Why don't other countries make good aircraft carriers?

>>32804720
they don't have the budget.

>>32804720
Healthcare and schools are more important to European coastal nations.

File: 1309133694084.jpg (628KB, 1512x1080px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1512x1080px

Several things.

1) The US has been the largest economy since in the world since Ulysses Grant. It remains the largest importer of goods, 2nd largest exporter of goods, and has a GDP of 18 trillion dollars. It spends more on military expenditures than the next several nations combined. And aircraft carriers are expensive as hell.

2. Since WWII, US Navy strategy is centered around carriers. As a result, the the have the second largest air force in the world. They need those carriers. That's also why the Soviet Union in the last, and China today, developed weapons and strategies to counteract carrier force projection.

3. The UK used to have carriers that could launch F-4s and Buccaneers. The French still have a baby carrier, which launches the Rafale and used launch Super Etendards and a Crusaders.

4. Why is the Gerald Ford in the image? It's not even deployed yet. Nimitz is awesome, and Enterprise was a pretty good test model until they realize eight submarine reactors was a bad idea.

>>32804720
Not really a "need" right now. Freedom of Navigation is already assured for every Nation right now through other nations Naval Power. If a "certain" Naval Power were to suddenly go full isolationist then there would be an issue and other Countries would need to upgrade/enhance their Naval capabilities to fill the gaps. Other wise pockets and gaps in coverage would occur and we would see an increase in Piracy and/or Blocking/Restriction of Maritime traffic by individual nations.

>>32804720
Because you have an arbitrary definition of good.

>>32804720

no one needs too or wants too.

carriers are ridiculously hard to maintain compared to most any other ship and for them to be useful in large scale warfare you need fuck tons of ships to protect them.

>>32805373
>too

>>32805303
in this instance good was shorthand for American

>>32804720

Simple answer: other countries don't have the same requirements for power projection as the US.

Slightly related answer: The costs for sustained a USN CBG is INSANE, the USN just about gets by (or not) with matching its deployment drumbeat.

>>32805303

this

File: Charles-de-Gaulle-aircraft-carrier.jpg (951KB, 1880x1795px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 1880x1795px

>>32804720
Surely not in the same class as a Nimitz or Ford but at least it can launch AEW aircraft.

>>32804720
Less concerned about a 2nd rate economic empire and more with the welfare of their citizens

>>32807019

Has shit AEW availability though. Only 2 on board (3rd is in deep maintenance), but has a less than 50% availability rate, so there are gaps in the AEW when none is in the air.

And it's the only ship in their navy that can launch AEW. So if the CdG isn't present or isn't deployable, then they just lost their entire AEW, period.

It's basically an ego trip that hoped for a second carrier. When that was cancelled, it was the deathknell for effective French carrier ops.

Again, fuck the French Air Force, sucking up all the fucking budget when the navy needs it more.

>>32807083
How do other navies who don't have any AEW aircraft on their carriers deal with this?

>>32804720
The QE-class should be good when they are operational.

>>32807181
they hide behind the USN

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

3MB, 3910x2598px

we make carrier carriers

>>32804720
Other countries don't fight wars.

>>32807181

By using rotary AEW. For non-US navies, it's the superior option, because unless you have the numbers of the USN then fixed wing AEW is almost impossible to keep in the air often enough to give 24/7 coverage due to only owning 2-3 of the things, and not enough carriers to be around to actually have AEW where you need it, when you need it. The Hawkeye is a better AEW aircraft, but if you can't get the thing in the fucking air then it doesn't matter how good it is. They'll have at most a single one up at a time, and then periods with none, so its inconsistent and singular. With rotary, that could be persistent and with multiple at a time in different areas.

Case in point, France is going to lose ALL of their naval AEW for 2 years when CdG goes in for refuelling. All of it. Period. The navy will be 100% without any AEW.

If they had rotary AEW, then they could still operate it off Mistrals.

1.) Budget

2.) Experience

>>32804720
Everyone else is just shit. American exceptionalism at play.

>>32804720
Answer is here
>>32805285
>Since WWII, US Navy strategy is centered around carriers
The American military is utterly incapable of a major paradigm shift, unless it is mandated by overwhelming and indisputable evidence. They are incapable of even minor paradigm shift, unless are mandated by strong and nearly indisputable evidence, or another agency (typically the CIA - not American, the CIA is a VERY capable organization, definitely better and more useful than the DOD)

There's been no major armed conflict for the past 70 years and you'd need a pretty big war to displace a corner stone of American philosophy.
2 years into WW2 and 4 years into what became the pacific war, the US still thought battleships ruled the day.

>>32808970
First off this is how all militaries work. Second, Battleships provided a service which was also provided for by carriers. Hence battleships became obsolete as battleships costed more to do the same thing less effectively. Nothing exists today that provides the same support as a carrier. Nothing else allows for the capabilities presented by a large number of very mobile target finding aircraft to be launched at whim over any area of the ocean.

>>32807181
Primarily wishful thinking. Especially see the Chinese navy shitposters who assume all Chinese missiles will magically know where, and have a 100% hit rate against American vessels.

File: Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg (87KB, 800x634px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x634px

>>32809153
>First off this is how all militaries work.
Evidently not, because close to every single actual change in the US military has been copied off some Western country. Name any relatively recent, major piece of DOD equipment and it's either relatively small, a rehash of previous gear, a copy of foreign gear, or a rare outlier.

>Ground
>Combat
>Vehicle

>>32809265
Also
>Successfully deployed in a non negligible capacity, today

>>32805193
This. Even China lacks proper carriers

>>32805211
Passive imperialism through military dominance insures that there will always be funding for schools

>>32805285
You're too smart for this board. You need to dumb it down and argue 9mm vs. 45ACP night and day with hastily Googled 'facts', like the rest of us.

>>32809345
That dude's not much smarter than the rest of you, he's just more thorough.

If he was actually smart he'd know it's more fun to piss people off than be a crowd pleasing shill.

>>32805211

This thread ended with this comment.