How can non-carrier countries even compete?

How can non-carrier countries even compete?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9p2BjhSEnNI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Gotland_(1995)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>amerifat

The fact that Thailand owns a carrier amuses me to no end.

We don't, we sit quietly enjoying life while they send their children off to die in foreign lands

Thailand, you don't use your carrier as a carrier.

at least we don't have carriers with ramps

At least we have ramps...

The Juan Carlos I isn't even a proper aircraft carrier though, it's an amphibious assault ship. We used to have a proper CV until we decomissioned it due to (((austerity))).

You got a problem with ramps m8?

Is it true that carriers are an outdated weapon or is that just a meme?

A lot of those are just amphibious assault ships.
And if that's your criteria, you could include Australia, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, and probably several others, too.
And in today's world carriers are pretty much only good for posturing and harassing brown people in developing countries. It is just a massive target, that would be lost pretty quickly if it had to face off against any country with at least a halfway functioning navy.
That's why you always read about tiny non-countries like Norway and Sweden sinking carriers in war games.

In real war
Yes its true

lol the russian one looks identical to the chinese one

I wonder why

Yes but people always forget carriers are also used for humanitarian reasons and getting aid to people. Yes in a showy way but they're still used for that purpose too.

Just a retarded meme.

>And if that's your criteria, you could include Australia, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, and probably several others, too.

None of those nations have fixed-wing carriers.

>France has a catapult, but the brits don't

>How can non-carrier countries even compete?

With our supersilent subs.

>During a joint exercise JTFEX 01-02 in 2001, the German submarine U 24 of predecessor class U 206 managed to circumvent all security and defense mechanisms around U.S. carrier "U.S.S. Enterprise" without raising their attack alert.

Depends. In any serious war between great powers the carriers wouldn't last the first day. But we're all probably going to die in the ensuring nuclear winter anyway, and in the meantime they're good for bullying brown people shithole countries.

Not sure why you government needs so many tho

By being white

>france ever using their carrier

It's out of action more times than it's being used. Plus they only have one.

Why do savages long for having a career?

Neither do you have any fixed wing aircraft for yourself. Your carrier effectively exists as a royal yacht.

Probably. Jet fighter nowaday have longer range and cruise missile become more and more reliable in each upgrade.

Carriers don't usually travel on their own, they'll be part of a battle group.

i sit at home and cry because of all the money i save by not having to support any navy with taxes.
this makes me very sad

>Harrier jet
>not fixed wing

Shame coming from the country that invented them, although you're probably a paki so it's fine.

Just refit the deck or something. They're larger than a lot of the carriers in your pic. And the Australian ones are literally the same ship as the Juan Carlos. They just don't have any Harriers.

You retired all your harriers mate.

I hope you're looking after them.

how spen afford carrrir?

this
battleship is the real man's choice

...

bai not be
in
pusifid natin
lik japn

Our carrier's been stuck in retrofitting since forever, I bet it will get decommissioned

It was bought from the French to begin with, when they were getting rid of it.

We don't even need a ramp for the F-35b but we chose to have one because we're trend setters. Same with the two islands giving better vantage points for their respective jobs.

rud

This is why your navy lost

Sisterships. They've just bought it from us and rebuild. Previously known as "Riga".

British Undeniable Master Race

>Riga

how can non-americans even compete

Isn't that where those latvians purges the jews? why name a carrier after it

>needing a carrier

It's just an European capital.
Historically in almost every European capital people did something horrible to the jews. Such is the way of things.

>why name a carrier after that

Nice

It's still pretty useful as a base of operations. It's just not a key to the all doors like it was back in WWII.

>2017
>believing military equipment wins wars
youtube.com/watch?v=9p2BjhSEnNI

Saturation attacks of anti-ship missiles by attack aircrafts and torpedo attack by submarines are the basic methods. Because the defense of the aircraft carrier is weak, escort by air defense ships like Aegis ships is indispensable.For Japan it is absolutely unnecessary and our helicopter carriers will be only used to command fleets and eliminate submarines. In addition to the four helicopter flight carriers in Japan, Japan is planning to build three ships of amphibious assault ships.

