Navy general thread

>carries 18 helicopters
>only costs twice as much as an LCS

>>32076841
I'm not sure why, but defence procurements in Japan are ridiculously expensive.

File: Izumo-3.jpg (104KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 768x512px

HARDWARE

>Propulsion
COGAG, two shafts
4 × GE/IHI LM2500IEC gas turbine

>Speed 30 kn (56 km/h)

>Complement
970 including crew and troops

>Sensors and processing systems
ATECS (advanced technology command system)
OYQ-12 combat direction system
OPS-50 AESA radar
OPS-28 surface-search radar
OQQ-23 bow sonar

>Electronic warfare & decoys
NOLQ-3D-1 EW suite
Mark 36 SRBOC
Anti-torpedo mobile decoy (MOD)
Floating acoustic jammer (FAJ)

>Armament
2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × SeaRAM CIWS

>Aircraft complement
7 ASW helicopters and 2 SAR helicopters
28 aircraft maximum

>>32076920
>>32076828

These ships kind of fascinate me. They are "pure" helicopter carriers. Not LHA's. They are not designed for amphibious operations, although they could be used to deploy troops via Osprey. This is the kind of thing that the USA should be building.

>>32076920
Could the Japs jerryrig some VLS cells in a pinch?

File: izumo-23-300x225.jpg (28KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x225px

CONTROVERSY

Controversy surrounds the JMSDFs adoption of the Izumo class helicopter destroyer. China has been particularly outspoken against it, and internal pacifists have been vocal against the Izumo.

File: image.jpg (47KB, 800x553px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x553px

>>32076828
I call dibs on this bad girl

>>32077025
They did on the Hyuga, but for some reason they decided not to.

>>32076875
They build everything from scratch. Japanese prefer Japanese labor.

File: Izumo belly.jpg (54KB, 634x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 634x480px

>>32076937
Some have called the Izumo, a disguised aircraft carrier, claiming that it is able to deploy F35Bs.

I'm in Singapore,and wish my govt will possibly purchase the recently decommissioned Spanish aircraft carrier, or maybe a soon to be decommissioned LHA

>>32077030

People need to stop posting that shitty photoshopped image. The Izumo is not nearly that big.

File: Japanese_destroyer_Harukaze_1934.jpg (15KB, 600x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x200px

This bitch could hit 40 knots and carried 4 main guns and 6 torpedo tubes almost 100 years ago.

if the Japanese ever get uncucked from their minor losses in the past they will absolutely devastate any Western naval technology in a matter of months, they have simply been beaten into submission but they are the clear leaders in any technology when actually able to build it

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4178x2783px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4178x2783px

>>3207707
>type:DDG
>weight:5100 tons
>Length: 129 m (423.2 ft)
>Beam: 15 m (49.2 ft)
>Draught: 4.42 m (14.5 ft)

There is nothing wrong with japan keeping its carrier tradition alive.

File: 800px-Novik(EM)2.jpg (43KB, 800x466px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x466px

>>32077143
Barely surpasses the 10 years older Novik.

>>32077243
>Novik.

oh you mean the ship the Japanese captured from the retarded white Africans without a fight

>>32077030
who the fuck are the Chinese to complain about a sovereign nation building a warship?

File: image.jpg (245KB, 958x755px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 958x755px

>>32077219
>Propulsion:
COGOG, 2 shaft
2 × Allison 570-KF cruise gas turbines (5.6 MW (7,500 hp))
2 × Pratt & Whitney FT4A-2 boost gas turbines (37 MW (50,000 hp))

>Speed: 29 kn (54 km/h; 33 mph)
>Range: 4,500 nmi (8,300 km; 5,200 mi)

>Complement: 280
Sensors and
processing systems:
Signaal AN/SPQ 501 DA-08 radar
Signaal LW-08 AN/SPQ 502 radar
SQS-510 hull sonar
SQS-510 VDS sonar

>Armament:
32 × VLS, Standard SM-2MR Block IIIA SAMs
1 × 76 mm (3 in)/62 OTO Melara
6 × 12.75 in (324 mm) tubes firing Mark 46 Mod 5 torpedoes
1 × Phalanx CIWS (Block 1B)
6 × M2 Browning machine guns

>Aircraft carried:
2 × CH-124 Sea King helicopters

>>32077268
Yes, that picture I posted is definitely a cruiser, and 1922-10=1900.

