Dear Non-Aircraft Carrier Nations

When will you be joining the exclusive club of countries with aircraft carriers?

And will your first carrier be called?

Other urls found in this thread:

mda.mil/news/12news0011.html
cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-to-intercept-target/
defensenews.com/land/2017/04/05/top-u-s-general-no-defense-against-russian-cruise-missiles/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

soon

Good post my friend.

>Switzerland
??

why do we even need an aircraft carrier

>Americans will never know whats wrong with this picture

Mountain navy is no joke

When the Nordic Union is created.
The ship will be named Ägir.

the biggest issue is how many fucking ramps there are

Wasting money

>aircraft carriers
Useless sh-t

its a waste of money, we dont even use it

way too expensive for what they are

They used to kill people all around the world, far from your country, and for power projection. Choose.

You're fucking landlocked

>Switzerland
wtf is that and why would a natural fortress that is landlocked need an aircraft carrier

During shore leave, the crew will drink the average port city dry. Any plans for this?

why do brits like switzerland so much?

They're not in the EU either :^)

...

Reminder that you are not well and that the only cure is to kill yourself.

We already have one. It is called Gotland and is unsinkable.

Twin islands and ramps are the future.

HMS Ocean will be yours soon enough.

why would shithole like thailand need an aircraft carrier?
to carry all the transsexual faggots?

>When will you be joining the exclusive club of countries with aircraft carriers?

Never, because unless you're the US with an absolute need to project force, they are a retardedly stupid waste of a fucking ton of money just to be able to deliver 20 planes around.

>aircraft carriers
20th century meme

The US, France and Britain are really the only countries who need to project force and have overseas territories or bases which need protecting or servicing. The UK is reopening HMS Jufair too.

'Tis an old romance

We should get a pink phalic shaped non military aircraft carrier to promote diversity and tolerance around the world.

fellows in perfidy

It's basically the kings toy boat for pleasure cruising

Not every post about transsexual faggots is about you. Just kill yourself already.

You're the shithole.

fucking word
non-ramp masterrace reporting in

i thought thai's aircraft carrier is more or less the royal family's private yacht at this point?

>bought on impulse
>wanted to implement decent weaponry in late 1990s
>Asian financial crisis fucked Thailand's boipucci,
>left in port because no threat and lack of spare parts

Enjoy your poverty ramps lols

>>left in port
Nah it still performs relief operations. Like during the tsunami crisis.

Nuclear propulsion ftw

>182.65m carrier
>Literally smaller than a normal Amphibious Assault Ship

h-how much did you guys pay for that tiny thing?

Really makes me think

Wasn't Sao Paulo out of service?

France, Italy, Thailand, and Brazil don't have functional aircraft carriers i.e. able to launch aircraft or even work in sea

France?
They're not even ramplets, unlike you

...

we do

>having a functioning carrier
>or having something stuck in port for maintenance 24/7

Oyyyyy vey, wanna buy one like theirs?
We also have a new, even more succesful model. Popular in Australia and Turkey!

>His country fell for the MBDA meme
Next time buy american, because of their carriers they've wasted tons of dollars on naval air defence

>Popular in Australia and Turkey!
You should have naval exercises with those countries and have everybody bring their carriers.

>carrierlets have curved ramps
National equivalent of a manlet wearing boots and spiking his hair

Delete this picture
we don't have carriers OPpic related is cruiser

The good news is that we're getting rid of it.

>On 14 February 2017, the navy announced the ship's demobilisation and subsequently decommissioning.[1]

OP said Aircraft, helicopters count

>cut mango with rice and jizz
truly enlightened

oh and you forgot the literal 3rd world the rest of the country is

call the king a bender you nonce

The American one actually looks better/more powerful than the Finish one.

>a fucking ramp

You envy our ramps, isnt it?

finns are so futuristic their flag is in 3D

The Australian-Spanish navies' relationships have become quite good lately tbqh, a few months ago one of our AEGIS DDGs was there because they are also buying 3 ships based on that (Hobart class) and before that we "rented" 1 of our oilers for a long time because they are also buying some of them.

Turkey's aircraft deal was quite recent though.

SCRAP THE RAMPS NOW!

>monarchy

Australia ignore Spain here, pls choose the Type 26 for your future frigate.

>wasted tons of dollars on naval air defence
wasted

*Blocks your path*

We decomissioned ours.

We'll probably buy the HMS Ocean next.

We'll find out in 2018 m8.

Actually, until recently I thought that we were going to lose, the Australian surface fleet is basicaly spanish at this point. Oilers, carriers, DDGs... it just looks way to dependent in spanish hardware but then came the news about the aegis system and there is also their prefered turbine engine, the LM2500, that basically powers the most important ships in their navy, including the Canberra and Hobart class made by Navantia, (Your proposal is the only one with a different turbine, a Rolls Royce) and I thought that we still had a great chance to get it.

