RUSSIA CALLS HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH "AN EASY TARGET"

How many AShM would be necessary for a kill?

Let's say p-800.

>>34395380

Oh dear, how will we ever recover from such a mighty blow? May as well pack up and disband NATO right now.

>>34395387

Pretty sure nobody on /k/ is remotely qualified to answer that, not that it would stop them of course.

File: 1497387184759.jpg (65KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 650x431px

>>34395380
>British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon to say he thought the Russians would look at it "with a little bit of envy."

>Stung by that remark and angered by Fallon calling Russia's sole aircraft carrier "dilapidated," the Russian defense ministry issued a strongly-worded statement on Thursday, criticizing Fallon and deriding the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

It's just a chitchat

>>34395401
1 Rouble (0.0000000001 Dollar) has been deposited on your account.

File: 1025066192.jpg (97KB, 705x375px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 705x375px

>>34395380

It's just banter. Russia would LOVE to have more of their own carriers. Right now, they've only got one left over from the Soviet-era. They've been floating the idea of building Nimitz-size CV's for a while now, but they've never found enough room in their budget to justify them.

>>34395387
>>34395417
Like 7, 8 tops.

File: Chinese-aircraft-carrier-Liaoning.jpg (73KB, 736x489px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x489px

>>34395447
Why don't they just rent one from China?

Slap on some Russian decals, sail it around the Bering for a few weeks... then just quietly return it. Basically the same hardware anyway.

>>34395445

>misspells "ruble"
>does not comprehend sarcasm

underrated /k/

File: Vanguard_at_Faslane_02.jpg (1MB, 2547x1921px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2547x1921px

>>34395380
>and would be wise to keep its distance from Moscow's warships.
Ze Vatnicks want it to keep its distance eh?

Don't use the fucking channel then, keep your shitty ships bottled up in Murmansk and archangelsk for 9 months at a fucking time

>>34395387
That's a ridiculous question.

Is the CAP active? Is CIWS active? Is the carrier escorted by Type 45s and Type 23s? If so, how many? Where are the P-800s fired from? What are the circumstances of their firing?

>>34395380
>would be wise to keep its distance from Moscow's warships.

Not that hard considering their fleet can be spotted from space

>>34395481
>be Chinese
>bought old junk from Ukraine due to lack of related technologies
>just started domestic carrier building program with no experience
>muh export

>>34395496
Russia want to use channel
Russia will use channel
there's nothing bongs can do about it with their shitty types 45

>>34395481
Who the fuck are you and what do you have to gain from shilling Chinese hardware so relentlessly? "6 yen (0000000000.5 dollars) have been deposited in your account" memes aside, I'm genuinely wondering what motivates you to such levels of determined shitposting.

>>34395508
Why use a destroyer when you can send a sub?

>>34395508
>haha, Bong AA destroyers can't touch our mighty Kirovs!

*Astute teleports behind you*

Nothing personal, tovarishch

>>34395497

Not interested in those factors. I'm asking how many missiles would be necessary for sinking the thing. No escorts, no CIWS, nothing.

I can guess that one lucky hit could send the carrier to the bottom, but in average how many missiles to destroy a target of that size?

>>34395380

I didn`t knew /k/ is this sensitive. Its just a banter, I bet you faggots lose your shit when called

File: h4APIdd.png (729KB, 1600x1422px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1600x1422px

>>34395509
>>34395526
>implying that vatniks don't have nuclear powered subs.
hahaha

File: cuQcc.jpg (85KB, 700x596px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 700x596px

>>34395526
>>34395517
*woosh woosh woosh blocks your path*

>>34395509
It was just a joke you sperg. Other dude was saying Russia wanted more carriers but couldn't afford it, China already has a Kuznetsov-ish carrier they could borrow for a joyride.

Are you really this spastic and stupid?

>>34395526

why would anyone worry about sinking russian warships? russian warships sink themselves.

>>34395447
>Russia would LOVE to have more of their own carriers.
Not really. Russians never had any use for carriers. It's also the reason why the military didn't really want the Mistrals.
Countries like the US or even France, I can understand, but Russia? For why?

File: nige being a supreme lad.jpg (99KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1200x900px

>>34395557
So you're going to fire 40 year old anti sub weapons at a state of the art stealth submarines that even the americans have trouble finding?

>>34395509
How was he "shilling" Chinese hardware? Other than acknowledging they have a carrier? Calm down before you pop a blood vessel, Ivan.

>>34395573
>that even the americans have trouble finding
It's not like americans are hide n seek champions

>>34395506
>export
What part of "rent" do you not get?

>>34395462
Is that an Atlantis reference?

>>34395556
Implying Vatnik SSNs are good enough to detect, let alone destroy an RN SSN

>>34395497
500 zodiacs carrying 1 missile each. Location is the Mediterranean, tactic is zerg rush, yes she has escorts, ciws is innefective with the boats/missiles at the waterline.

>>34395604
Sounds like one.
>look at that, I made a bridge.

