Why are navies still a thing that exist? The whole point of a

Without using ships, please explain the best logistical way to transport heavy armor (M1) and large quantities of arms and ammunition from one place to another.

>Planes can do that too
Planes have a limited loiter time
>Planes can do that too
In significantly smaller shipments
>Are meant to down boats, if there were no boats there would be no need for submarines
What about missile subs?

Simply the most worthless shitpost thread imaginable.

>>34044803
AF fag detected.

File: IMG_2271.jpg (18KB, 240x160px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x160px

>>34044803
>Planes can do that too
Not as consistently, or as cheaply.
>Planes can do that too
Where the fuck are the planes coming from if there's no airfield nearby?
>Submarines are meant to down boats
It's called a nuclear triad for a reason, anon.

In addition, our guided missile destroyers are a vital part of our ICBM defense system. They're always deployed, unlike muh planes which take a while to scramble, under the best conditions, and their missile intercepting capabilities are better tested than those of the air force.

OP is a faggot.

File: Picture.png (82KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x600px

>>34044803
let me paint you a picture OP

>>34044803
If all the oceans magically dry up within the next few centuries then navies will be unnecessary

>>34044803
t. Louis A. Johnson

>>34045053
>blue bullshit

Can't really explain, but that truly made me let out a hearty kek.

>>34044803
Planes can't sit on the ocean and bombard a seaport to pieces.

Yes, seaports are a thing. Sending crap by air is expensive and has weight limits.

>>34045084
Unless you're some retarded climate change denier that's pretty much inevitable

File: CAN WE FIX IT~.jpg (14KB, 391x366px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 391x366px

>>34045165
>climate change
>standing notions are that the ocean levels are rising
>so the ocean will dry up
What?

>>34045186
What happens when you put a pot of water on the stove and turn it on, idiot

>>34045193
It evaporates into vapor, which goes into clouds which create rain.

>>34045193
in this case that pot of water is almost 1/3 ice

>>34045193
It turns into water vapor. Which condenses. Which we call rain. You literally cant have the entire ocean be the atmosphere. That is in excess of 100% humidity

>>34045207
>>34045223
If it's hot enough to boil that rain sure as shit isn't gonna stick around long enough to fill up the ocean again. I don't know where it goes, probably space or something, I'm not a fucking scientist.

>>34045236
>the water is gonna disappear to nowhere

War Ships, you idiot, are first and foremost for the defence of trade ships and routes.

In this regard they are still useful.

Moreover they serve the purpose of denying your enemy open access of the seas for maneuvering and trying to attack you.

Planes can't stay in the air like ships can stay at sea.

>>34045236
>I'm not a fucking scientist

We could tell.

He's not entirely wrong.
>Power Projection/Transport
Not a factor for most navies/states of the world.
>defence of trade ships and routes.
Hasn't been done in a long time now. I guess it's a good thing to have some sort of emergency capability against a rogue state, but considering how almost every nation in the world is interested in free trade, it's enough if one state has that capability.

Most of europe has next to no reason to maintain a navy. (The brits can use theirs to defend the falklands, for all it's worth.)
Whatever power projection is necessary beyond land based air power has to be done by someone more powerful (=the US) anyway. Who btw. also maintain way more carriers than necessary considering they have unsinkable carriers next to every potential battlefield anyway.

File: Battle of Baekgang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.png (61KB, 313x816px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 313x816px

>>34044803
Holy fucking shit Feudal Japan can't into naval warfare for fuck.
>GUYS RETS PUT THE OARSMEN ON PRECARIOUS PERCHES ON THE SIDE OF TEH BOAT.
>10 Japanese to 1 Chinese/Korean casualty rates in naval combat

>>34044803
Planes cant hold as many people and cant sustain themselves for extended period of time

>>34044826

>what are airplanes

>>34045053

I think you mislabelled that one on the left.

It should read:

>shithole

>>34045367
>Hasn't been done in a long time now.
Operation Atalanta by EU NAVFOR was ongoing last time I checked.

t. Somali pirate

>>34045460
XD

>>34045489
Minimal amount of forces involved there... and it could be replaced by arming the transports instead.

File: burgers cannot into science again.jpg (20KB, 371x282px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 371x282px

>>34044803
>hurr durr all we need is air power!
>i don't get it why we didn't win ISIS with just bombing them from the sky!

that's like saying that why use pesticides to kill ants when you can kill ants with a magnifying glass under the sun.

File: ciws-phalanx.jpg (56KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 650x488px

*shoots down your plane*

>>34046041
You do know land warfare and sea warfare are different, right?

>>34044803
Because about 76% of all the worlds supplies and resources are still transferred via Ships.

The VAST majority of the logistics for the war in Iraq and Afganiland were also supplied by Naval Vessels.

>>34044803
>and planes are much superior to boats in that and every other regard.
Planes are inferior in load capacity and cost.

The only advantages planes have are being faster and not needing to stop at the coastline.

File: uss-nimitz-supercarrier.jpg (156KB, 1200x400px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1200x400px

>>34044803
"Our airplanes can't go across the oceans but our boats can!"
"What if we put our airplanes on our boats?"

>>34045193
>>34045236
If it's 212 degrees out we're all dead anyway so it doesn't matter.

>>34045165
>what is the water cycle
No it isn't, not until the sun expands and boils the atmosphere and water off.

>>34046309
We put too many airplanes on our boat and we can't fit countermeasures! We need a new boat that can carry countermeasures!

