>yfw Czech Republic is literally building a carrier

File: VMF_ARMIA-2015_02.jpg (311KB, 1417x694px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1417x694px

>Drawing
>Building a carrier
ok we're building nuclear carrier then ok

File: czech repooblic.png (148KB, 430x271px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 430x271px

ah yes slavic ""intelligence""

>ramp
At least they've realized their limitations and stuck with second world technology.

File: 8a8a12cfe219e02ba2c85066d390a2d4.jpg (986KB, 1950x1947px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 1950x1947px

Seriously

File: 1491471636966.jpg (227KB, 1338x618px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1338x618px

>>73254603
>

>>73254639
Care to enlighten us what is wrong with a ramp, Yank?

File: vietcong.jpg (25KB, 299x450px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 299x450px

>>73254639
tbf a ramp could probably beat vietnamese farmers

File: queen elizabeth aircraft carrier2.jpg (1MB, 4000x1618px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4000x1618px

>>73254516
Hey yo hold up now....

File: leafniggers.png (38KB, 845x257px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 845x257px

>>73254655
>implying its not purely aesthetic unlike this

>>73254642
>>73254689
>65,000 ton

It'll be well over 70,000 tonnes by the time it's fully outfitted tbqh.

>>73254732
Providing the manner in which it is conducted isn't cruel, I honestly don't see the problem. Bans against it are generally based entirely on appeals to emotion.

File: 1428440334052.gif (173KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x360px

>>73254689
>>73254642
>ramp

>>73255060

Not an argument.

>>73254767
Also it can carry over 50 aircraft if needed.

>>73254672
Waiting...

>>73255208

The max is 72.

>>73254672
czech republic doesn't have water boundaries .....thats the thing once u commission it who gonna take care of it provisions , arms, food??

>>73255289
Does that include helicopters? I was only referring to fixed-wing aircraft.

>>73255399

The maximum for fixed wing, specifically for the F-35B is 70.

>>73255481
>>73255481

Correction: rather it is 70+, but that's not a realistic number.

>>73254672
Catapults can launch heavier aircraft at a faster rate while taking less deck space.

>>73255633
Fair enough. I did not know that.

>>73255060
>dutch dont even have an aircraft carrier


LITERAL KEKS

>>73255633
But that's totally wrong, catapults are slow as fuck. Even russia and their piece of shit carrier can launch aircrafts faster than you

The Czechs actually have the right to use a part of the port in Hamburg as a concession from WWI

>>73255633
The real question is why doesn't the USMC use ramps on their LHDs? Do they like taking off with less fuel and weapons?

>>73256094
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldauhafen

>>73255633

The sortie rate for STVOL scales higher than CATABAR.

>>73256121

The argument is that they aren't carriers, thus adding a ramp turns them into a carrier.

It also is supposed to take a helicopter parking spot, but I've heard this is a non-issue.

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

2MB, 1280x720px

>>73254642
We don't even need ramps were we're going.

File: A-skateboarder-jumping.jpg (351KB, 1800x1657px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1800x1657px

>heard about this sick new place guys, its on a boat"

>>73254516
RAMP
A
M
P

I'm more excited about the fleet of 40 (forty) sloops the RN is planning on adding.

Also the 13 duke class frigates are going to be replaced with at least the same but "likely" a greater number of bigger frigates, probably about 20.

File: zaba-izbor.png (78KB, 592x381px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 592x381px

>>73256094
>>73256190
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldauhafen
you are in for a trouble, nemec

>>73257101

The Black Swan class is a meme.

And the frigates certainly won't be 20 numbers.

It will be more likely 8 Type 26s and 6-8 Type 31s.

>>73257435
>It will be more likely 8 Type 26s and 6-8 Type 31s.

Hopefully they build a few more at some point down the line. They're trying to push for the export market with these new frigates too.

>>73257435
Is it? it seems a serious , cost-effective and sensible proposal, especially considering how much cut back in operations the navy has been forced into.

Yes, it will most likely be 16 total frigates (again), unless something happens, something involving an overseas territory perhaps...

File: 75887.jpg (59KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 620x387px

>>73254516
>czech republic has a navy

>>73254588
2 RAMPS

>>73254588
I see you're going for the two island approach too. It's nice.

>>73257745

We'll have to see, but what will most likely happen is that the money from the MCM replacement will be stolen for a futher or second batch of Type 31s with MCM enhancements.