File: INS_Vikrant_being_undocked_at_the_Cochin_Shipyard_Limited_in_2015_(07).jpg (140KB, 1200x624px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1200x624px

INS virkant ftw

File: Warspiteconquerorvaliant.jpg (70KB, 607x407px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 607x407px

>>34395611
Having a state of the art towed sonar array stolen by the predecessor ship the towed sonar array was built to detect

>>34395637
haha the rust is poo coloured

>>34395481
>Why don't they just rent one from China?

Top banter my man.

>>34395652
Other way around

File: aircraft_carriers_large.jpg (788KB, 1600x977px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1600x977px

>>34395637
That's the saddest looking dock ever.

See this? This is how it's supposed to look.

>>34395611
>built in ESM
>towed sonar
>flank array sonar

Bong keep making groundless excuses kek

>>34395380
honestly whats the point in having warships anyway?
they move so slow and you can spot them coming for miles away

>>34395563
Why not more Battlecruisers then like the Kirov?

>>34395670
that's a lot of rust there amis

>>34395676
>towed sonar
russians have a habit of loosing those to british submarines

>>34395543
>Implying anyone ever really gives a shit what the Russians think

top bants, m8

>>34395380
Enough with the fucking yellow journalism already. I'm not even a Bongistani and this is absurd.

>>34395380
>>34395424
>>34395526
>>34395573


>Bongs need a FUCKING RAMP
>Still smaller than the nimitz
>No destroyers to escort them both on operations anyway
>Have to buy US aircraft because they're too incompetent to design their own tech (see the SA80)

loving

every

laugh

>>34395563
1) strategic interest in baltic sea and black sea
2) oversea force projection (ex Syria)

>>34395714
>official statements from Russia's defense ministry
>yellow journalism

Oh it gets better.
>"Like a bee, the British aircraft carrier is only capable of independently releasing planes from its belly closely flanked by a swarm of warships, support ships and submarines to protect it. That is why ... the British aircraft carrier is merely a large convenient naval target."

>>34395424
>vatnik got triggered by a little bit of banter

UK is a fucking joke in every sense. Even though Russians know it, because it's their old great nemesis and out of respect for past they help them out by bantering them and making them feel relevant.

>>34395732
It's not the first time Fallon started shit though.

>Fallon previously offended Russia's military in January when he dubbed Moscow's sole aircraft carrier "a ship of shame" as it passed through waters close to the English coast on its way back from bombing raids in Syria.

>Russia said at the time that Britain was staging a show by escorting the ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, through the English Channel designed to distract attention away from the shortcomings of the British navy.

Meanwhile: Russia finally ordered Storm class carrier with nuclear engine
Chinks should have bought Russian instead of lagging behind modern world

>>34395736
>UK is a fucking joke in every sense

Did your Marxist terrorist thread get deleted again?

File: 13615325_830402867094751_3303982448893671257_n.jpg (65KB, 840x594px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 840x594px

>>34395720
> Ony 3 countrie use catapults still
> still larger than the invincible
> 6 daring class
> BAE had their own design that was crazy similar to the F35 anyway & the SA80 is pretty good now

now fuck off vatnick and stop trying to drive the wedge

>>34395702
source plz

>>34395556
>The US could trade submarines 1:1 and still have enough to conduct other operations

That blows my mind

>would be wise to keep its distance from Moscow's warships.

Does this count all the ones that the British are decommissioning because the Russians lack the ability?

I don't understand the ramp meme
someone explain it to me

>>34395754
>taking your grief out on chinks because you can't banter Brits

Kek vatniks are such goofy ass posters. Most of chink hardware IS Russian so what are you even talking about?

>>34395767
Operation barmaid, Conducted by HMS conquerer (the same ship that sank the belgrano)

>>34395736
pretty much

they keep pretending they are of relevance though, m-muh brexit and m-muh britania

going to laugh when ireland take back what's theirs and what's left of the UK falls apart into an pakistani cuckfest

>>34395637

>designated shitting deck

File: plastic paddies.jpg (1MB, 1376x2690px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1376x2690px

>>34395755
>>34395783
O' am i laffin!

>>34395763
you've not even got the support to deploy these things.

BAE will be brought out in a matter of years and the SA80 was a complete shitfest you faggots had to pay the germans millions to rebuild.

Funny the SAS even use american AR platforms rather than that pos as soon as they were given the choice

>>34395809
Do they still not let you guys own butter knives over there?

>>34395819
>Funny the SAS even use american AR platforms rather than that pos as soon as they were given the choice
British troops have used the AR since 1961 and the first units to be issued it were not SAS troops. SAS troops retain SA80 and use AR weapons at the same rate they used them when the FN FAL was the issued rifle.

>BAE will be brought out in a matter of years
What are you basing this on?

You're a Catholic who was the victim of child abuse, not a firearms or procurement expert.