*carries your carrier*

STEP
IT
UP

Their roles are severly limited but they are now using by impenetrable swimming fortresses.
You can use a carrier task force to virtually invade more than half of the world.

Carriers are ideal for bullying third world countries.

But not so ideal in WW3 against China or Russia.

VOC

Yamato doe

thats fake tho, thing`s too heavy to float, its physically impossible ...

jão pls if you see a dutch flag near water nothing is impossible

>too heavy to float
>brazilian science

>Brazilian physicists

>american carriers are circumsized

...

Gotcha. I was just pretending.

>aircraft carrier
>useful in modern warfare

They're just massive graveyards that have huge maintenance and repair costs.

>mobile airfield isn't useful

Kill yourself you dumb leaf

>CdG 42,000 tons 40 aircraft
>QE 65,000 tons 40 aircraft

wtf, did she spare all the extra displacement for the ramp and that additional tower?!

thats including personnel, the brits are fat cunts like the americans

...

>A lot of those are just amphibious assault ships.
Not really. They're pretty much mobile airports. America, and to a more limited degree France and Britain, still use their carriers that way.

It's the biggest warship every constructed by the Royal Navy, and OP's picture is a bit misleading because once fully loaded and war ready it'll be bigger than the Russian and Chinese carriers.

At least they got a carrier to put ramps at.

>US military invited swedish submarine to wargame exercise to evaluate their ability to combat that kind of threat
>it managed to "sink" the USS Ronald Reagan (same size as the Gerald R. Ford)
Subs are pretty neat

surely every country has a pic like this

>Subs are pretty neat

Exactly and people in this thread seem to forget that carriers will have submarines escorting them as part of a battle group, and that it won't be just one lonely carrier travelling around on its.

The graph is actually wrong.

Thr Queen Elizabeth classes maximum aircraft number is 72, but is officially marked as 50.

>U 206 managed to circumvent all security and defense mechanisms around U.S. carrier "U.S.S. Enterprise" without raising their attack alert.

A submarine can't always detect a submarine. I remember some foreign subs colliding in front of the Dutch coast.

>A submarine can't always detect a submarine.

That's what the frigates or anti-submarine ships are used for too. In the Royal Navy's case the Type 23 frigate and the Type 26 frigate (when they're built).

Britain has no aircraft carriers anymore, correct your pic.

"Hey America, got space on one of those carriers for some shitty F-15s? How about a Sea King or two?"

"Yeah, pile on in ya Leaf bastards."

Aaaaand problem solved. Thank you American taxpayer!

Do you know what this means? It doesn't mean submarines defeat everything forever, it means there was something wrong with America's security system and that it needs to be adjusted. This is why these tests are held in the first place.

I think the Queen Elizabeth was completed rather recently, meaning they have a carrier again. I could be wrong though.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is up and running and will be fully ready within a couple of years. HMS Prince of Wales is still another 4 years away.

That's the thing. It wasn't just the USS Ronald Reagan - it was escorted by nuclear submarines AND airplanes that all assisted in the carrier's attempts to locate the HSwMS Gotland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Gotland_(1995)

Subs are neat.

>our aircraft carries won't have any aircraft to fly from them once they're completed
>we are allowing allied forces to use our carriers until the F-35's are ready

apes running this country

>until the F-35's are ready
So, never?

but they don't have a designated BR killing flag :DD

>our aircraft carries won't have any aircraft to fly from them once they're completed

This is wrong.

>we are allowing allied forces to use our carriers until the F-35's are ready

This is also wrong.

Dumb daily mail reader

We can sell you some F/A-18s if you want.

>tfw new F-16V
>tfw new F-15 kit from Boeing
>tfw average 5.5% price cut on the F-35

just rented this chumps dinghy with a ramp to impress the ladies in Monaco

America still has airworthy Harriers don't they?

why do you need a carrier if you have no plan to invade other countries?

USMC has a stock of harriers which our old harrier fleet.

***which include