>>73258595

It is not a sensible proposal.

Corvettes are not the answer for a carrier navy that is short on escorts.

>>73255633
Slower m8

>>73256283
Do you play COMAND lad I need a fellow autist to help me get past a scenario

>>73261089

Wish I could help, but I also suck.

If you check the /k/ archives there should be some recommendation for youtubers who are good.

File: 200% glad.png (376KB, 435x645px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 435x645px

>mfw carrier ded but "new" amphibious assault ship and subs and corvettes soon

Fair trade desu.

>>73261268

That carrier was a drain. Should have never bought it.

File: NAeL-Minas-Gerais.jpg (143KB, 1615x801px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1615x801px

>>73261401

We needed something to dickwave.

Now we use that dickwave money for new shit.

Plus we had carriers before, like the Minas Gerais.

>tfw spanish STOL carriers but we only use them for helis

>>73255633
Wrong, cat sortie rate is lower. Being able to proper larger and heavier aircraft is the advantage of CATOBAR.

The reason is simple: ramp carriers don't have to wait for catapult recovery and setup.

>>73254516
Wärtsilä is also contributing to the QE class. So we're making it too!

http://www.wartsila.com/resources/customer-references/view/hms-queen-elizabeth

>>73262412

I'm not sure what cause the love for Wärtsilä, but yeah they're going in everything now.

File: c4papdtrdnru4jrvagp1.jpg (42KB, 800x362px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x362px

>>73254516
>carrier
>2017

>>73262536

AshM are a meme.

Submarines are the real threat to carriers.

File: Armada.jpg (2MB, 2293x1720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2293x1720px

>>73262072
>tfw RAMP carrier but we must keep our harriers until 2025

>>73262576
AUTONOMOUS submarines
Besides if I was trying to blow a weapons platform up I'd want them to waste as much of their defence on deflecting the threat that doesn't get them in the end, so combined aerial and submarine makes sense

>>73260778
I was under the impression that they were for freeing up the frigates from the anti-piracy patrols and the like?

>>73261877
Yes , a WW2 carrier that you bought from us
Shame you scrapped it
Would have made a nice museum

File: bahia-G40-PWSA-toulon-21-03-16-2.jpg (266KB, 846x562px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 846x562px

>>73262818

Nah, they wanted a "new" one so they bough the French one.

They'll probably scrap this one too and use the money for current and new projects,

Carriers never actually suited our interests, a Heli carrier it's way better, like the Bahia is proving to be.

>>73263002

>"Heli carrier"

I know it isn't actaually the term.

Fix.

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

515KB, 1600x1068px

>>73262643
Yeah but Harriers are based despite them being old as fuck.

>>73263092
"Smaller, STOL/helicopter amphibious assault ship thing that still sort of counts as a carrier except when you compare it with a nuclear power yank floating city"

File: rachel_cook9.jpg (95KB, 655x1000px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 655x1000px

>F-35B instead of F-35C

whyyyy

File: HMS-Queen-Elizabeth_with_Illustrious.jpg (230KB, 2000x1346px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 2000x1346px

>>73254689
Just look at qt Illustrious next to it.

File: 19e032fb90b78f477ff1b8c672e84244.jpg (32KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 564x423px

>>73263164
they really are tbqh, but the F-35B is sooo much better though.

File: SH-16_Bahia_02.jpg (56KB, 700x365px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x365px

>>73263224

Yep,

Anyway, the Navy made a fucking "goal" for once.

>>73263308
Because the RN needs a Harrier replacement and they have not fitted catapults on the new carriers (they could probably fit them at some point down the line). Also the UK being the only Level 1 partner in this whole thing, 15-20% of the F-35b is being built in the UK contributing £1b a year to the economy and supporting jobs, as well as Rolls-Royce building the vertical lift system.

>>73263308

There's not actually a huge difference between the F-35B and C in range on payload.

And of course, that all entirely on paper.

>>73263642
*range & payload

>>73263642
all else being equal then is it fair to assume that the f35b is going to require more maintenance because of the more complicated design?

File: 1487474100225.jpg (23KB, 604x560px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 604x560px

>>73254516

>tfw all the ""countries"" in this thread combined have fewer carriers than the US has supercarriers

HA

>>73263710

I can't comment.

However, with the F-35C you've also got to consider the maintenace of the additional equipment to launch and recover it. And personnel to operate them. And the storage for those spare parts.