>>34395819
SAS have been using the M16 since '67 because L1A1 SLR "Made in birmingham/enfield" is a dead giveaway, before that they didn't have plausible deniability.

the l119A2 they use is sterile for said reasons,

And the SA80 was fixed by HK then a british company because BAE bought it out bought back the original engineers and HK went through it with the original engineers

> Support to deploy those things
You have no idea

File: duvious.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

>>34395819
>BAE will be brought out in a matter of years
Doubt that, the british blocked the buyout of GSK by pfizer

stop chatting out your arse

O' am i laffin

>>34395845
Durham Light Infantry got them first. Subsequent battalions in Borneo got them for their patrol companies, then they were issued for the COPs in NI.

Crucially, the British use of the M16 was to prove its only jungle warfare success.

File: bong squaddies find eachother on k.jpg (424KB, 1304x2236px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1304x2236px

>>34395809
>>34395836
I love the fact that some british squaddies who live near eachother found eachother on /k/ because of that thread.

I hope they had a good pint.

File: Capture4.jpg (58KB, 578x483px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 578x483px

>>34395860
yeah my bad, i thought it was 67 like the septics.

Also COPs don't exist.

>>34395763
>6 daring class
>for the same payload as two Burkes
>"best air defense vessel ever" has fewer missiles than a ship built 20 years prior that's only 300 tons bigger

>>34395865

Theres some proper old old geasers on here.

desu, if arrse ever dies I'd advocate for /k/ to be the replacement. Would be hilarious.

>>34395845
>And the SA80 was fixed by HK then a british company because BAE bought it out bought back the original engineers and HK went through it with the original engineers

The guns were fixed by german workers and german engineers by a german company in germany, but because the ownership for a short time was a british you guys claim you fixed that PoS yourself?

the delusion is real

>>34395380
>It would be wise for a mobile airbase that is not designed for direct engagement to keep its distance from ships designed for direct engagement

Wow Boris, that's real fucking insightful.

>implying the RN wouldnt lay waste to the whole Russian """""""navy"""""""
Why are Russians so pathetic and irrelevant?

>>34395481
ffs China's carrier at least looks clean, the RuN carrier looks like it's on life support

>>34395886

A warship is more than a floating, stealthy VLS container.

>>34395776
I don't get it either but I think it has something to do with precieved American steam catapult supremacy. I've never seen anyone actually debate the trade offs.

>>34395542

So basically you want people to tell you what the result of a totally unrealistic scenario would be.

OK, the answer is 1. Happy?

>>34395886
ASTER 15 & 30 has a higher first hit chance rate than the RIMs
>>34395896
The design work was done at the advanced materials lab in the UK, all the manufacturing was done in germany, with all the assembly work done by RLC armourers

>>34395871
Close Observation Platoons absolutely did exist. Usually formed out of a SNCO from the previous resident battalion, a few Intelligence types and whoever the rest of the rifle companies fancied getting rid of.

By about 1980 they had become a lot more sophisticated and were a brigade asset. They also got a further 6 months of training prior to Banner tours to do whatever deemed necessary. This was based off the 3 PARA model for their 74/75 tour.

>>34395903
Peter the Great alone can unironically wipe out the entirety of British surface navy. Fallon honestly should've kept his mouth shout, he sounds like a kid boasting with a new bicycle.

>>34395776
Its for brain damaged navies to use.

>>34395557
Wow, that is not very aesthetic.

>>34395895
>Theres some proper old old geasers on here.
>desu, if arrse ever dies I'd advocate for /k/ to be the replacement. Would be hilarious.
IKR i was talking to someone on the discord server who has the ACSM

if ARRSE dies /k/ will become 10 times more shitposting than the whole of 4 chan has seen over its lifetime

> Which JSP do i need?
> I fucking hate pikeys
> How do i initiate my pension?
> Whats the order of precedence for X medals?
> I hate the Irish
> ǝɯ dlǝɥ uʍop ǝpisdn ƃuiɥʇʎɹǝʌǝ sǝdʎʇ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ ʎɯ

and the arguments would be fucking epic.

>>34395932
>had a ship destroyed by a banana boat carrying anime and hug pillows
>also had a ship destroyed by some arabs on jetskis
>also had a ship destroyed by a race riot
>also had a ship destroyed by israel

>>34395690
Not the new state of the art one. It's supposed to be almost undetectable.

No they don't.

Cough cough i don't want to "slip in the shower" and end up zipped up in bag cough cough

lets never mention them again

>>34395506
nigga u dumb as FUCK

>>34395730
They're not wrong.

>>34395956
Oh come on. Anyone could join them, providing you had a charge sheet a mile long and a girlfriend in the women's UVF.

The mystery men at Bessbrook Mill were much more selective in who they took, and certainly had us all food with the random berets and slides they had on.

>>34395946
ok.....im not American. What is it with your instant assumption that anyone who sees ramps for the technical relic that it is must be an Amerishart? You sound miserably obsessed

>>34395932
considering the royal navy has always been on the cutting edge of carrier tech

> First carrier
> First catapult carrier
> First Jet landing
> First angled flight deck
> First Ramp
> First VTOL

Maybe its the future.

