Give me at least ONE reason your country still doesn't have

>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

>>77073904
Give me at least ONE reason your country has less than 10 active aircraft carriers.

File: 1468286572583.jpg (66KB, 420x420px)

66KB, 420x420px

Pacifist nations don't need such things.

>>77073904
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.

>>77073904
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.

>>77074061
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

File: 1499638812001.jpg (40KB, 485x492px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 485x492px

>>77073904
>>77073997

How do I escape Greece?

>>77073904
Literally the 21st century maginot line.

>>77073997
>Helicarriers are cheap to maintain
>Helicarriers
Is there something you want to share with the class, Hugo?

File: 1200px-USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)_Osprey_2.jpg (198KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1200x857px

>>77074170

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.

>>77074110
Pay denbts of course

File: british ramp aircraft carriers.jpg (235KB, 963x608px)

235KB, 963x608px

ramp posters OUT

>>77073904
We do.

I've been on it before.

>>77074103
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

>>77074607
I imagine there's more than a few people in Mexico who believe that the US intends to invade and annex Mexico.

File: 1499805745001.jpg (114KB, 522x531px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 522x531px

>>77074465

>>77074497
>anglo ship
>angled
>fat ship
>f(l)at
hmmm

>>77074673
Well there is evidence
>>77074607
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

>>77074777
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.

>>77073904
Baltic is the size of a large lake.

>>77073904
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

>>77073904
Literally impervious to naval invasion.

>>77074777
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: >>77074813

>>77073904
Just camping at the Malacca strait and sink approaching ships at the bottleneck with RPG-7 is cheaper.

File: 1497555881890.jpg (152KB, 723x1024px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 723x1024px

>>77073904
Aren't allowed to make one because our daddy forbits us to make one

>>77073904
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

File: souri71.jpg (21KB, 300x370px)

21KB, 300x370px

Japan is a carrier which does not sink.

File: 20100718010259.jpg (283KB, 1600x1099px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1600x1099px

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.

>>77073904
Montreux Convention.

We don't have carriers, that's an aircraft-carrying cruiser you see.

>>77074002
¡patria o muerte!

>>77073904
We're protected by daddy US.

>>77076619
>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.

>>77076889
We literally all hate you

>>77076619
fugg, didn't understand, sorry for that
>>77076917

>>77076930
Kek, no you don't. You'll come running here to play our bitch guard-dog the first sign that something is off.

>>77073904
>Give me at least ONE reason your country still doesn't have an aircraft carrier
we have no sea lmao

>>77074673
Nah it's just the Mexico is White guy.

>>77076988
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

File: US 7th Fleet.jpg (47KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x338px

>>77073904
Nice floating 1970s museum. Would be a shame if someone used it for target practice.

>>77077020
>climate change opening up best shipping routes
>bountiful natural resources
Nobody would attack us because the states will come to fight our battles.

>>77077055
>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.

File: 1468673858857.jpg (79KB, 664x764px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 664x764px

>>77073904
>Give me at least ONE reason your country still doesn't have an aircraft carrier

File: image.jpg (300KB, 746x655px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 746x655px

>>77077055
You're right. No one touches our damn toque

>>77073904
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?

>>77077141
You already have one, why are you talking like you don't?

File: url.jpg (32KB, 640x480px)

32KB, 640x480px

>>77077180
>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

>>77077141
We won't attack Russia first.

>>77077180
--> >>77076619

File: Russian allies.png (35KB, 1357x617px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1357x617px

Great group of thriving First World countries there.

File: 14791413990450.png (84KB, 299x288px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 299x288px

>>77077275
That's what someone who will would say.

>>77077275
third reich said exactly the same, and even sighed a pact

americunts dont let us have a military because they are fags

File: B5Drr7rCYAA5TwC.jpg (209KB, 1024x683px)

209KB, 1024x683px

>>77073904
But we do, also pls buy a new one

>>77074530
Oi vey, buy more and be a good goi

>>77077406
>>77077490
We don't need your oil fields or land. We already brought Alaska :^)

File: 1498062382334.jpg (20KB, 250x313px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x313px

>>77077344
>Russian allies.png
>Russian
>allies

>>77077788
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.

>>77078137
I'm amazed too. Subs would conjure up unwelcome images of U-boats torpedoing hospital ships.

>>77078137
Sweden btw.

>>77073904
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...

>>77073904
Because our papa america will protect our country

>>77078230
Really? Why not?

>>77073904
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

File: image.jpg (93KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x532px

>>77078700
Neat, you made money for a man made fish habitat.

>>77078767
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.

File: thfy.jpg (368KB, 1440x882px)

368KB, 1440x882px

>>77078928
>being this jelly
Kek we can't all be defenseless ex-British colonies.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 588x439px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 588x439px

>>77078744
Why don't you guys just crank up the defense budget?

>>77078794
Where there's profits there are the Dutch.

>>77079008
Yeah, we should just crank up all the budgets to make everything better

>>77078970
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.

>>77073997
I guess you can always waste Paraguay again. :^)

File: 1304416938091.jpg (114KB, 333x331px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 333x331px

>>77079240
>Singapore
>military
Is that what you're calling your mall cops now?

>>77079008

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k99XVpBLIKA%20%20

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSQiG07PGPk

>>77080000
Nice repeating digits.

We don't need them.

>>77080874
overkill for stopping refugee boats

>>77077703
We have one of the best navies in the world right now (third in Yurop too).
How.

>>77078344
Sweden has a quite petite population. Also they aren't a warlike people anymore.
>>77078970
Is that the aircraft carrier than we sold to your navy? Cute. What aircraft are those desu?