>>32077413
How sure are you
Do you have proof

>>32077120
Wasnt Angola buying the decommissioned Spanish carrier?

Do you guys think Trump would support the nips in taking the panties off thier head and acting like the big boys they should be?

>>32077695

This shitty meme needs to fucking die. The US has not placed ANY restrictions on Japan's military. NONE. Trump can't lift the restrictions on Japan because there are no restrictions on Japan.

>>32078006
Wrong WW2 the victors places laws on Japan So they can't go to war only have a defence force

>>32078047

Those laws are written into their own constitution, which they have complete control over. There are NO restrictions imposed by the United States. NONE. ZERO.

>>32078006
More proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lihnKL1cc

>>32078072
Which we sign

It's like when your dad sign off a permission slip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzV_Oo3CFj8

>>32078095

>Which we sign

No, we don't. Japan has 100% total control over their own constitution. The USA has not imposed any restrictions on them. Furthermore, Japan already has a well-funded, quite respectable navy.

>As of 2016, the JMSDF operates a total of 154 vessels (including minor auxiliary vessels), including; four helicopter destroyers (or helicopter carriers), 29 destroyers, 14 small destroyers (or frigates), six destroyer escorts (or corvettes), 19 attack submarines, 30 mine countermeasure vessels, six patrol vessels, three landing ship tanks, 8 training vessels and a fleet of various auxiliary ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_ships

That's a good navy. So stop with this constant bullshit that somehow Japan is being oppressed by the big bad USA and they can't have a "real" military because of it. That's 100% false. Japan has a very capable navy force. There is ALWAYS room for improvement, but what they have now is pretty good.

>>32078144
You obviously Retarded may you ger help soon
I bet you never even saw the vidoes which show all the holes in your argument

>>32078144
P.s have a lot of ships and such does not mean you can go to war its defense

File: parasite.jpg (34KB, 461x439px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x439px

>>32078184

>have a lot of ships and such does not mean you can go to war

>>32077132
Probably a jap trying to compensate. Or a chink trying to stirr up a shitstorm

>>32078366

The Izumo is around 245 meters long, whereas the Nimitz-class is over 330 meters long. There is no way that image is real.

>>32077273
"muh nanking"

>>32078184
>>32078165
What the fuck are you talking about you stupid nigger. Japan's navy could bitchslap most navies in the world whitout breaking a sweat.

>>32079367
>implying

They have no anti ship missiles, no naval aircraft, no CIWS and ships dating from the 70s. Really the only armaments they have are naval guns, and that shit is beyond obsolete. Any other navy with a comperable budget and 1/3 the ships could easily defeat them

Why did Australia buy LHD's with ramps?

>>32079427

having some older ships isn't that unusual for most navies, and the number of SSKs they have would give pause to any naval opponent.

>>32079661

Because the Spanish won the bid against the French Mistral, and they didn't want to pay to have it removed from the design. If there was a non-ramped design available that better met their specifications, I guess they would have gone with that.

Leaving themselves open to adapting it to operate STOVL aircraft in future, or during some theoretical South-East Asian conflict, hosting USMC F-35Bs, isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

>>32077273
who the fuck are the american to complain about a sovereign nation building a ballistic mssile programme?

>>32079896
but western nations are gud bois who dindu nuffin wrong.

If you want to look to who black people learnt their exceptionalism from look no further than the jews and their anglo allies.

>>32077143
Seems decent, but what sets it apart from contemporary large destroyers?

>>32077120

Honestly, Singapore isn't likely to need such a vessel in a high-intensity military conflict, it would be used for things like; anti-piracy, disaster relief, and joint exercises to build relationships with other country's armed forces.

For that purpose Singapore might as well use its civilian shipyards to do their own take on HMS Ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)

A ~20,000 t displacement LPH built to civilian standards. It keeps Singaporean shipyards in work, and gives the Singaporean government something they can use to contribute internationally. All for a very modest sum of money.

File: 1458903193009.jpg (2MB, 4604x2052px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4604x2052px

Frigate with the most aesthetic appeal coming through

There's a lot of butblasted sushi lovers itt. Japan doenst have a capiable blue water navy but quite possibly in the near future it will.

>>32079952
Capable**

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32076828
Glorious soviet helicopter carriers

File: HTMS Chakri Naruebet.jpg (754KB, 2244x1500px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 2244x1500px

Why don't the Thais just get rid of her since they don't use her ever? They don't have anymore aircraft to deploy from her, and she only leaves port once a month for a few hours and that's it. Might as well sell her to the Indians or Chinese.