>>34395973
>ok.....im not American

No, you're an Irish American and don't you forget it DeShawn LaToya O'Bama

File: 8K.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>>34395982
>mfw I work with an enormous black guy whose last name is O'Connor

He's hella chill though.

>>34395972
Due to the sensitive nature of the previous comments i can neither confirm nor deny the existence of "COPs".

Anyway please don't mention them, as they are not to be spoken of due to the sensitive nature of their work.

>>34395943

Didn't realise that people actually used the 'official' /k/ discord, though I tend to stay away from discord anyway.

Well, at least the one thing that wouldn't change is the number of walting cadets.

>>34395982
I am Spanish, and am struggling to understand why you have such an extreme inferiority complex towards Russians and Americans. Are you just angry that you're a country of waning has-beens? Why does ramp criticism cause you people this much bitterness?

>>34395982
You're obsessed with America. Mind your own lesser country.

>>34396002
Taking photos of some bloke stealing fuel and planting black dildos in the homes of PIRA touts is a matter of incredible seriousness

>>34396019
This. I didn't even mention America anywhere and suddenly this spastic faggot is beginning to deflect from the topic of his shitty carrier by crying about Americans. Not even Vatniks deflect like this

>>34396019
>obsessed with america
>make threads about britain every day

File: 14358929_1280964768583031_2744230634895145388_n.jpg (48KB, 960x902px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x902px

>>34396003
>Well, at least the one thing that wouldn't change is the number of walting cadets.
I've been called out for that once

> stuidly posted a pic of me in MTP backwhen it first came out, someone went off at me how we don't use multicam
> Post another stupid pic back in 2012 when we were trialling glocks "airsofter! the brits don't use glocks"

>>34396029
from the official arrse wiki:
"Finest hour was in 2007 when one lad snuck out for a fag and got locked out, two lads abandoned post and went for a fish supper (with pistols down back of trousers) and another lad took over 200 pictures of a dirty sat in the train station, getting high quality upskirt shots of her, before smashing one out mere feet from the heads of his sleeping team members."

>>34396054
>make threads about britain being evil tyrant who blow up subhuman irish churches every day
FTFY

I doubt he's actually american, i bet he was one of those that used to lurk in THG threads in order to drive a wedge in the anglosphere.

>>34396019

Ive always wondered this. Why do they all try to sidestep their own issues by whining about Americans? Its the sort of thing youd expect from third world shitholes but coming from a country like that, its really weird whataboutism. Out of all 195 or so countries on earth they can't stop thinking about the US

>>34396056
>Post another stupid pic back in 2012 when we were trialling glocks "airsofter! the brits don't use glocks"

Lol such is life, such is love and holy fuck does 2012 feel so long ago.

File: 1401724948963.jpg (213KB, 1600x1030px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1030px

>Brits make new carrier that can carry 5th gen multiroles
>"H-h-Ha S-Stupid Natofags think their carriers can operate against us!"
>meanwhile, the Kuz is either billowing clouds of smoke or launching shitty Mig-29s into the ocean

laughing out loud to be honest family

>>34396078
I suspect that they all have a chip on their shoulder about America, as sad as that sounds. For all the criticism that i have of Americans, ill admit that i admire just how much self-esteem they have as a result of their self-centeredness. I don't think i have ever talked to a yank who id consider insecure, both IRL and online. The English on the other hand, just chatting with a few of the Brit tourists in Mallorca leaves you with enough cringe for a year. Ive never seen a peoples that desperate for validation.

>>34396087
>Lol such is life, such is love and holy fuck does 2012 feel so long ago.
there's a picture of me in basra in 2005

> No lid other than my beret
> ECBA
> me wearing PLCE, mate wearing Assault vest
> L85 with massive fakir maglite
> DDPM
> Mate with crow cannon
> Saxon MPV & original FV432
> All considered ally at the time.

>>34396132
>>34396078
>>34396019
Dudes you're being wound up, he's american, he tries to do this every thread pretending to be british.

I'm british and i can assure you he's not

>>34396186
>The internet is made up of only Brits and Americans
you're pathetic and hopeless.

>>34396200
>you're pathetic and hopeless.
ah so you're not british then?

>>34395387
All you need is a single french sub...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Triomphant_(S616)

>>34396212
Im not from any Anglophone country.

>>34396147
No.

That was not 12 years ago.

Though I will point out that by 2005 no one thought that Saxon was ally. It wasn't ally when I joined the army in '98.

>dat maglite tho

>>34395562
>why would anyone worry about sinking russian warships? russian warships sink themselves.

So would you if you were a vatnink warship. I wud not be surprised if the russkie carrier posts on 9rk about drowning itself because it had drunk sailors in its ass and its crotch has gone rusty. It will probably an hero and stream it live.

