The firepower in this picture alone is enough to destroy

>>33688197
Yeah, and a small missile boat can destroy all of those under the right circumstances.

File: 1406249656307.jpg (141KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1200x900px

>>33688197

>>33688252
I don't think OP meant an ideal manufactured scenario.

>>33688268
England is an American satellite state. It belongs to us.

>>33688448
I wonder why people desperately tell themselves this

>>33688461
You guys sold your empire to pay for a war. Britannia no longer "rules the waves". Who is it that keeps the shipping lanes open these days? Certainly not the Royal Navy.

>>33688197

But it isn't Ivan.

You really don't need to keep driving your American vs British shill threads to distract others from your own dire issues.

>>33688487
>paranoid limey tries to blame Russia for the Royal Navy being a national embarrassment that shits on the proud legacy of England.

File: IMG_1602.jpg (143KB, 1024x833px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x833px

>>33688461
Passive aggressive response.

>>33688485
"You guys"

>>33688485
>Who is it that keeps the shipping lanes open these days?

I for one am thankful for the US Navy keeping shipping lanes open despite the U-boat threat in 2017.

>>33688501
I can smell your poor dental hygiene from here.

You wait boyo, soon we get our two new Elizabeth Class Carriers then we can put up a fight before we get destroyed by you americunts

>>33688485
>Who is it that keeps the shipping lanes open these days? Certainly not the Royal Navy.

Keeping shipping lanes open and protected is a multi-nation effort. Whilst yes, there's significant contributors - no one navy can exclusively claim they're the only one who keeps it open.

>>33688495

Is it paranoid? Look over the last few previous threads which involve the Russian navy, vaniks immediately try to turn the focus of the thread onto the British.

>>33688522

b8

>>33688516

I'd rather have natural coloured, if slightly uneven, teeth than having to put on anti-flash gear and eye-pro every time I look in the fucking mirror.

>>33688197
Probably just the surface fleet if we're being honest.

>>33688539
>Is it paranoid? Look over the last few previous threads which involve the Russian navy, vaniks immediately try to turn the focus of the thread onto the British.
This is a good thing, it scares the British public into looking the other way for increased defense spendingand gives an opportunity to revitalize the Royal Navy, which further embarrasses Russia militarily.

Tell me lads, why did the Royal Navy have to downsize into irrelevance? Not enough taxes to maintain it with from the loss of colonies? If both the USN and RN were at full strength, nothing would be able to stop them!

>>33688667
>Tell me lads, why did the Royal Navy have to downsize into irrelevance? Not enough taxes
Pretty much. This is what socialism and gibs does to a military.

>>33688252
post a picture of the uss cole. a fucking zodiac inflatable can sink one of those ships.

>>33688667

It didn't though.

However, the shrinkage of the fleet was due to the end of the cold war, additionally Iraq and Afghanistan taking significant size of defence budget.

>>33688719
That same USS Cole that didn't sink?

>>33688703

No, it's what periods of prolonged peace with no clear enemy does to a military.

>>33688252
>what's countermeasure?
>CIWS, chaff, decoy

>and implying that missile boat has equal or superior radar and sensor than decent warship

>>33688197
As long as we win air superiority against tiny UK air force, their submarines only matter.

>>33688510
The U-boat population would be out of control if it wasn't for the US Navy patrolling the shipping lanes.

File: Disaster2000.Cole.14.gif (621KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1280x960px

>>33688754
ok it didnt sink but it was no longer sea-worthy

my point remains. sand nigger in a zodiac boat did that.

>>33688197
>The firepower in this picture alone is enough to destroy the entire Royal Navy

If the missiles are as accurate as they were in Syria, I'd say that the British Navy is pretty fucking safe from anything the US can do to them.

>>33688197
>The firepower in this picture alone is enough to destroy the entire Royal Navy

Do it

Just for shits and giggles

The lip trembling would be tremendous

>>33688252
>>33688252
>Yeah, and a small missile boat can destroy all of those under the right circumstances.


Your song britbong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD7Ls6GM6_Y

File: Canada Flag.png (18KB, 1280x640px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1280x640px

>>33688485
Thank you America. I for one actually appreciate the efforts of the American Government and it's military operations around the world. Sorry my current countrys' leader is such a retarded knob

>>33688832
america loves its hat. we're more comfy because canada is there.

>>33688758
>no clear enemy
As long as there are Muslims and communists there will always be a clear enemy.

>>33688832
>Sorry my current countrys' leader is such a retarded knob

You're not as sorry as we are that we've only had retarded knobs as leaders since WW2.

>>33688719
kek, USS cole didn't sink
and since the incident, USN changed rule of engagement and reinforce surface firepower of warship, like deck gun, rifle(chain gun, HMG, minigun) and sniper.

>>33688539
>Keeping shipping lanes open and protected is a multi-nation effort.
Lol, keep telling yourself that. The Royal Navy is a cruel joke.

>>33688752
>The Royal Navy didn't downsize
>well it did, but only because the cold war ended so that doesn't count!
The Royal Navy used to be the most powerful force in the world. Now it's a completely irrelevant sidenote. Absolutely pathetic.

>>33688785
Notice how that ship is unsunk. You can be sure that shit won't happen again either. USN has already mitigated that attack tactic.

>>33688785
Tactics like that work really well, once.

And let's not forget the Cole returned to service.

hey /k/ we like.. have a little disagreement about tanks over at /int/ care to share your knowledge with us?

>>33688832
Leafs are truly the best Anglos.

>>>/int/73771218

>>33688785
that's not even in combat. you can fire underway, the cole was docked when it took a 9/11boat
that was a cheapshot from a loophole that's already been closed

The sheer Vatnik butthurt in this thread trying to get one over anything in NATO is off the scale

I never realised that tomahawks showing their air defence up would trigger them THIS hard to go after every single major NATO member recently.

>>33688197
Good thing you're on the same side then.

>>33689032

I didn't mention the Royal Navy in replying. Just that there's many contributors to keeping the sea lanes open.

Germany, Canada, Japan. They all contribute.

>>33689055

Note how I hadn't said that the Royal Navy fleet hadn't shrunk.

But no, fleet size is not relative to your relevancy as a navy.

>>33689055
>The Royal Navy used to be the most powerful force in the world. Now it's a completely irrelevant sidenote. Absolutely pathetic.

The Roman Empire used to be the most powerful force in the world. Now it doesn't even exist. Absolutely pathetic.

>>33689186
Is it not?

Can you honestly review "Italy's" history over the past 2,000 years and not snicker?

Let alone UK vs USA or UK vs Russia,

How would the Bongistanis fare against France or China?

>>33688252

And a small missile boat can be destroyed with a fish net.

And a fish net can be destroyed with a pair of scissors.

And the scissors can break while cutting the net.

Really can't tell whether OP is a vatnik or a fatnik because of how obsessed with the RN russian anons are.

>>33689301
Sure activates my almonds.