How can non-carrier countries even compete?

File: 1483572927192.jpg (161KB, 866x838px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 866x838px

>>69649687
>amerifat

>>69649687
The fact that Thailand owns a carrier amuses me to no end.

>>69649687
We don't, we sit quietly enjoying life while they send their children off to die in foreign lands

>>69649687

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

>>69649687
at least we don't have carriers with ramps

>>69649774

At least we have ramps...

>>69649687
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))).

File: HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Masthead.jpg (368KB, 1500x1090px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1500x1090px

>>69649774
You got a problem with ramps m8?

Is it true that carriers are an outdated weapon or is that just a meme?

>>69649687
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.

>>69650046
In real war
Yes its true

lol the russian one looks identical to the chinese one

>>69650218
I wonder why

>>69650046
>>69650071
>>69650118
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.

>>69650046

Just a retarded meme.

>>69650071
>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

>>69649687
>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.

>>69650046
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

File: blender.jpg (133KB, 776x678px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 776x678px

>>69649687
By being white

>>69650357
>france ever using their carrier

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

>>69649687
Why do savages long for having a career?

>>69650321

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

>>69650046
Probably. Jet fighter nowaday have longer range and cruise missile become more and more reliable in each upgrade.

>>69650398
>>69650517
Carriers don't usually travel on their own, they'll be part of a battle group.

>>69649687
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

>>69650516
>Harrier jet
>not fixed wing

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

File: JS_Izumo_(DDH-183)_just_after_her_launch.jpg (190KB, 1510x1000px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1510x1000px

>>69650321
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.

>>69650632

You retired all your harriers mate.

File: harrier-hovering2.jpg (515KB, 1600x1068px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1600x1068px

>>69650632
I hope you're looking after them.

>>69650485
this
battleship is the real man's choice

File: 1438143422584.jpg (2MB, 1900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1900x1200px

>>69649810

>>69650760
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.

File: F-35b takeoff.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

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 >>69649810 giving better vantage points for their respective jobs.

File: 1482759466368.png (158KB, 666x607px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 666x607px

>>69650858
rud

>>69650839
This is why your navy lost

>>69650218
Sisterships. They've just bought it from us and rebuild. Previously known as "Riga".

File: fsch1Zl.jpg (691KB, 1709x1200px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1709x1200px

British Undeniable Master Race

File: 1428742050571.png (254KB, 401x455px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 401x455px

>>69650946
>Riga

how can non-americans even compete

>>69650946
>>69651042
Isn't that where those latvians purges the jews? why name a carrier after it

File: 1482180159843.png (276KB, 566x414px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 566x414px

>>69650046
>needing a carrier

>>69651383
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.

File: 1483621453843.png (349KB, 544x733px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 544x733px

>>69651383
>why name a carrier after that

>>69651417
Nice

>>69650046
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.

File: stronger than an aircraft carrier.jpg (17KB, 170x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 170x250px

>>69649687
>2017
>believing military equipment wins wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2BjhSEnNI

File: JS Kaga.jpg (188KB, 800x342px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 800x342px

>>69649687
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.

File: DSC_3333_573b.jpg (3MB, 3910x2598px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3910x2598px

*carries your carrier*

STEP
IT
UP

>>69650046
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.

>>69650046
Carriers are ideal for bullying third world countries.

But not so ideal in WW3 against China or Russia.

>>69652062
VOC

>>69650939
Yamato doe

>>69652062
thats fake tho, thing`s too heavy to float, its physically impossible ...

>>69653103
jão pls if you see a dutch flag near water nothing is impossible

>>69653103
>too heavy to float
>brazilian science

>>69653103
>Brazilian physicists

File: AinsleyDynamic.png (765KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1001x1001px

>american carriers are circumsized

File: 1482215498623.png (19KB, 592x492px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 592x492px

>>69653222

File: 1417820733473.jpg (54KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 499x499px

>>69653156
>>69653173
>>69653203
Gotcha. I was just pretending.

>>69649687

>aircraft carrier
>useful in modern warfare

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

>>69653429
>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?!

>>69654014
thats including personnel, the brits are fat cunts like the americans

File: destroyed.jpg (140KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 645x773px

>>69654064

>>69650071
>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.

>>69654014
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.

>>69649774
At least they got a carrier to put ramps at.

>>69650370
>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

File: scope_tijgerhaai2_uss_america_med_oct93_2.jpg (97KB, 1273x605px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1273x605px

>>69654434
surely every country has a pic like this

File: astute class attack submarine.jpg (323KB, 2000x1126px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 2000x1126px

>>69654434
>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.

>>69654014

The graph is actually wrong.

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

>>69654618
>U 206 managed to circumvent all security and defense mechanisms around U.S. carrier "U.S.S. Enterprise" without raising their attack alert.

>>69654618
A submarine can't always detect a submarine. I remember some foreign subs colliding in front of the Dutch coast.

>>69654748
>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).

>>69649687
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!

>>69654683
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.

>>69654893
I think the Queen Elizabeth was completed rather recently, meaning they have a carrier again. I could be wrong though.

>>69655013
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.

>>69654618
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.

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

Subs are neat.

File: 1416858171134.png (385KB, 368x447px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 368x447px

>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

>>69655126
>until the F-35's are ready
So, never?

File: 1200px-Flag_of_the_Treinta_y_Tres.svg.png (27KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1200x800px

>>69654405
but they don't have a designated BR killing flag :DD

>>69655126
>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

>>69655126
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

>>69655499
America still has airworthy Harriers don't they?

File: 7471534.png (38KB, 233x218px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 233x218px

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

>>69655564

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

>>69655631
***which include