>>73254516
Why would a landlocked country need one?

>>73254689
I know this is a meme, but why are ramps bad/good and why are only the British using them?

File: AinsleyBook.jpg (57KB, 600x431px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x431px

>>73263847
why are american carriers circumcised?

>>73263847
>by 2027 the RN will have more tonnage than the ewar of Europe combined

It does really make you think m8.

>>73263002
I know nothing about Brazil's position or interests so i cannot comment
But you want helicopters more for anti-submarine roles

>>73263164
I really liked those

>>73263875
>I know this is a meme, but why are ramps bad/good and why are only the British using them?

Ramps are the future. Just as two islands are.

>>73263875

The opinion that is frequently parrotted that that "ramps" cripple the range and payload of the aircraft, when it does the opposite.

The ramp itself does not 'cripple' the aircraft. Without it the aircraft would be required to launch in VOTL with a far more limited payload and amount of fuel -- or even in STVOL on a flat deck with an even futher limited load.

It also removes a huge logistical burden for reasons like I've said in >>73263871

>>73263847

Not every country is a continental empire with a military-industrial complex

>>73263968
Sort of doubt this, we are going to have 2 more aircraft carriers, apart from that numbers wont really change, and at the moment i believe France has more than us

File: H225M Exocet 3.jpg (403KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1280x853px

>>73264070

Theres still more units of EC-725 to be delivered this year, not only for the Navy.

They already "solved" their carrier problem, now what they're REALLY are in need are new warships since the ones we have are starting to be deactivated or reaching the end of their lifespams. That's why now they just signed for new corvettes and are looking for some shipyard to build them.

>>73264187
To be fair, Europe's combined navies should exceed that number by all means. It's just that Europe is America's bitch, a bunch of lapdogs eating from its hands for protection. Most of us don't even hit half of the NATO's 2% defense spencing norm. Imagine if every country in Europe spent 3% on defense, like America does, or even 5% (which isn't extravagantly high). This could at the very least beef up Europe's navies enough to ensure they combined have more aircraft carriers than America has supercarriers.

America has only TEN (10) supercarriers. If Britain, France and Germany each build two aircraft carriers and the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Portugal one each we already hit that number.

There's no excuse.

File: RFA Tidespring.jpg (100KB, 1658x790px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1658x790px

>>73264227
You're forgetting the 4 fast-fleet tankers at nearly 40,000t each, albeit RFA.

>>73263454
Those are big guns.

File: Carrier 003.jpg (709KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 2304x1728px

>>73264705
it was kind of a bastard to put together, also an important piece was missing, fucking lazy chinks.

Need to get a shelf for it - it's like 3 feet long and takes up too much floor space.

>>73254516
I applaud you anon.

File: 1478948681022.png (1MB, 1948x1204px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1948x1204px

>>73264187
>>73264359
And before you start talking about costs, drop those fucking memes mate. Allow me to show you the numbers, my conclusion may surprise you.

I'm going to usee that the Queen Elizabeth II as my baseline here. Because it's the most recent aircraft carrier in construction I'm assuming that it's entirely top of the line, the best of the best, nothing that can built with modern technology can top it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28153569
The costs of the Queen Elizabeth II and its sister ship are £6.2bn. I'm going to be even more generous and assume those are the costs of the Queen Elizabeth II alone, even though this is clearly false.

http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=GBP&to=EUR&amount=6.2
That's the equivalent of €7.3bn. Now we have a currency we can look at. Now let's look over to Germany, shall we?

http://www.dw.com/en/report-germany-to-spend-94-billion-euros-on-refugees-in-next-five-years/a-19258420
Over the next 5 years, the Germans expect to spend 94 billion euros on refugees, getting them into the country, housing them et cetera. Because a significant number of them are criminals and terrorists this number will be a lot higher but let's assume €94bn for the sake of convenience.

This is enough money to build TWELVE (12) Elizabeth II tier supercarriers. Let me repeat that: the money Merkel is spending to demographically replace the German population could've been used to create more supercarriers than America currently has. How can anyone argue that Germany can't afford two cold war era aircraft carriers? My model of two carriers for Europe's military/economic great powers and 1 for its economic/military middle powers isn't unrealistic at all.

>>73264996
>I'm going to usee that the Queen Elizabeth II as my baseline here

It's named after Elizabeth I m8.