>>32078144
>The USA has not imposed any restrictions on them.

Except for the part where we made them include a clause in their constitution, which was written by us, declaring that the Emperor was not a living god.

>>32077273
Idk, I'm racially chinese but I'm all for JMSDF or JN aircraft carrier.

>>32077684
Idk. Had no idea.
>>32078006
True. Technically, the constitution limits them. If the commies and libtards are gone, they could start re arming.
>>32078375
>>32078366
>>32077132
Sorry. I just took it, and didn't bother to examine it.

>>32079935
Indonesia's recent armament procurement is quite significant, and they've been aggressive towards us in the past. What exactly are the differences between commercial standards of such a ship and a military standard ship ?
>>32079996
Ego

>>32080047
>racially
>chinese

pick one

>>32080055
I'm not nationally chinese (PRC), but ethnically chinese (Han), nationally Singaporean.

>>32080057
>ethnically
>chinese (Han)

pick one

>>32079996
>>32080052

The king just recently passed. Getting rid of this is like getting rid of a memento since the ship was named for the Chakri dynasty.

Still have to have that year long mourning period.

>>32080057
Is Chinese Singaporean Chinese or Singaporean?

>>32080052

An amphibious warship / light carrier is unlikely to be much use against Indonesian hostility. The most important things for Singapore in that case would be the superiority of its air force (which is good American equipment), and the ability of its navy to protect shipping (ASW, mine-countermeasures, ability to stop AShMs & take out small missile ships). If Singapore is worried about Indonesia, I would think buying some P-8 and maybe some more Formidable frigates would be more important for its navy.

Civilian standards in this case meant a shorter service life (less robust), less redundancy, less integration of military equipment, and general low specifications (not very fast, not top of the line technology). perhaps they were too cheap, but despite its short service life it has taken part in numerous military operations and exercises all over the world. Considering a LPH for Singapore would be more of a diplomatic instrument than a military one, building a modest one themselves would probably be for the best.

Also, it lets them kick the can down the road instead of committing to something costly and long term. If they end up wanting to get something bigger with the option of operating STOVL aircraft in 15-20 years when Singapore is procuring its F-35s, they can.

>>32079427
I'm Chinese, and I'm telling u u hsve no idea what you're talking about

>>32079896
BURNNNNNN

>>32079427
>They have no anti ship missiles, no naval aircraft, no CIWS and ships dating from the 70s. Really the only armaments they have are naval guns, and that shit is beyond obsolete.

I'm hoping this is a troll post, even basic googling can show you just how wrong you are.

>>32076828
Big deal... constructio has already began on Chinas first type 075LHD, a 45000 ton monster. Step up senpai.

File: IMG_0350.jpg (77KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 620x388px

How do think the Grand Fleet would fair in a surprise attack against a US carrier fleet in the English Channel?

>thinking emp and heavy armor would hold up okay to an extent though i'm a idiot

>>32080081
Singaporean

>>32080126
Thanks man. This is good stuff. I would think that the LHA/Light carrier would allow SG to dominate the waves, and prevent any amphibious landings, which would halt the invasion altogether.

>>32080271
They wouldn't even be able to see the Carrier fleet, before the carrier fleet detects it. Then, fighters will be scrambled, and they'll all get killed by ASMs.

>>32079948
>not the formidable class
>Aesthetic

Pick one.

Why did the formidable class become smaller than the LaFayette?

>>32079963
A whole lot of ship for very little aviation. That said, I do kind of like them.

>>32079996
Such a small carrier has very little usage compared to its operating costs.

>>32079888
>>32079661
Is there an option for small nations like Singapore to have a carrier or LHD to use STOVL aircraft, without ramps? I would think catapaults are incredibly expensive and shit.

>>32080309

A LHA/light carrier is not really that useful for the purpose of deterring an invasion, the only reason Japan wants large helicopter carriers as shown by OP is because it is a large country, with many distributed islands and huge territorial waters / EEZ.

Singapore's area of interest is far smaller, and can be covered with aircraft based in Singapore itself. For the purpose of securing the surrounding seas, Singapore is better off investing in long range strike aircraft (its F-15E are very capable strike aircraft), and capable maritime patrol / AEW for its air force. For its navy SSKs and capable missile/ASW frigates are useful. The government of Singapore have done this, and they seem to have a rational approach to defence.