>>34395925
Brit in muddy hole shiiting in Tesco bag. Circle of moo cows staring at brit and bag of faeces.

Secret squirrel indeed. How will anyone know he is there?

File: IMG_4329.jpg (29KB, 258x389px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 258x389px

>>34396243
>yfw this is all a ruse so France and England will fight each other for hundred years again

>>34396562
>>yfw this is all a ruse so France and England will fight each other for hundred years again

This is undoubtedly a good use of both brits and frogs.

>>34395763
>Ony 3 countrie use catapults still
That's because everyone is poor now
We can barely afford it and we're a top 5/6 economy

>>34396562
>use muslims as cannonfodder
>both countries fixed
nice

>>34396500
>2005 no one thought that Saxon was ally. It wasn't ally when I joined the army in '98.

What you on about, it was more ally than the snatch

It had no weapons and a hatch so small you couldn't get your gat out the hatch, so you had to stand there in tank parade position, which made you look really heroic.

>>34395380
Brits
>no aircraft
>basically a £3bn floating warehouse
>not going to be fully operational for a decade
>talking shit about the Russians

Vatniks
>only have a tugged rusty piss bucket
>lose multiple aircraft in accidents during routine carrier operation
>no replacement in sight
>talking shit about the Brits

What a fucking laff all round, two bald men arguing over a comb.

>>34396659
Fatnick
> 12 Carriers
> Most of them can be found docked
> Building an outdated seaframe, where the only modern piece of hardware doesn't work
> Talking shit about both Vatnik and ThatBrit

Three women comparing cock size

>>34396697
I'm not American, but it's clear to see that only the USN has a credible carrier force.

Britain won't be too bad when theirs are up and running, but that's a long way off.

>>34396659

>no aircraft
Except they do. They've got fucktons of helos to operate off it, and already own 8 F-35B.

>not going to be fully operational for a decade
First deployment is between 2020-2023 depending on how many F-35s you want on board, so this is wholly inaccurate.

>talking shit about the Russians

More just amused at watching Russia embarrass itself. Note their full comment where they cite the reason they insult the QE is because "it needs escorts, Russia's carrier doesn't", pretty much. They are clutching at straws on a whole new level to think CBGs are a bad thing. Gotta drive that internal narrative of K-KUZNETSOV CAN HANDLE ENTIRE F-FLEET ON OWN

>>34395911
Can't launch at full load off a ramp.

>>34396697
>tfw syrupnigger and we are just now getting our first carrier
>buying it from the brits
Fuck it's like being 30 and buying a used car from your dad. Someone please actually fund our military. Our troops may cost the most individually, between equipment, training, salary and benefits, but they might need equipment younger than their generals.

>>34396741

F-35B can.

The difference is it just has less room for fuel due to the lift fan, so its overall range is shorter.

"Can't launch at full" is a legacy problem from the Harrier. F-35B was designed to launch at full payload.

>>34396749
>syrupnigger and we are just now getting our first carrier
wut

>>34396727
Well to be honest QE is severely reliant on other ships for self-defense, adding a few VLS probably wouldn't have hurt

>>34395916
You're retarded

>>34395387
Probably something close to 20-30ish in hopes that maybe a couple gets through.

>>34396769
>Well to be honest QE is severely reliant on other ships for self-defense, adding a few VLS probably wouldn't have hurt

Literally every carrier is.

>>34396821
Other carriers have more than just Phalanx on board

>>34395508

At least our 'shitty type-45' destroyers manage to operate in the world's most congested shipping lanes without failing to notice a fucking great container ship bearing down on them.

What's your excuse ameritard?

>>34396834
Doesn't matter. CIWS is the abandon ship alarm.

>>34395508
>type 45
>shitty
dude

>>34396845
It really does though, just a few more missiles can go a long way, especially consideering how few Type 45s there are

>>34395720
>Be literally any time in in the past 30 years
>Mericans to dumb to construct a functional STOVL, has to buy brittish Harriers
>Still operates Harriers as their own replacement still isnt fully operational, despite beeing started 25 years ago

Top kek

>>34396856

If the attack is big enough to get by 4 escorts and 36+ 5th gen planes, then having a couple extra missiles on the carrier isn't going to be much help.

It's just Russia getting antsy because their doctrine is literally decades out of date.

>>34396836
Is that before or after the engines randomly shutdown?

>>34395509
>0000000000.5 dollars
Are you stupid?

>>34396961
....m8, The whole British armed forces is in effect little more than a forgettable reserve branch of the US army. I really wouldn't sit here and try to act relevant if i were British. Especially when its obvious that you're army isnt allowed to do anything without direct American consent.

Then again, in canadian so i guess i have less than nothing to contribute to this discussion.

>>34396961
the only reason the brits needed vertical take off is because they had a babby tier carrier

File: 417129_900.jpg (113KB, 679x900px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 679x900px

>>34395508
Spotted the Russiaboo faggot

>>34397013
Not just the Brits desu, NATO in its entirety is nothing more than a Yank puppet.