>>73264996
>>73265100
>Because it's the most recent aircraft carrier in construction I'm assuming that it's entirely top of the line, the best of the best, nothing that can built with modern technology can top it

The one main new thing it has is the highly mechanised weapons handling system (HMWHS).

>his is a first naval application of a common warehouse system. The HMWHS moves palletised munitions from the magazines and weapon preparation areas, along track ways and via several lifts, forward and aft or port and starboard. The tracks can carry a pallet to magazines, the hangar, weapons preparation areas, and the flight deck. In a change from normal procedures the magazines are unmanned, the movement of pallets is controlled from a central location, and manpower is only required when munitions are being initially stored or prepared for use. This system speeds up delivery and reduces the size of the crew by automation.

>>73264372
Will admit i didnt count those, nonetheless the other navies have auxiliary ships, such that i doubt, at least in the near future, that we will exceed the combined tonnage of Portugal, Spain, France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Holland and belgium

File: A29 Super Tucano.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>mfw no naval Super Tucano.

>>73264816

Fake lego?

>>73264359
>>73264996

I'm not saying its unrealistic in material terms, for the whole of the EU, but rather for any single state, which is how i hope we all remain.

(Incase that causes argument, i believe The EU doesnt represent Europe and its culture, it represents globalism and corporate/beaurecrat syndication, just look at the euro notes- how much do they scream "europe" with a few windows and arches? They dont, its not about europe and her people, its about big business)

Well its really because the cold war ended, in the 80s Britain was spending 4.8% of GDP on military and had 128 surface war ships, now we have 19- soon to be 25. The costs are skyrocketing with all the new bullshit automation and super advanced systems though.
Now, i for one would like it to be 4.8% and for us to have 128 ships again, however due to the budgetary chaos the Labour government caused, while we have things which we HAVE to spend money on (NHS- extremely bloated and corrupt) and a black hole of benefits (hint: immigrants who cheat the system) we are only just getting back together our budget, we would also need impetus for such an increase

I cannot speak for the amount Germans are spending to be raped, and yes the germans are cucked, but blame the media and the government, not them.
Hell, even now the government is trying to impose its version of reality upon the internet.
The Germans would have the money better spent on building 12 super carriers and blowing up the rapefugees.

However, do remember that the Yank military is very bloated, i believe they are actually struggling to maintain their current naval level, especially as costs escalate with new technologies

>>73266292
>I'm not saying its unrealistic in material terms, for the whole of the EU, but rather for any single stat
Which is why I explicitly split it up according to states.
I hope you agree that for the UK, France and Germany two aircraft carriers per country are both reasonable and achievable?
I hope you agree that for the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Portugal (if not Poortugal than maybe Poland or Sweden) one aircraft carrier per country is both reasonable and achievable? *Especially* in the absence of the EU individual countries should be spending more.

>The Germans would have the money better spent on building 12 super carriers and blowing up the rapefugees.
More realistically, having 12 carriers stationed near Cyprus would do a lot to help refugees in the region. Moreso than taking them into Germany. These floating fortresses are often used for humanitarian missions, as you may know.

>>73266529
Yes, each should have two, at the very least.
Britain has two
France has one
Cucks have none
I generally agree the middling countries should have one
Now sweden doesnt even have frigates or destoyers which is hilarious, Spain has one , and Italy has two in fact. Netherlands is very small though so i am not sure, but perhaps one.
Poland is poor
Norway should
Belgium is small and not very rich

>>73267878
>Netherlands is very small though so i am not sure, but perhaps one.
We have a solid enough economy and a decent navy that's actively involved across the world. Even if it's some 1950s hand-me-down, even a single aircraft carrier would greatly improve our ability to operate across the world. We're a small, irrelevant country that will never be a naval champion, but just a single outdated carrier would be better than nothing.

where do i find "Czech Wife SWAP" porn series , it is deleted from pornhub

>>73256121
>The real question is why doesn't the USMC use ramps on their Landing Helicopter Dock? Do they like taking off with less fuel and weapons?

>>73268277
>We're a small, irrelevant country that will never be a naval champion, but just a single outdated carrier would be better than nothing.
What exactly would you guys "do" with a aircraft carrier? I'm honestly not sure what the netherlands would get from one compared to other large ships.

>>73254516
wtf why
its useless for them, carriers are for cunts with money and who have a need for power projection, this is just a pointless money sink for czech

>>73270372
Self-defense and overseas interventions? A single aircraft carrier can change things a lot, they're the kings of the sea as things are right now.

