>“We're going to soon have more coming,” Trump t

>>33262640
why not start developing a submersible aircraft carrier?

>>33262640
I smell a Sprey article...

>>33262653
Why not make a landing pad on land? We shall call these things land carriers.

File: Bismarck_illustration.png (262KB, 286x390px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 286x390px

>>33262640
>so big and solidly built that they were immune to attack
he's literally an old german dictator, kek

>>33262640
lol the Saphir is more than 30 years old, it's about time to step up your game guys.

>>33262640
Submarines always break through during training because they only use relatively passive detection equipment whereas in wartime the battle groups hands would be untied with continuous sonar sweeps.

File: look what I just found there.jpg (35KB, 820x461px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 820x461px

>>33262640
>carrier suck in a CASEX
habbens all the time, but there is no alternative for the US to replace carriers with

>>33264525
How does that sort of training benefit either participant? US personnel don't get as much hands on experience with their equipment, at least in terms of how they would be using it in an actual high threat environment, and the French don't get the chance to identify any defciencies in the stealth capabilities of their equipment.

>>33264564
The active sonar can kill whales and the aircraft dropped buoys are somewhat expensive just to help train NATO allies.

>>33262640
It's almost as if the Falklands war already told us this

>>33264599
Fair enough I suppose. Still, it would be nice if they mentioned that in these reports from time to time, so retards would stop drawing the wrong conclusions.

>>33264618
Oh yeah I forgot about all the carriers the submarines sank in the Falklands... or perhaps was it the case that the carriers, protected by a battle group, survived, while an elderly cruiser, protected by sailors and ships so finely honed that they continued on course after Belgrano was hit completely oblivious to that attack, sank with most of her crew

File: belgranoBTFO.jpg (46KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 620x465px

>>33264687

>>33264525
>continuous sonar sweeps.
been there done that, sadly doesn't always work as good as it sounds

>>33264599
>>33264525

Train as you fight.

Sounds like they need some kind of simulated active detection then, for training purposes.

File: razmig-mavlian-ship2.jpg (298KB, 1600x989px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1600x989px

Heavily armored Mech carriers when?

>>33264921
And how are you supposed to land on this carrier?

>>33264999
pic is from a video game, I wouldn't take too much from it.

if an american carrier was sunk in a surprise attack by a known combatant
would it provoke nuclear war?

The US economy makes the carrier immune to any attack. The mere mention of economic sanctions will stop any missiles from hitting the carriers. Also nuclear war.

Is it me or the media are suddenly trying to shit on aircrafts?
I bet that if it was Obama, it would have been the other way around like "Oh yea we need that against Russia, nice move".

>>33265073

The implication that a bunch of snackbars wouldn't be willing to suicide their economy, considering they're willing to blow themselves up, in order to strike at the US is laughable.

File: 1478712744187.png (2MB, 2082x1596px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2082x1596px

>>33265073

>>33265073
I always find it funny how everyone wants to brag about killing carriers and shit.
They're big targets and no one gives a fuck about them. Go and fuck up American banks, bomb Wall Street, level the Sillicon Valley, Hollywood,...

It would hardly warrant a real war, much less anything serious like nuclear war and it would definitely fuck up the country beyond recognition.

>>33262653
Because it's a stupid idea.

>>33262653
Anon,OP's pic proves they already did that.


It just doesn't emerge.

File: _93195897_7865438d-324e-47b4-b3e7-aedcb599ace8.jpg (26KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 660x371px

>>33265073
The best defense against an America invasion is to not have an economy or anything worth air-striking.

>>33264687

>Argentine fleet sails
>One ship gets BTFO
>Several smaller vessels and subs get BTFO by helicopters
>Entire navy, including carrier, flees to port before submarines are that deep into the battlespace to threaten them

Their carrier didn't protect against shit. It ran away before they even got located to be attacked

>>33265293
*you're stupid
Submarine aircraft carrier would be cool as fuck

>>33265382
Ah, so that's why there's so many shitholes on the world

To defend themselves by poorness

File: 41ih8TKCvJL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (33KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 333x499px

>>33265618

>>33264700

>Captain Bonzo

>>33265653
10/10 post anon.
Great movie too.

>>33265173
What are snackbars going to attack a carrier with? The deadly Iranian submarine fleet? Your post is what's laughable, real countries with actual economies aren't interested in self destructive wars.

>>33265173

The people who are crazy enough to attack a carrier don't have the means to do so and the people who do have the means understand the implications and so will not do so.

>>33265384

Their carrier was shit and their 1950's navy wasn't prepared to go up against the Royal Navy in any scenario imaginable. There just was no point in leaving port once British subs were in the area.

>>33262640
Smells like POGO

>>33262679
To be fair, it made the pride of the british navy its bitch. Combined attack from 13 enemy vessels didn't even sink it, the germans scuttled it to prevent capture. If it had not been alone, stranded, history would've played out differently.