>AEGIS
Cannot protect even from test rockets

All, and I mean ALL missile defense systems are not perfect, and require more development. But AEGIS is one of the best naval interceptor systems there is.

If AEGIS was so bad, then it wouldn't be selling so much.

>calls poland a shithole when poland has double the gdp (per capita) than tranland
only on Sup Forums

That's what I don't understand. Aegis is effective in simulated attacks where variables are planned and known ahead of time. We have no idea how effective it is in a real scenario. id imagine that the system itself is expensive as fuck, but wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy anti-ship missiles instead of a shield? I wonder how many missiles you can buy for the cost of one system equipped.

>But AEGIS is one of the best naval interceptor systems there is.
Ok, but aircraftcariers still useless if Putin agnust

They can install wheels on it.

has nobody noticed something....strange in the picture?

What's the issue with installing Aegis CMS? I can understand if they wanted AN/SPY-3, but not the CMS.

I wonder why this Japanese helicopter carrier is so long? it almost looks like an aircraft runway. but that can't be. the Japanese aren't allowed to have aircraft carriers.

>That's what I don't understand. Aegis is effective in simulated attacks where variables are planned and known ahead of time. We have no idea how effective it is in a real scenario. id imagine that the system itself is expensive as fuck, but wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy anti-ship missiles instead of a shield? I wonder how many missiles you can buy for the cost of one system equipped.

Are you trying to sound smart? Because it really comes across that you don't know anything.

It's a "helicopter destroyer" specifically because their constitution forbids offensive weapons. I hear Abe is trying to get rid of that part, but it remains to be seen how successful he'll be. I for one would like to see nip carriers challenging the chinks and yanks on the pacific (nobody takes indians or thais seriously)

We don't have an carrier anymore.

But we do got a Amphibious Assault Ship recently and we'll prolly get another from Britain.

I'm trying to ask a question because I genuinely do not understand the rational behind purchasing an aegis system over anti ship missiles.

You sound a bit flustered, why does my question cause you to be so defensive?

to be in the cool guys club, of course

We have the same carrier as Spain (they built it for us) but we have 2.

Because they have the requirement to shoot down missiles or aircraft that want to harm the ship, other ships around it or areas they are trying to protect?

How does buying AShMs instead, change this given they still need a CMS &/FC to fire them? It's like saying because your ASL line is slow, you don't need a network card. I'm struggling on how answer your point because its so off.

you never know when that snow melts and you need a navy

what i'm saying is that the aegis costs X amount, how many anti ship missiles would it take to penetrate a aegis system? if i can purchase 20 anti ship missiles at the cost of one aegis system , can the aegis system successfully defend against 20 missiles at a time? if it can't then wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply purchase missiles instead of a complex missile defense system that really has no real combat record?

if the system can be overwhelmed how much would it cost to overwhelm it versus how much would it cost to purchase?

>double the gdp per capita
>a fraction of the quality of life/employment

Before I start, you are really confused and should read more before asking these kinds of questions, because what happening with you is that you're confused by the solution because you don't understand equation.

>what i'm saying is that the aegis costs X amount, how many anti ship missiles would it take to penetrate a aegis system?

Depends on a huge number of factors: weather, crew being at action stations, missiles, ESM/ECM etc. However, generally warship would not be operating in such a high threat environment alone, specifically, if we're talking about the ones that the USN operate - so it wouldn't be a single aegis equipped ship. There's an upper limit on how many missiles can be guided for terminal interception, but that's down more to the limitations of the missiles (we're presuming USN platform) being semi-active.

>if i can purchase 20 anti ship missiles at the cost of one aegis system , can the aegis system successfully defend against 20 missiles at a time?

Sure, USN think so as do many other navies who have bought into it.

> if it can't then wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply purchase missiles instead of a complex missile defense system that really has no real combat record?

Because you need an OS/system to manage and integrate all the defence/attack systems together?

And Aegis does have a combat record. It intercepted and track three different attacks on USS Mason by C-802 AShMs.

>>And Aegis does have a combat record. It intercepted and track three different attacks on USS Mason by C-802 AShMs.

yes i read about that but those were under controlled circumstances.

>>Sure, USN think so as do many other navies who have bought into it.

where there's the kicker i can't find, with the available information, why people would buy it if it doesn't have a proven track record and that it can be overwhelmed. there isn't any record of a test that would mimic a real situation. like 20 simultaneous missiles at once, or with counter measures like decoys and the like.

>>Because you need an OS/system to manage and integrate all the defence/attack systems together?

yes exactly but im saying if the attacker and defender are on equal terms as in both have invest X amount of dollars into whatever hardware they are using. isn't it cheaper to simply have the infrastructure that would be able to overwhelm a shield defense then to have a system that can maybe defend against it? like all things being equal here, if the missile defense has integrated radar and command system, we can equally assume the attacker has the equipment available to launch a coordinated missile barrage.