My concern would be that Indonesia more or less geographically surrounds Singapore, with Sumatra on one side and Kalimantan on the other, with numerous smaller islands in between. There would be too much risk for a large surface vessel to operate far from Singapore if Indonesia were hostile. If it can't safely operate far from Singapore in those circumstances, you may as well fly them from Singapore instead of risking an unlucky missile/torpedo/mine taking out an expensive warship and large numbers of helicopters.

>>32080464
Makes sense.Why not nuclear subs, for loiter and ballisitc missile attack ? A thermobaric stri,e would be a good deterrent.

>>32080463

STOVL (by which you presumably mean the F-35B) operated on a small ship without a ramp is going to have serious payload issues. a 20-30,000 t ship without a ramp is going to have a flight deck too short for purpose, frankly (there is a diagram illustrating this concept with the Harrier that is often posted on /k/)

If you're buying a 40-60,000 t non-ramp, non-CATOBAR carriers with a super long deck hoping to save money, your calculations have gone wrong somewhere. Buy something modest in size and either go full helicopter (no ramp), or get one with a ramp and accept the hit to helicopter operational space for the extra flexibility in being able to operate STOVL. The third option is to buy a non-ramp, but with provision to add a ramp during a mid-life refit if it is needed, to which I say, make up your fucking mind already.

>>32080126
Singapore would be much better off with a corvette fleet
If you're interested have a look at Russia's buyam class corvettes

>>32080126
Forgot link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyan-class_corvette

>>32080486

Singapore is a relatively small economy, surrounded by shallow water, nuclear submarines are very expensive and very big. The opportunity cost of procuring them doesn't make sense, considering it would require cuts elsewhere in defence.

Singapore has often sought to emulate Israel militarily, as both have several things in common (both are in a politically unpredictable region, and both are small countries without depth to absorb an attack). While Israel does have (conventionally powered) submarines with cruise missile deterrent, these are nuclear armed. Singapore will not get nuclear weapons for a host of reasons, and so cannot follow this patch. That said, conventional submarines are very useful. as a deterrent against enemy shipping approaching Singapore, and if they don't have to cross the open ocean, modern AIP submarines have suprisingly long endurance at low-speeds.

If Singapore wants a deterrent, I agree Israel is an example to follow, but I suggest they emulate the Israeli Air Force's capability at striking its neighbours while defeating air defence systems, and Israel's missile defences against a possible conventional first strike.

>>32080032
They have the power to amend their constitution, they just don't, and quite frankly if Macarthur had written me a constitution that good I wouldn't either, the only thing it lacks that I'd want is the right to bear arms, and I'd definitely keep Article 9, though I'd amend it to clarify the issue of the JSDF.

File: 20160211ad8588365_095.jpg (2MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2400px

Just look at this manlet Indonesian Officer

>>32080883
They would absolutely destroy any of their neighbors, especially Australia, this is the belief of Indonesians

File: p06003_001.gif (525KB, 700x1136px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 700x1136px

>>32080894
>Indonesians actually believe this
Top kek

>>32076937
Pure helicopter carriers are my favorite kind of surface ship

>>32076937
>>32081397

So you think that the USA should have gone for an advanced replacement for the Iwo Jima class LPH?

Honestly, with the importance of helicopters in ASW and countering mines, and the lacking of this capability in the USN, I can see that making sense.

As a non-American, it seems strange to watch US warships get inexorably bigger. Flight III Burkes, Zumwalt, Virginia, Wasp & America class all have greater displacement than the ships they replace, and the LCS have turned out as an expensive and under-armed way to do the small vessel operations.

A 15-20,000 t LPH to take on those ASW, anti-mine, anti-piracy etc, roles makes financial sense to me.

How much has the design of aircraft carriers changed between WWII and now? I.e. other warships have gone from armored ships with cannon to primarily missile carriers and missile defense for carriers; have there any similar radical shifts for the aircraft carriers themselves?

>>32080894
How on earth did they reach that conclusion?

>>32076937
The US has the wasp class carriers that are bigger versions of a helicopter carrier.

File: Surabaya.png (91KB, 274x698px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 274x698px

>>32082160

Because pic related is their idea of a battle to be celebrated as a great moment in their history.

Go figure...

>>32076937
It's an ASW ship , with command & control capacities and transport ship.

>>32082298
Try to use the Wasp class carrier as flagship of your blue water fleet.

There is no counterpart to the Japanese helicopter destroyer.

