more efficiently.

So we don't need a multi-million dollar launch system which breaks down and needs repairing before it can launch another plane.
Not a great thing to happen mid crisis.

Too expensive to buy from them, you'll probably end up with some Korean frigates.

...

>Implying technical problems have ever stopped us from explosively enriching a brown country

is 3 Phalanx systems a really weird number for such a huge ship?

>phalanx meme
ugh., ..
>30mmemes
who designed this shit!?

>It has a ramp
RAAAAAMMMMP!!!!

do a barrel roll

>There is nothing wrong with a ramp
Other than reducing the weight of the aircraft that can take off. There's a reason the US and French use catapults.

It's the same as what the yanks have.

the right question is why u send this ships after Russia , but not after boats with refugees

The Nimitz only have 2, but it's other weapons systems make up for it.

I'm guessing it's a British plane that rather than having integrated gps has to have a handheld device in a vice.

Russian Su-24.

ehh Phalanx is kind shit desu, if your banking on your point-defense guns to protect your carrier then you've fucked up.

Floating skate park, how can Amerifats even compete

And we have a Virgina and a Los Angeles trailing all of this.

Also 4 Mercury are airborne over the US right now.

I know we all laugh at the state of Russian military kit but the Russians are almost uniquely willing to send wave after wave of their own men to certain death.

It's how they've won many wars and it's super effective.

Who does that? CIWS is strictly a last chance weapon, if it has to fire somebody fucked up by numbers.

There's two lines for jets, I presume.

Nice 9gag meme picture, you fucking faggot.

>muh manpower
manpower can't win a modern war single-handedly, which is why both Russia and the US have bungled every conflict since WWII

Genuine question - what is the issue with Phalanx? I thought the more important thing here was the guidance and detection system for the CIWS

Phalanx has an extremely high RPM, which makes it conductive to stopping incoming missiles. Assuming effective detection, it would do its job effectively. The main issue I see is its range, at 3.5km, but thats not exactly an achilles heel.

Am I missing something?

*lanes

Sorry we don't run away shorting all over the place like you did in dunkerk island faggot.

It's not our fault the surrender monkeys surrended on us.

Very true too. The grand assholes are French as they have proved once again recently.

Militaries bank more on missiles and ECM than Guns, by it's nature it is the very last line of defense against missile attacks, so the thought is that you don't want anything to be close enough to have to use your CIWS. Not saying it's not effective, but it's certainly less effective than an entire battlegroup firing AA missiles at a target. shooting something sea skimming and traveling very fast with a gun, no matter what it's rate of fire, is inherently harder than simply dropping a fuckload of warheads in it's path.

You would've thought they'd have the hindsight to think that the Germans would just go around? Seriously.

This has some truth, but is a truth thats quite superficial in nature. Even since the dawn of the cold war, mass wave attacks are something which faded from Soviet combat doctrine.

Heck, even during WW2 itself, within the last two years the Soviets were using combined arms and co-ordinated movements extensively. Rudimentary combined arms, and co-ordination, but a far cry from the early war/WW1 meat grinds.

Yes, the Russians have a vast amount of hardware. They also have a lot of manpower to call upon. Their mobilizations will not be as precise as NATO mobilizations; partially for technological reasons, partially for mass reasons. But it would be unrealistic to be expecting waves of T-55s moving single file towards NATO weapons.

Because you don't send your top of the line warships out for direct observation by the enemy. You send your old crap that will be decommissioned soonest.

I appreciate your full answer, but I have issue with it. Ofcourse doctrinally you want to avoid using close weapon systems as much as possible. But this is stating the obvious, and as such its unfair to criticize Phalanx or equivalent weapon systems, when they are only designed as a last ditch defense system.

Anti-missile missiles along with EWAR should always be primary countermeasures, but I maintain there is no issue with Phalanx as a supplementary system.

>Anti-missile missiles along with EWAR should always be primary countermeasures, but I maintain there is no issue with Phalanx as a supplementary system.

Agreed. But we have the RAM missile now - even a version that is a drop-in replacement for Phalanx - and it's a HELL of a lot more effective, so even the point-defense is keeping pace.

Sadly it's so effective that some people seem to think it's enough on its own, but I think that's pushing one's luck a bit.

Damn is that thing from before WWII?

>virrtically

god damn

A

BEAUTIFUL

Nigga we will fuck you up. Run, homeboi, run.

KEK

It's supposed to be A FUCKING RAMP you goddamn snaggletooth knife binning faggot.