>>Depends on a huge number of factors: weather, crew being at action stations, missiles, ESM/ECM etc. However, generally warship would not be operating in such a high threat environment alone, specifically, if we're talking about the ones that the USN operate - so it wouldn't be a single aegis equipped ship. There's an upper limit on how many missiles can be guided for terminal interception, but that's down more to the limitations of the missiles (we're presuming USN platform) being semi-active.

lets say there are multiple ships in the area all operating the aegis system and coordinated. how much would such a system cost?

Hard to believe only 4 countries have the decency not to pull that ramp shit.

>I for one would like to see nip carriers challenging the chinks and yanks on the pacific (nobody takes indians or thais seriously)

Japan is forever cucked to the US as an 'ally', they aren't going to challenge jack shit.

>yes i read about that but those were under controlled circumstances.

How?

>where there's the kicker i can't find, with the available information, why people would buy it if it doesn't have a proven track record and that it can be overwhelmed. there isn't any record of a test that would mimic a real situation. like 20 simultaneous missiles at once, or with counter measures like decoys and the like.
1. The track record point has already been addressed.
2. Find me one system that can't be countered. Name me one AShM that can't be shot down, you can't because no such system exists.
3. Yes there is. You can wargame and simulate such things. Otherwise they wouldn't do so.

>yes exactly but im saying if the attacker and defender are on equal terms as in both have invest X amount of dollars into whatever hardware they are using
That's entirely unrealistic.
>. isn't it cheaper to simply have the infrastructure that would be able to overwhelm a shield defense then to have a system that can maybe defend against it?
Depends.
>like all things being equal here, if the missile defense has integrated radar and command system, we can equally assume the attacker has the equipment available to launch a coordinated missile barrage.
Yes and? Consider what it would cost to setup and support such an attack such as air bases or naval bases.

>lets say there are multiple ships in the area all operating the aegis system and coordinated. how much would such a system cost?
lets say there are multiple cars in the area all racing on the V8 engine and coordinated. how much would such a race cost?
Can you see the problem with that question? It is so vage that it is impossible to answer.

If you're going to live in a developing-world shit hole anyway, why not choose the one with beautiful women, amazing beaches and bomb ass grub?

>>how?

mda.mil/news/12news0011.html

>> Find me one system that can't be countered. Name me one AShM that can't be shot down, you can't because no such system exists

im not claiming a AShM can't be shot down, i'm asking how many would it take to penetrate a aegis shield. we know the shield has a maximum defense capability of how many interceptors it can load. what i'm curious about it the cost effectiveness of such a defense versus the cost effectiveness of a missile barrage attack with cheap decoys.

>>That's entirely unrealistic.

im not looking for realism, i'm looking at a Vis-à-vis scenario as a thought experiment.

>>lets say there are multiple cars in the area all racing on the V8 engine and coordinated. how much would such a race cost?

the race would be the cost of all the vehicles involved by their model and make.

meh i guess we all don't know if it is really worth it until it's tested in real combat scenario.

i still stand by my opinion though, it's cheaper to simply overwhelm a missile defense with missiles then it would cost to outfit a multi layered defense shield. do you believe that the the Aegis system is cost effective?

>mda.mil/news/12news0011.html

Irrelevant to the USS Mason and 802s.

>im not claiming a AShM can't be shot down, i'm asking how many would it take to penetrate a aegis shield. we know the shield has a maximum defense capability of how many interceptors it can load

Which can't be answered because you don't know enough to question it, or rather how.

>what i'm curious about it the cost effectiveness of such a defense versus the cost effectiveness of a missile barrage attack with cheap decoys.
Clearly cost effective enough that those who have a far greater understanding support the system.

>im not looking for realism, i'm looking at a Vis-à-vis scenario as a thought experiment.
Then why not have Jedi or Animaniacs par of it, if there's no grounding for reality in this?

>the race would be the cost of all the vehicles involved by their model and make.
Wouldn't just also be those two.

>meh i guess we all don't know if it is really worth it until it's tested in real combat scenario.
So it has.

>i still stand by my opinion though, it's cheaper to simply overwhelm a missile defense with missiles then it would cost to outfit a multi layered defense shield.
That's just your opinion. Not the experts.

>do you believe that the the Aegis system is cost effective?
Doesn't matter if I do or don't. The experts think so.

well apparently it still takes only one to bypass the shield.

cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-to-intercept-target/

That's for BMD which is like incredibly hard and can only be achieved with Aegis BMD (and other supporting technology - Aegis is one part of multiple systems) or systems which have had comparable levels of investments. The failure might not have been of Aegis, but of just the missile send to indercept it.

However, these are not cruise missiles like you're suggesting.

hrm interesting the more i delve into it.

thoughts?

>>defensenews.com/land/2017/04/05/top-u-s-general-no-defense-against-russian-cruise-missiles/

well I mean for the favelados it's just because they bought france's old junk