And it better be good.
Give me at least ONE reason your country still doesn't have an aircraft carrier
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
>defensive centered military
>only purpose is to dickwave on the othe side of the world
>Helicarriers and LHDs are cheaper to maintain
>probably the first ones to go down when totalwar against other nation
At least in our case.
Also the São Paulo got officially decomissioned last week.
Our corrupt politicians are afraid of having a strong enough army
Besides we have more pressing issues
But I hope... some day we will launch our own ramp
Give me at least ONE reason your country has less than 10 active aircraft carriers.
Pacifist nations don't need such things.
Budget is already too tight and the country too poor to buy and maintain a giant piece of a naval museum that won't have a chance against a real modern aircraft carrier of the industrialized nations.
That would be only for show.
We have 40 tanks and a total of 13 000 soldiers and 12 helicopters. We are FAR away from being able to launch an aircraft carrier.
For us 2bh and 2b realistic heli carriers would be the best option to protect and assure range over our oil platforms
I'm not for a full nato army but damn we need to step up
How do I escape Greece?
Literally the 21st century maginot line.
>Helicarriers are cheap to maintain
>Helicarriers
Is there something you want to share with the class, Hugo?
LHDs are cheaper.
Also Amphibious Assault Ships.
Because there's no point when the US has 10, all of which are far larger and more powerful than what most nations are capable of building. Being a naval power isn't easy, especially when it'd only take half of the US's current naval capacity to destroy every other navy in the world.
Pay denbts of course
ramp posters OUT
We do.
I've been on it before.
Long range aircraft should be enough, heck, it would be already an overkill, almost all our oil platforms are close to the coast.
Also, protect us from who? Narco's submarines?
because the us navy protects us for free
I imagine there's more than a few people in Mexico who believe that the US intends to invade and annex Mexico.
...
>anglo ship
>angled
>fat ship
>f(l)at
hmmm
Well there is evidence
Anything man, even oil platform fires requiere the attention of the navy, and having stuff like hospital ships should be a must for us, a heli carrier would make a compact and perfect projection unit.
And like a guy said above in a real war even some of the US carriers would be the first to be taken out
And for other cunts with one of 2, they would also be destroyed very fast
Mexico, like Canada, is worth much more to us as an independent trading partner. We simply don't have the politcal will (or the geography) to control Mexico comfortably.
Baltic is the size of a large lake.
missiles launched from land have more than double the range of aircraft on the carrier, it doesn't take a genius to see how useless they are
submarines are all that matters, we are getting 8 brand new
Literally impervious to naval invasion.
You have played too many videogames. Sure it those things looks cool and all, but we have problems way more urgent than expending money on toys. You don't "battle" crime and cartels with fighter jets and carriers. Much less sagging education, insufficient health care and a pension crisis that will blow up in 10 years.
This guy is actually right:
Just camping at the Malacca strait and sink approaching ships at the bottleneck with RPG-7 is cheaper.
Aren't allowed to make one because our daddy forbits us to make one
Because the air force isn't big enough to fill one.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IS THAT A FUCKING RAMP HAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS TONY HAWKS PRO NAVY 2017 HAHAHAHA
Japan is a carrier which does not sink.
No threat big enough to justify one so we build a helicopter carrier instead that also function as logistics ship.
reason number one: this is a landlocked country
dont give ideas to Orbán
people here are literally dying of hunger.
Montreux Convention.
We don't have carriers, that's an aircraft-carrying cruiser you see.
¡patria o muerte!
We're protected by daddy US.
>Montreux Convention.
You had CV anyway.
The real reasons were:
>NATO had already an overwhelming navy.
>Absolutely no interest for a navy in case of war since USSR was a land power.
We literally all hate you
fugg, didn't understand, sorry for that
Kek, no you don't. You'll come running here to play our bitch guard-dog the first sign that something is off.
>Give me at least ONE reason your country still doesn't have an aircraft carrier
we have no sea lmao
Nah it's just the Mexico is White guy.