>>34396974
>4 escorts
Those will include Type 23s, which are useless for AA (unless you think the UK will be able to mobilize two thirds of its destroyers to escort a carrier?)
Realistically, one maybe two Type 45s will escort the carrier, so putting VLS on the carrier (which has its own radars, mind you) would definitely help

>>34397040
>tfw the French accurately predicted this and tried everything in their power to stop it
>yfw they gave in and decided to become yet another obedient lackey in NATO

>>34396993
Daring doesn't even have any engines. it has generators that power electric motors.

The issue is the intercoolers (made by northrop) weren't to spec, so when the ship's power consumption is ramped up when going to combat conditions the under spec intercooler fails on the generator, causing the turbine to overheat which shuts itself down.

This is only an issue if you're running only one generator at 100% power, with the other off and the power consumption spikes. AND if you're operating in hot conditions.

Its now SOP to have both generators on and running at 20% capacity rather than one at 50 percent.

They plan on installing a third as a redundancy.

>>34397040
We Americans are puppets of the brits, their city of london funded the 13 colonies, and we're too dependant on them to the point where one square mile of their country could put our economy on the floor.

Have you ever wondered why most countries refuse to go to war unless britain comes along too?

>>34397048
>Those will include Type 23s
the T23s are geting replaced by the T26 and T31 frigates

File: UK Standard CSG.jpg (138KB, 1200x909px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1200x909px

>>34397048

> which are useless for AA

64 CAMM run by 2 AESA radars on moderately tall mounts is a long way from "useless".

They've already announced that it's 2 Daring class and 2 frigates with 1 SSN and 1 logistics vessel that makes up the basic CBG. Pic related from Paris Air Show presentation.

>>34397068
>the T23s are geting replaced by the T26 and T31 frigates
Won't be in service until the mid-2020s at the earliest. Well to be fair the carriers won't be operational for a while either but still

>>34397068
>We Americans are puppets of the brits, their city of london funded the 13 colonies, and we're too dependant on them to the point where one square mile of their country could put our economy on the floor.

woah

>>34395380
what does that make the kuznetsov?

>>34397085
yeah man think about it, britain ceased to be a military & industrial superpower but continues to be an economic & political superpower.

They Get us to do all the fighting for them.

Its not like manipulation it like a symbiosis man.

We protect them and they keep money rolling in from LSE in NYSE

>>34397068
The Suez Crisis proved once and for all that the Brits are the most craven and pussified military force on Earth, so fuck all of that nonsense about necessary Brit involvement. Shit, even the Australians make far better allies as they have no reason to get involved in our geopolitical shitposting events yet they've always been there.

>>34397099
>super
This word gets thrown around way too much, it has become basically meaningless when applied to such words like "power" and "carrier".

>>34397094
Didn't the french build the russians two LSDs that got repo'd?

>>34397059
>yfw they gave in and decided to become yet another obedient lackey in NATO

We'll see

if the "EU army" becomes a thing I can see NATO no longer existing

For all the talk of "puppets" the greeks and turks sure didn't give a fuck

>>34397094
travelling museum

>>34397119
Canadians are a cultural and political ultrapower desu.

>>34397129
FACT

>>34397107
Not really britain & france militarily won in suez, they lost politically to both the USSR & USA

>Tfw you realize the anons baiting the autistic brits are french/canadian and not even american

>>34397143
CDG > QE tbqh

>>34397143
Honhonhonhonhon Eh eck they're onto us jaques!

>>34397152
>CDG > QE tbqh
Hasn't CDG spent 30% of her career in drydock?

>>34397143
I already admitted to being Canadian. Its just that navy threads have made it clear just how thin-skinned and defensive Brits are, so all this baiting is an endless source of laughs.

>>34397164
>I already admitted to being Canadian. Its just that navy threads have made it clear just how thin-skinned and defensive Brits are, so all this baiting is an endless source of laughs.
Yeah but you're starting to believe you own spew

File: pa-cdg.jpg (489KB, 2000x1328px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 2000x1328px

>>34397161
Probably more than that
She's still a cutie though, can't wait to see what she's like after her next refit

>>34397172
That's the beauty of it, i actually dont but the rotmouths do and will respond to every single piece of bait with autistically lengthy posts trying to convince us all that they are still a serious maritime power.

>>34397182
I wonder when the next French carrier will be built...

>>34397201
>still a serious maritime power.
> Canada

man they still have a bluewater navy

>>34397208
like 2030 or something, if they decide to build one at all

>>34397201

Aside from one flaming autist who's recognisable in every thread, I'm not seen any "Brits" doing anything other than making calm detailed posts in response to things. There's one guy in particular who goes to a lot of lengths to talk detail on the ship.

The only imagined world of HURR WE BEST NAVY EVER is in your head, my friend.

>>34395556
now show the list of US submarines side by side pls

>>34397237
Ouch. I struck a nerve, didn't I? It's OK, you guys are still mightier than the German navy, so find solace in that.