>>77073904
Aircraft carriers are obsolete

File: HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet_001.jpg (701KB, 2304x1536px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 2304x1536px

>>77081103
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.

>>77077679
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.

>>77081903
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.

File: Izumo-1.jpg (2MB, 4512x3008px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4512x3008px

>>77081758
True.
What about a """"helicopter destroyer"""". I heard that those are totally different

>>77082099
Isn't the deck too weak to handle jet exhaust?

File: HMS QE-sea-trials.jpg (390KB, 1638x2048px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1638x2048px

>>77073997
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.

>>77074037
>less than 10
Because it's fewer, not less.

>>77073904
We use OFWs don't worry

>>77082570
Yeah, because we totally honor our obligations to our allies ;)

File: 76794790.jpg (14KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 246x205px

>>77082748

>>77073904

We are landlocked and neutral.

>>77077770
And texas, and the Dakotas.
+ lots of other untapped protected oil and gas reserves.

The US is truly blessed.

File: Checking.jpg (52KB, 689x708px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 689x708px

>>77080000

big daddy usa pls give us one pls

>>77073904
No reason for it

>>77081063

It's you or Italy.

>>77074043
top fucking kek

File: swiss-aircraft-carrier.jpg (45KB, 600x342px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x342px

:)

>>77080874
we have two aircraft carriers bro...

>>77073904
>Why my country doesn't have an aircraft carrier
It's pathetic.

>Why my country shouldn't have an aircraft carrier
The age of the aircraft carrier is over. Nowadays they're almost entirely vanity projects. They're incredibly expensive, require thousands to staff, demands quite some input in material and technology and in spite of that are relatively easily sunk by modern navies. This puts them in the "too valuable to lose" club, because the loss of even a single aircraft carrier would cause so much backlash among the political class and the masses alike, that you're better off using more "lesser" ships for the same cost in both money and manpower.

>>77073904
Es ist nicht Zeit für Reich! (not yet)

>>77073904

Any foreseeable target our airforce could have would more easily be reached by just flying there directly.

>>77078970
A FUCKING RAMP

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

R
A
M
P

>>77092424
Carriers still have their roles. It's why Russia is still putting theirs to use and why China is building some right now

>>77078970
why you need aircraft carrier when you can just backstab people

>>77073904
carriers are obsolete shit from times of WW2

>>77092621
>Carriers still have their roles.
Yeah, when your naval supremacy in a region is unchallenged. At that point they're either overkill or simply support for your land army. As actual naval units they have close to no use. If you can secure airports in the region where you're active they even stop being useful as support. They're situationally useful vanity projects rather than a must-have centerpiece of the navy like in WW2.

>>77092713
They're essential if you still want your navy to be classed as a blue water one, and for countries with no or very few airbases situated around the world and want to project power (China, Russia), they're essential.

>>77081063
>The fourth largest economy in europe has the fourth largest navy in the continent

It really makes you think.

File: russwar.jpg (64KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 960x720px

>>77092621
Cavitation sub is much better than any carrier

>>77092884
https://youtu.be/7I64F5QQ6VY

>>77092827
>So great is the impact of larger vessels as a deterrent, they’re often used as a geopolitical chess piece. American governments have, since the second world war, moved aircraft carriers around to demonstrate American resolve.
>The particular benefits of using carriers in this way are that they operate on the high seas, where permission is not needed from other countries.
>Indeed, since modern US carriers are large and imposing they “show the flag” to great effect due to their sheer size alone. Equally, it is often argued that had the Royal Navy had two full sized carriers in 1982 it is more than possible that Argentina would not have attempted to take the Falklands in the first place.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-class-supercarriers-represent-powerful-strategic-deterrent/

I agree with this.

There is no reason. We should have at least one carrier for the east and west coast.

File: 2355141.jpg (225KB, 800x499px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 800x499px

>>77093714
I heard you wanted to get a couple carriers, we have tons of experience with anglo customers. Buy pls

>>77074043
>pacifist
>Japan

Pick one

>>77073904
Aircraft carriers are for projecting power,and our archenemy is close,so an aircraft carrier is really useless,it would just be something nice to look at,nothing more.heli carriers would make much more sense in our situation

>>77077042
Like a certain cargo ship?
:^)

File: NAe-São-Paulo-A12.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

We had one from France, but my country economy is broke, ship was breaking and maintenance was expensive, so they decommissioned.

File: Tamandaré 3D.jpg (164KB, 1337x877px)

164KB, 1337x877px

>>77082454

The Navy will check it in August.

It's a nice buy, but our main problem now are lack of Frigates and Corvettes, and our current ones are already old as shit.

There is already an ongoing project for new Corvettes, but i'm afraid of them buying the Ocean and not having enough money for the Corvettes.

Also i heard RN are against us buying it.

>>77096257
You'll get HMS Ocean at a knock-down price probably.

>>77096305
>but our main problem now are lack of Frigates and Corvettes

This is the problem with the RN also, too few frigates (currently 13 ageing ones) and only 6 destroyers. They've only now got around to cutting the steel for the new Type 26 frigate, there'll be 8 of them and 5 of the lower end Type 31 - we need more tbqh.

File: NDM Bahia.jpg (210KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1280x853px

>>77096398

Our Navy always been the most retarded of the three forces. They wanked a POS carrier for more than 10 years and just recently they woke the fuck up and ditched the carrier and put money on shit we need.

Now there's the Ocean and i'm afraid that becomes another São Paulo.

Also we already have the Bahia which it was the first time in a decade that they took a good decision. Ship is neat.