Other "flat tops" aren't capable of operating within a naval fleet.

File: 1477298377265.gif (488KB, 200x256px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 200x256px

Holy shit this thread is gold
It's 30% Buttblasted Chicoms
30% pro American milatarists that just want another armed island wall between them and rice land
And 30% shitposts / occasional Ivan

>>32082014

>have there any similar radical shifts for the aircraft carriers themselves?

Nuclear propulsion would be the big one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>32084134

Already was addressed in previous threads, but the Royal Navy will have two missiles with AshM capability currently and during the time that Harpoon and Sea Suka are retired.

>>32081776
In the future, it'd be best if such a vessel could act as a "mothership" to drones, helicopters, and special forces. You can design and build a ship like that pretty damn cheaply, all it needs is a large flight deck, hanger, and mission space. In theory to keep costs down it could be built to civilian standards, and armament could be minimal, as it's utility would lie in what it carries.

>>32082014
Catapults and arrester gear, angled decks, and nuclear propulsion. Plus now we've got things like automated munitions handling such as in the QE Class.

>>32084193
What will those be?

>>32084483
Not that guy, but there will be SPEAR 3. Not sure what else.

>>32084483

They're already in service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Multirole_Missile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(missile_family)

>>32084566
>>32084607
Thanks

>>32084607
Neither are in service

Also
>that range

kek

>>32084682

Take note that CAMM isn't really a AShM, but can be used on surface targets. Regardless of the warhead size, if you hurl anything at Mach 3 it's going to fuck something up for sure.

>>32084785

Why don't you bother reading before posting?

>Lightweight Multirole Missile: In service - 2015
>CAMM: In service - 2016

The range is fine for they are supposed to be.

File: image.jpg (34KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 443x332px

>>32076828
Wish the NATO vs CCCP days were still around simply for the cool experimental warships
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine

>>32084870
CAAM isn't in service on any RN platforms until 2021, I believe. I don't know why it says 2016.

He does have a point, the RN is lacking in anti surface capability, even if it does have options.

>>32084996

There's some confusion around it, because as we speak HMS Argyll is actually finishing off her refit for it and HMS Westminster has already finished with her refit.

So it's a little grey.

That said, I haven't stated that the current situation for the RN is ideal, but hardly shit creek and no paddle.

>>32080790
Commies and libtards don't want to.

>>32082513
That has been a disturbing trend in /k/ lately. Messed up threads. There's been only a handful of untouched threads.

Sometimes I wonder if someone is deliberately doing this and collecting material for his/her social studies thesis, or something.

/k/ is so damn easy to troll.

>>32080883
>>32080894
Ya. A ton of Indos think they're hot shit and that they're some ubermensch of sorts.

>>32078319
>>32079367
Retards

>>32077075
What's that and why's she special ?

>>32086251
I don't know what he means, but that's an Iroquois class destroyer, Canadian navy.

I think that one may be HMCS Huron.

Not a bad class of vessel overall, one (Athabaskan) is still in "commission" today, although her engines go on strike daily.

>>32077143
>minor losses

>>32077273

Who else are the Japanese realistically going to use such a vessel against, pry tell?

Hell, now that relations between the US and Russia are thawing again, realistically China is the only major power at risk of being focused down by another major power. The global economy doesn't care if China's laborers are under native or foreign rule so long as they continue toiling.

>>32079888
They could have got four mistrals for the same total crew requirement and had still had plenty of money left over.

Which leads me to think..
>Leaving themselves open to adapting it to operate STOVL aircraft in future, or during some theoretical South-East Asian conflict, hosting USMC F-35Bs, isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
..that you are bang on the money.

>>32077075
>rusting away
>propulsion system completely seized up

>>32088785
>her engines go on strike daily.
That must be the French engineering at work.

>>32077273

>A country built on bullying its neighbors has a neighbor that suddenly builds more and more ships for its own defense force.

GEE I WONDER HOW THIS COULD POSE A PROBLEM TO THE CHINESE

>>32077109
That's part of it. The other part is that they don't export any defence material at all, so the entire budget of the japanese defence market comes from japan.

>>32089930

There will be precedent for the US option as well, after the USMC has spent a few years operating the F-35B and V-22 out of the QE-carriers, they should be able to use this experience operating out of an allies ship to do the same with the Australians.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/british-naval-commander-wants-us-marine-aviation-on-aircraft-carrier

Considering that the USA and Australia are cooperating in South East Asia already, this would be a natural extension of that.