File: burke_6-ts600.jpg (44KB, 600x429px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x429px

>>34046338
forgot picture

>>34045186
i think he means that in the grand scheme of the earths future at some point it will indeed be dry.

File: RAGE.gif (536KB, 381x512px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 381x512px

>>34045448
You god damn idiot.

>>34044803
Clueless fuckhead who isn't into logistics.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure shipping by boat is still the cheapest method of transportation which is why we still use it today. I know the army sends some vehicles by plane, but most of it is by boat. We also still use railroads to transport vehicles.

Empires (Napoleon, Hitler) which failed the sea power test most often fail the longevity test."
Edward L. Beach

>>34047613
>Beach
Obviously a biased source.

File: 1495005995998.jpg (523KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 720x1280px

>>34044803
Nice try autist but you need better bait

>>34045236
It's not going to boil away you fucking mong

>>34045448
Yeah, because a plane can carry a 60 ton tank you moron.

>>34046338
>>34046341
...m8, the concept of the lone destroyer wandering the ocean alone has never fucking happened.

>>34044803

As someone who has posted some pretty crap content, this really takes the cake

File: BGiAWHx.jpg (579KB, 2100x1484px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 2100x1484px

>>34048732
>what is a C5 Galaxy

File: C-5-10.jpg (305KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 2048x1536px

>>34048902
>C5 carry C130

>>34048732
They can though.

>>34045448
>>34048732
>>34048902
>>34048932
>>34048959
Not him, but the first guy was pointing out that planes can't transport as many. At least that makes sense. Planes have their merits but it just depends on the theatre.

File: k, every june 21st.gif (3MB, 580x316px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 580x316px

>>34048732
Fuck its not even June yet and theyre already here

>>34044849
[Wild Blue Yonder intensifies]

>>34048932
>air force plane eating an air guard plane
this makes be vaguely uncomfortable

>>34050009
ah, didn't see the relettering
carry on

>>34045236
> I don't know where it goes, probably space or something, I'm not a fucking scientist.
first audible kek ive had in a while on this site, thanks anon

>>34044803

Planes can't loiter more than a few hours due to their small crew sizes, and each individual aircraft has a far lower capacity than a ship. Ships go slower, but bulk mass is what counts here. Ships are so big that aircraft can land on them, effectively creating a mobile airport. So even if one accepts that navies are obsolete, they still play a vital role in air-based defenses.

>Are meant to down boats, if there were no boats there would be no need for submarines

Submarines exist to launch a second nuclear strike after an initial exchange. This alone makes them extremely deadly and a major deal for those who have both submarines and nuclear weapons.

>>34044803
Yes, you're right. We discovered the whole aircraft superiority thing in the 40s. That's why we decided to spend the last 70 years making ships that could carry a lot of aircraft, and making ships designed for no other purpose than defending that aircraft carrying ship.

And then we also made planes that could help defend the carrier.

>>34045193
Well... When ice melts in a glass, the water level doesn't change...
So I'd say we keep losing water to space and the water level keeps going down.

>>34044803
>OP Doesn't know about logistics

>>34045053
>Blue Bullshit.

Yeah! Fuck Oceans!

File: zoom and enhance.png (505KB, 1200x400px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1200x400px

>>34046309
We have reverse ramps...

>>34045236
Yeah, well I'm no doctor, but your shit (brain) is fucked.

>>34051290
He's stupid and his reasoning is slightly flawed, but he isn't wrong.
We lose something along the line of a few tons of water to space every year.

File: 1.jpg (25KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x375px

>>34045236

>>34046054
Phalanx is less anti-plane and more last ditch anti-missile/anti-small watercraft than anything else, anon.
For anti-plane, that's what the ESSMs are for.

>>34048932
>>>/d/

SSBNs?

>>34053002
>trains as the primary transport and weapons platform
>crazy infrastructure just to get it to work
I want to live in this world

>>34051209

Except vast quantities of the ice are on land not in the sea (Greenland, Antarctica, mountain glaciers), but when they melt, it goes into the sea. Also thermal expansion of the oceans.

Because Planes are terrible at logistics and need fucking airfields to operate in a limited ranges all the while being super expensive to maintain

>>34044803

To destroy the enemy navy

>>34045053

Kek

If a battleship shoots a SAM missile at your plane, are navies still depreciated and irrelevant?

>>34044803
Navies primarily exist to protect shipping. Navies will exist so long as people use boats to send things from place to place.
>Planes do it better
Wrong.

>>34051279

That's so the arresting hook does not snag at the edge of the carrier during a landing, although it's still a fucking bitch when it hits that curve. Twisted the fucking arresting hook shank and launched that hook straight ahead, didn't even see the thing and it missed by a couple meters from me.

File: you-re-gonna-need-a-bigger-bait.jpg (45KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1000x1000px

>>34044803

The purpose of navies is to provide mobile missile bases for cruise missiles, and to protect aircraft carriers.

Subs in modern context are designed to be stealthy launch platforms for missiles.

>planes can do that
Planes can do it a lot more aggressively and far away from friendly lands when launching from a boat too.

>>34044837
And missile ships, and how you get your air power in range of whatever you want to fuck up, carriers.

Not to mention that historically, navies have been just as useful in cutting trade routes and blockading shit as they have transporting troops and supplies. Still are.Why the fuck else would the Union and CSA have had navies during the Civil War?