This is the current fleet of the Belgian Navy (Composante marine / Marinecomponent). Say something nice about it...

This is the current fleet of the Belgian Navy (Composante marine / Marinecomponent). Say something nice about it, Sup Forums. They are doing their best with limited funds and 67km of coastline.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4
youtube.com/watch?v=HvWajJv_rtw
savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/
savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/#more-10420
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

OOOH YAYAHA

Belgium controls every Army in Europe though, which combined is multiple times bigger than that

by that logic USA controls Belgium through NATO

And Russia controls the usa

All the navies of Europe combined are not equal to the USN, the conventionally powered De Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth, the unfinished Prince of Wales and the tiny Spanish Juan Carlos I and Cavour. Not a single nuclear powered aircraft carrier either

>which combined is multiple times bigger than that
Are you sure about that? Also, when you say army do you mean navy? Or do you mean all armed forces combined?

Also, how do we measure "size" when we're talking about different levels of tech. I really don't know a lot about this because I'm not a super big armed forces fag, but I already know that >50% of all aircraft carriers in the world are American. And those have a huge effect, but how many smaller ships to do you need before you now have "more" than 1 carrier?

no

Air craft carriers are only useful when you're attacking third world countries.

...

>which combined is multiple times bigger than that

Every military combined in the EU is only barely larger than the US military

Aircraft carriers are the definition of international power projection my man

The primary purpose of aircraft carriers is to line the pockets of defense contractors.

The secondary purpose is to oppress mudhut dwelling durkas.

They are obsolete and vulnerable against any modern enemy.

No it's a big shiny target, the small boats and submarines is what counts against developed nations

>OHP
Outdated by three years

Actually, no.

>67km of coastline
>literally .03% of Canadian coastline
jesus

seems enough to cover 67km of coastline

>No it's a big shiny target, the small boats and submarines is what counts against developed nations

Except for that carriers are surrounded by a fleet of ships, submarines, and aircraft that ensure that they never get a chance to be shot at in the first place. Air superiority is absolutely necessary in contemporary wars, and you can't project military power internationally without aircraft carriers.

Our Navy is a little bit bigger, but we have 14000km of coastline.

>Except for that carriers are surrounded by a fleet of ships
Given the recent trend of the US navy ramming container ships at 20 knots that sounds more like a liability than an asset...

>Sup Forums poster: Your cunt is so fucking fat HAHAHAHAHA
>American poster: HAHA Yeah I know

>Sup Forums poster: Be american, get shot
>American poster: True, murrica is violent

>Sup Forums poster: No free healtcare, third world tier
>American poster: You're right my friend

>Sup Forums poster: I don't think you can win a war with the rest of the world
>American poster: WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SHIT I KILL YOU!

meh

and Israel controls the world

pls no bully

Aren't most of those port queens as well?

Actually that isn't even accurate, the HMCS Athabaskan was decommissioned earlier this year

>tfw the rcn at one point had carriers

Usually multiple subs are fucked, but the Halifax-class are still quite new and regularly go overseas for missions. The navy is building new ships but it's JUST-tier right now

if you mean just sit in ports, i wouldn't say that many of them just sit there
our navy is active in patrolling regions in east africa to intervene in piracy, and is in the Caribbean to stop drug traffickers, along other duties
and occasionally, the NATO buds swing by and we play war games together
pic related, a bunch of nato warships docked in my city's harbour last year

>mfw we don’t even have an image like that

He updated the chart. This actually looks pretty respectable:

yay

*blocks your trade routes*

WHAT ARE THOSE?

Onw of the largest shorelines in the world
>respectable:

he put the planes in ours so we look stronger!

>yanks get terrified at the sight of uncircumcised carriers
the absolute state

*blows them wide open again*

And reptilians control the Jews.

What Japanese ship is that one on the left?

>the conventionally powered De Gaulle
CdG is nuke.

Tuculito Sacallama

>>No it's a big shiny target
No, it really isn't. First of all, how are you going to locate the carrier, and how are you going to deliver the payload to take it out of commission?