>>32089930
The australians may also want to have a ship fully compatible with the osprey as the USA is their main ally, and as far as I know it doesnt fit in the Mistrals Hangar or elevator

>>32078006
>This shitty meme needs to fucking die. The US has not placed ANY restrictions on Japan's military. NONE.

US wrote their constitution. It bans Japan from having military forces. Quickly after that Korean war started and MacArthur regretted the constitution he wrote for Japs as he needed to take troops from Japan to fight the war. Japanese complained a bit when they formed their totally not military.

>>32080047
>i'm racially chinese

>all for anything even remotely Japanese

I'm Australian, and for some reason I don't hate Japan at all.

I guess they just have great PR

and anime I guess.

But seriously, didn't think there was such a thing as a non-anti-japanese chinese person.

Thought it was just part of the commie indoc from primary school or something.

>>32090945
>US wrote their constitution.
US didn't write their constitution. American lawyers did by request of the Japanese. This is something that happened quite frequently in modern history because American constitutional law is the most developed in the world for obvious reasons. But you are probably too dumb to realize that not everything that Americans do is an official act of the United States that is forced on other countries.

>>32082375
nice to see chicom shill here
its an act of defense you mong
and significant military budget aimed for defending our natuna islands bordering with south china sea since a few clash with chinese coast guard this year,
and we have enough islands better aimed that worry to the dragoon from the north due to south east asian countries fall one by one into chinese sphere if you have nationalism feeling toward your country not toward your kind

>>32090945

Japan has complete control over their own constitution. They are free to amend it, or re-interpret it, as they desire with no interference from the US. There are no arms restrictions on Japan.

>>32076937
U S S A M E R I C A
S
S

A
M
E
R
I
C
A

>>32091359

Oh dear, wrong.

Indos are notoriously bad at spotting real chicoms, hence why apart from Surabaya, the rest of Indonesian military history is shooting unarmed villagers as communists / separatists and utterly failing doing the Konfrontasi (MALAYSIA BOLEH :DDDD )

>>32080052
>>32080126
i would fill the chakri with asw helicopeter, as many as possible

>>32091381

The America has a top speed of 20 knots. It's too slow to be considered a real carrier. It's an amphibious assault ship. The Izumo has a top speed of over 30 knots.

File: 49eca83dgw1f89jq0aab4j21hc0u0jux.jpg (31KB, 690x388px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 690x388px

>>32077273
Chinese here.

More targets for based ASBM to sink.

>>32091581
I can't wait until the Three Gorges Dam gets bombed and the Yangzhe turns into the world's largest rice cooker. :^)

>>32091616
Cant wait until Japan and Korea and all US puppets turn up into smoke and China releases millions of tons of irradiated dirty salt over prime US agricultural fields via space weapons.

>>32091623
Have your 50¢

File: IMG_3366.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

That front cwis needs to go

>>32077684
Not anymore now that oil took a hit a year ago.

>>32091930

I think it looks cute.

Did you take that photo yourself?

>>32085495
Well that ain't our problem.

File: IMG_3367.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32091954
yea

File: JS_Kurama_in_the_Pacific_Ocean_02.jpg (2MB, 2700x1718px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x1718px

>>32076828

Before the Izumo and Hyuga destroyers were made, this is what Japan used as a precursor. Notice that the entire ship seems to be built around 1 large hangar. It has two 5-in guns and a box of anti-submarine rockets for self-defense. It is intended specifically for anti-submarine patrols.

Wish more carriers were like the Clemenceau class, with the guns at the side of the ship. Would be great missile defence/ point defense

File: jeanne-arc-0021[1].jpg (501KB, 1024x619px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1024x619px

>>32092203
>8x100mm AA guns
The absolute madmen

The Jeanne d'Arc wasn't bad in that regard either (not to mention absolutely beautiful)

>>32092622
I find this ship to be rather sexy .......... Idk what it is about it ......

>>32076828

How where battleship groups structured back in the day? Did they have lots of smaller escorts or were they expected to go it alone?

File: image46.jpg (50KB, 647x430px)

50KB, 647x430px

You guys should see this video of a Seahawk helicopter landing on a small Danish ship in extremely rough seas, pretty impressive.

https://ing.dk/artikel/video-se-flyvevaabnets-nye-helikopter-lande-15-meter-hoeje-boelger-188508

Maybe a bit off topic, but still navy I guess