>>73270372
Rub it in the faces of those that failed to get one, you know, like Ger....

Oh.

File: IMG_1434.jpg (143KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x853px

>>73254588
So, you guys are finally gonna replace this rickety piece of shit?

>>73254642
Why the ramp though?

What is the UK's obsession with VSTOL aircraft?

>>73254516
I guess some Czech politicians are going to have their Swiss bank accounts fuller.

I remember when Portugal and Greece bought some useless submarines that we do not need, and of course the politicians who bought them are suspects of receiving money.

My condolences for that tax payers money bad spent

i mean the danube is international waters, the czechs have access to it right?

For the record, this was an April's fools joke in our news. Didn't stop Hungarian news from reporting it as serious.

>>73254516
I see. Which aircraft will it operate?

>>73275451
>Didn't stop Hungarian news from reporting it as serious.
kek

>>73254516
Who do you want to attack? Carrier isnt an defensive thing, its purpose is to shoot someone somewhere far away.

>>73275991
see
>>73275451

File: 1487042614987.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

>>73255633
why use engines?

File: 1484698750856.jpg (56KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x720px

>>73275991
Slovak Tatra's. They killed more Czechs with flipflops than car accidents.

Also on completely unrelated issue. Will you please support our Donau-Oder-Elbe-Kanal project? We want to peddleboat to you and hug the shit out of you on lovely swan boats. It has to support waterline up to 11 m because of them.

>>73275451
>>73275965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afS0bpfSTwY

it's the orbán propaganda channel: fake news for dumb people 24/7

>>73264996
>94 billion euros on refugees
This is a joke, right?

>>73276573
It hurts but it's true. They could've used that money to bail out Greece, right? But instead of actually strengthening this collapsing union, they're ruining their own country.

>>73263454
Is that MegaBloks? I had the USS Kittyhawk by them. I bought it like 15 years ago or something. It's still there collecting dust in all its glory.

>>73274719

It just werks.

>>73264996
tbqh if you were to build multiple ships of the same class the cost would decrease the more of them you build. This new carrier for the RN is more or less a prototype, it's the largest warship ever built for them and some of its shit is brand new.

>>73268277
Maybe you should buy one of America's Nimitz ones when they phase it out in about 10 years.
Or perhaps ask BAE to build you an Elizabeth Class too....

ITT: ramps

>>73254588
DOUBLE RAMP
DOUBLE RAMP
O
U
B
L
E

I've seen the ramp irl, AMA

>>73264359
America spends far too much on their military, and that's mainly only because their entire political system relies on being able to grant defence contract jobs to certain areas. The idea that Germany needs two aircraft carriers is ridiculous, they have no strategic need for them

>>73254603
>ah yes slavic ""intelligence""
Czechs produce a lot of quality cars & vehicles.
How many cars do you produce in Shitgland?

>>73288326
One for Baltic sea, the other for Mediterranean. Baltic one to stop Russians, Mediterranean to stop the boats.

>>73270372
They have islands in the Caribbean, don't they? What if someone decides to grab them for the fuck of it like Argies back in the 80's?

>>73254516
you dont even have sea access

>>73291404
Their largest lake is only 45 acres. Supposedly by agreement they have access to Hamburg though.

File: GaliciayJuanCarlos.jpg (183KB, 1024x531px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x531px

>>73268277
Your country could easily build a carrier based on our LHD, like Australia or Turkey. It's been pretty succesful for such a big design and our ship makers already have experience working together (Rotterdam/Galicia class).

>>73291404
Fucking hell Sherlock Holmes has graced us with his presence.

>>73276207
Please tell me they reported it as a joke?

File: short tucano 2 0097.jpg (145KB, 1500x922px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1500x922px

>>73265999
tucano a cute

How do I learn about all these cool military things?

I want a carrier too, but it might cost our entire GDP to build one.

File: Czech naval victory.jpg (36KB, 321x379px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 321x379px

>>73291522
>>73291404
I'll have you know our navy even defeated Russians on their home turf

>>73292460
>might cost our entire GDP

All two potatoes?

>>73292460
http://www.janes.com/

>>73292499
But you took those ships from the Russians to begin with.

>>73292460

It depends on what your interest is.

What takes your fancy? Ships, aircraft or tanks?

>>73292740
So what? They were our ships after we took them.

File: tour(103).jpg (45KB, 912x513px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 912x513px

>>73268775
Torrents