>>34397237
and yet here you are defending your countrymen

>>34397248
Fucking Spain is mightier than the German navy

>>34395445
>>34395490
One sign of autism is being unable to recognize sarcasm

>>34397280
Yeah, but the Germans haven't historically had to face significant threat from the sea, don't have much coast, and with neighbours like the Russians and French, you can see why they might neglect their naval capabilities.

>>34397280
Exactly my argument. The RN is a second tier navy. There's nothing to be ashamed of. We leafs dont even have anything close to theirs yet we're not insecure wrecks.

>>34397299
>Canada
>not insecure wrecks
But Canadians (especially the French ones) have a double chip on their shoulder, both for the US and the British.

File: Zircon2018-20.jpg (40KB, 636x382px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 636x382px

>>34395387

>How many?

>>34395517
destroyers are very good at keeping the air clean.
subs are extremely vulnerable to aircraft basically defenseless against them and they can't retaliate either. so subs are good at assaulting ships planes are good at assaulting subs and destroyers are decent at killing every fucking thing.

>>34397319
How will Russians get in range of the QE to fire them?

>>34397314
No, just the Americans because we live right next to them and are in every respect overshadowed by them. Brits are just painfully irrelevant to us

File: 14974526982320.jpg (98KB, 504x375px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 504x375px

>>34397332

all platforms eligible

>>34395380

I love it when the ramps argue about who's better. It's liking watching a couple of 10 year olds debate who's better at banging sluts.

>>34397314
>Canadians have a double chip on their shoulder, both for the US and the China.
ftfy

>>34397344
right now that's just ships and ground based, so how does a Russian destroyer get within a few hundred miles of the QE without getting fucked in the ass?

>>34397319
>>34397411
If you're Russian, one could be launched from 500 miles away and penetrate any level of missile defence.

If you're anything other than Russian, it would drop of the bomber, fail to launch, crash into a Russian orphanage, and spread AIDS over a 200 mile radius.

>>34397208
They'll probably wait for awhile more just to see how electromagnetic catapult technology turns out then build their own pair of CATOBARs.

CdG has been a decent stopgap but under french naval doctrine there should be at least two active carriers so one can be available at all times.

>>34397501
>build their own pair of CATOBARs
Jesus Fuck I just don't see them paying for that without a huge fight.

>>34397535
Its only $8 Billion. How fucking hard is that for them to afford?

>>34397546
Are you retarded or just really dense?

>>34397501
tbqh if the cold war had ended a decade later, we would have two CdGs
Quite a few weapons programs were severly affected by budget cuts in the 90s, that also includes the Rafale and Leclerc programs

File: Jolly Roger.png (37KB, 1280x802px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1280x802px

Remember that time where the Soviets made a super advanced (for them) towed sonar array so a UK sub just went up behind it with a pair of wirecutters and stole the whole thing?
Good times.

>>34397576
this has already been bought up
>>34395645

>>34397535
CATOBARs may be expensive but it'd be a shame for them to waste all the experience acquired operating their own just to build a floating ramp that may or may not be an inferior system.

Unlike, say, china who has to learn it all from scratch france is one of the very few country with an extensive history of operating carriers.

>>34397319
>Couldn't even be bothered to photoshop out the USAF logo off the Boeing X-51

kek

>>34397608
Italian and Spanish CATOBARs when?

>>34397614
Now that the F-35 is a thing, fucking never

>>34397535
They don't have a choice. They spent all this time developing Rafales, and those can only take off from catapults. The ramp meme is only viable if you've got the right aircraft for it.

>>34397672
Dassault ran simulations and said the Rafale can do STOBAR
Payload is probably fucking shit though

>>34397546
cost per unit actually gets quite higher when you aren't building them a dozen at a time.

>>34397559
Again, developing a single fucking carrier, especially with technology that the Yanks have alreay worked out, with other R&D costs, crew outlays, and other procurement costs can not in good reason fucking exceed $10B. How is this difficult for you to understand?

>>34397161
>Hasn't CDG spent 30% of her career in drydock?
And this is a fucking great availability rate for a carrier.

>>34397723
Well that was a big yes.

>>34397013
Not brittish desu I just wanted to trigger whoever posted that retarded statement.

>>34397014
Thats what happens when you doesnt spend all your money on your armed forces I guess.

>>34397723
Especially since Frogs aren't starting from scratch but can easily build upon previous designs.

>>34397729
drydock not dock.

The invincibles spent about 20% in dock but never had to return to drydock

Nimtz are always in dock but thats always as a show of force, from memory 2 are always undergoing refit in dock, but i doubt they'll ever return to drydock

>>34397757
They still need to develop a proper CVN reactor though. CdG is a good ship but quite underpowered for her size.

>>34397760
>>34397729
tell a lie Nimtz class undergo drydock refit after 25 years of service for 33 months

>>34397786
With the state Areva/EDF are in right now, this might be a tough one

>>34395380
Brit's will be lucky if muslims don't blow it up first.