I really hope this scenario happens so we can abandon you but in reality you're too irrelevant for literally any country to want to attack you
Nice floating 1970s museum. Would be a shame if someone used it for target practice.
>climate change opening up best shipping routes
>bountiful natural resources
Nobody would attack us because the states will come to fight our battles.
>climate change opening up best shipping routes
Depends. If it gets warmer and the northern coast of Canada becomes ice-free, but if it gets colder and we head to a new ice age...nope.
>Give me at least ONE reason your country still doesn't have an aircraft carrier
You're right. No one touches our damn toque
literally no reason for it. russian navy is inferior to american one (and possibly even britain's). and those are the only countries that might attack russia so russia would lose anyway. why wasting money then if you can construct a few more submarines that are capable of launching nuclear missiles?
You already have one, why are you talking like you don't?
>You already have one
you are talking about this thing? it is barely functioning and russia uses it just because it hasn't collapsed yet. if it does i doubt russia will build another one
We won't attack Russia first.
-->
Great group of thriving First World countries there.
That's what someone who will would say.
third reich said exactly the same, and even sighed a pact
americunts dont let us have a military because they are fags
But we do, also pls buy a new one
Oi vey, buy more and be a good goi
We don't need your oil fields or land. We already brought Alaska :^)
>Russian allies.png
>Russian
>allies
Ally, buffer zone between Russia and NATO...whatever.
Expensive, and the military has been scaling down and cutting costs for decades. Im amazed they still have subs.
I'm amazed too. Subs would conjure up unwelcome images of U-boats torpedoing hospital ships.
Sweden btw.
Just one of our carriers could probably sink the entire Chinese navy.
We don't have enough military personnel to crew a ship like that...
Because our papa america will protect our country
Really? Why not?
where are the fishing nets on that boat?
We used to have one. But we sold it to Argentina before they went to war with the UK.
We can't afford a nuclear carrier with an electromagnetic catapult, and a diesel-powered carrier with a ramp is too embarrassing
Neat, you made money for a man made fish habitat.
We do it all the time desu.
>Russia threatens Europe
>we sell our tanks to Finland
genius.jpg
Thailand's carrier is a joke and not something to brag about.
>being this jelly
Kek we can't all be defenseless ex-British colonies.
Why don't you guys just crank up the defense budget?
Where there's profits there are the Dutch.
Yeah, we should just crank up all the budgets to make everything better
We can't all be third world sex destinations.
Let's not pretend Thailand's military beats even Singapore's by any metric other than having more untrained civilians to conscript during a war. The main role of your military is to overthrow the government every few years or so.
I guess you can always waste Paraguay again. :^)
>Singapore
>military
Is that what you're calling your mall cops now?
Nice repeating digits.
We don't need them.
overkill for stopping refugee boats
We have one of the best navies in the world right now (third in Yurop too).
How.
Sweden has a quite petite population. Also they aren't a warlike people anymore.
Is that the aircraft carrier than we sold to your navy? Cute. What aircraft are those desu?
Aircraft carriers are obsolete
Matador Harriers. Since retired but the carrier is still deployed with helicopters for humanitarian relief operations.
I think we aren't even allowed to have them.
We're literally pushing you to get your own military and Trump even wants you to have nuclear weapons. It's your own lefties keeping you down in 2017, Japan-kun.
Japanese leftists are just Chinese agents anyway who want Japan to become a colony of Beijing.
I wish Japan would start developing nukes so Beijing can have excuse to nuke them and anybody else that tries to save or rescue Japan.
True.
What about a """"helicopter destroyer"""". I heard that those are totally different
Isn't the deck too weak to handle jet exhaust?
I'm still hearing rumours you're going to buy our HMS Ocean? I think we should hang on to it despite building two new ramp carriers tbqh. People shouldn't bully ramps either.
We know the Americans will send their carriers if they're ever needed.
We have no sea.
>less than 10
Because it's fewer, not less.