Didn't we or someone else kill a lot of yank carriers with attack subs in war games?
Remember hearing something about that

In war games you take on different roles.

youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4
Indeed here the Asstralians get one US destroyer on their killing range

You're referring to the Gotland-class incident, and there are a few problems with that. First of all, no use of active sonar is allowed during peacetime, severely hampering the carrier strike group's ASW capabilities. Second, the carrier during training was stationary; in a serious scenario it would be mobile, and the is a lot faster (at 30+ knots [exact number is classified, but expect 40+]), while the extremely silent diesel subs can only achieve 10 while submerged under AIP. Also, the faster they move, the more noise they're going to make, becoming easier to find. Also this: It's not unreasonable for Americans to play the role of a target for allied fleets who want to simulate attacking a big surface target.

We had the HMCS Edmonton and the HMCS Brandon visit Portland this summer during fleet week. It was pretty neat.

Don't they combine theirs with the Dutch navy?

In a sense - Belgium's two biggest ships (the Leopold I and the Louise-Marie) were both purchased from the Dutch in 2005.

This is Monaco's navy. Say something nice about it, Sup Forums.

She's DD-127 Isoyuki, a decommissioned Hatsuyuki class DD.

...

It's cute

...

Ramps along with twin islands is the future m8.

It is, if you're poor.

>Countries besides Great Britain and Russia showing off their Navy
Go home kids.

If you want you can get 3 high quality, 70,000t+, perfectly capable QE-class aircraft carriers for the price of 1 Ford-class aircraft carrier. Pretty good going tbqh.

Or if you're not poor, you can get 3 Ford-class aircraft carriers instead.

They look nice at least.

...

So how many navies will be using 3 Ford-class aircraft carriers? How many navies have more than 2 70,000t+ aircraft carriers?

>operation saxon warrior

>So how many navies will be using 3 Ford-class aircraft carriers?
Probably just one.
>How many navies have more than 2 70,000t+ aircraft carriers?
Two or three, I'd estimate.

Nimitz class has 2 nuclear generators and displace 100,000t

Who named this recent navy exercise Saxon Warrior I don't know.

>Defends Russia for no reason
>American flag

What a surprise

That's nice but not relevant to the question.

How was I defending russia

war is kind of our thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=HvWajJv_rtw

>brit unironically defends ramps
LAMO

It used to be Europe's thing, now we're just kind of fed up with it. But worry not, we'll have a good couple of conflicts in our lifetimes I bet.

Russia has some interesting naval capabilities despite the relatively small size of the fleet. They have been bombing Syria with Kalibr cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea, from corvettes - those are much smaller ships than any other navy currently uses as an intermediate-range missile platform. It basically turns most of their fleet into Kalibr-carriers, and not just "ships" as such.

>russian navy
>good
you can see their only carrier from FUCKING SPACE

How do they replenish those corvettes anyway? I imagine they'll constantly run out of missiles.

Ramps are NOT for bullying.

Notice the +150

They're already underway in replacing those 13 Duke-class frigates with 8 Type 26, and 5 Type 31.

>two recently acquired helicopter carriers
*whistles innocently*

thats a big carrier

And those RFA Tide-class tankers will bump up our sustainment fleet tonnage, we'll be refuelling most of Europe.

wew the maintenance costs

they do. they have to have different ships constantly on rotation for the duration of whatever operation theyre doing, unless you only need a few missiles

uuuuuh
I wanna serve on one of them so bad
They're so pretty

>*laughs in digital*

There's nothing wrong with ramps, but cats and traps are better for most applications. Ramps have an advantage in maintenance and cost, and a slight advantage in sortie rate, but these pretty much pale in comparison to CATOBAR.

fuck that shit, if im going navy im gonna be a pilot.

It's because the RN have loved the Sea Harrier for so long and have had an invested £2billion interest since the late 1990's in the F-35b, so have gone for ramps like they're used to.

...

You could have just gone for the C variant of F-35 like the yanks.

I like the Royal navies twin towers. Too bad we lost our gob bless

>2 billion invested in the F-35
money well fucking spent.
youd be better off buying flankers

Karel Doormans are solid eurofrigs.

I'm not cut out to be a pilot
And ships are much prettier
Helicopters, though

That's because you have excellent taste.

god i wished we still painted our aircraft

>Le Terrible

Reasons why they chose twin islands.
savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/

Reasons why they're not nuclear powered.
savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/#more-10420

Interesting reads for a nerd like me anyway.