>>34397760
>drydock not dock.
Oh sorry.
It has not been that much in drydock though.

>>34396741
Both the F-35B and Harrier can.
This meme only applies for the Su-33.

>>34397876
she spent her first 2 years due to vibration, noise, propeller breaks and radiation leaks
spent another year and a half in drydock for overhaul in 2007

now she's spending another year and a half in drydock

thats 5 years our of 16 years in drydock about 30%

thats not including minor repairs etc. other stuff i could find.

>>34398014
She's been a learning curve, that's obvious. By the time the French get round to their next carrier(s) I'd imagine they'd have fewer issues.

It wouldn't surprise me if the RN discovers a few issues in the coming years with the Queen Elizabeth-class, given they've never built anything that large before, it's virgin territory for them too.

>>34398045
>It wouldn't surprise me if the RN discovers a few issues in the coming years with the Queen Elizabeth-class, given they've never built anything that large before, it's virgin territory for them too.
thats why we've got a second one on the way.

>>34396013
>I am Spanish
Not him, but I just want to say I've always admired your country's lack of given fucks about basically everything. Like, you set a goal, ("we will rule the New World!") and then proceed to just clumsily stumble your way toward it before laying down in the middle of the mess and declaring that you tried.

I'm pretty sure if you guys had a carrier it would be an old container ship some company just randomly cut up and welded into a carrier-shaped thing and the government just bought it. Then when anyone made fun of you guys you all just shrug and don't actually care because it floats and it can launch planes, the two things that are the bare minimum and you're okay with that.

Then it never gets used because Spain hasn't fought a war in about a hundred years and that time it was with itself.

>>34397760
per ABS rules(the people who classify American warships) they go into drydock for inspection every 5 years. Lloyds who does it for the RN has the same ruling. the duration is typically 2-3 weeks at 5 and 10 years, 1-2 months at every interval after that. This is just for inspections and new paint plus minor repairs. Anything major will take longer.

>>34398169
Thanks for the info mate

So no major issues to return to drydock for nimtz and invincibles then?

Does this apply to Ticonderogas, Destroyers and Frigates too?

File: juan-carlos-i.jpg (285KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1280x853px

>>34398166
Ummm sweetie, Spain has a carrier.

File: every-country-in-the-world-belongs-to-america.jpg (87KB, 558x424px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 558x424px

>>34396697
>> 12 Carriers
You might want to reevaluate that number, because those are twelve things WE call carriers. By your standards we have about five times that figure, we tend to call those little things assault ships.
>tfw shitheads from other countries try to imply our 12 giants are less than their 1 midget
Hilarious.
>> Most of them can be found docked
Yep. They're expensive, so we like to keep them in tip-top shape for when we need to sail somewhere and beat the shit out of some tusken raiders.
>> Building an outdated seaframe, where the only modern piece of hardware doesn't work
Oh is this the "carriers are obsolete hahaha silly Americans!" line? Last time I checked every country that matters either has or is trying to get aircraft carriers, but clearly you, lowly /k/id on 4chan, know more than defense ministries across the world.
>Talking shit about both Vatnik and ThatBrit
It's true, we are.

What are you going to do about it?

>>34395380
>would be wise to keep its distance from Moscow's warships.

oh, so you mean they just need to do exactly what carriers are supposed to do in a war?

>>34398206
'carrier'

>>34398206
>Spain has a carrier
Whoopsie daisy, lmao

My bad, Spain. Still you have to admit, you do have a idgaf attitude toward basically everything and just do stuff because you can. PS Ibiza is a fun place.

>>34395380

By itself, sure it is. Pretty much every carrier needs a large group of escort boats to defend it if there's any threat of missile attack.

That's why the English navy used concentric rings of other types of other kind of vessels to protect against threats ranging from submarines to cruise missiles during the falklands war.

On its own, a carrier can be a sitting duck to any other capable, decently equipped force, but in the context of the English navy as a whole, it just adds a lot to their capability.

>>34395730
>>"Like a bee, the British aircraft carrier is only capable of independently releasing planes from its belly closely flanked by a swarm of warships, support ships and submarines to protect it. That is why ... the British aircraft carrier is merely a large convenient naval target."

Gosh, do they mean to say that in aircraft Carriers are conventionally supposed to operate in some sort of... carrier battle group? Instead of, you know, being sent to the Mediterranean alone, spewing oily smoke from its under-maintained boiler, being refused fuel by nations along the way, before sitting off the coast of, say, Syria, and launching a few planes, two of which crash, and then forcing the rest of them to operate from land bases because your carrier didn't come with enough fuel and ammunition to support its own operations?

Fucking retarded bongs amarite xDDDD

>>34398202
This is the baseline requirement for all steel ships of greater than 1600 gross tonnes. so yes. Though with auxiliaries and commercial ships you can extend it through using divers so you can drydock at 6,12, and 18 years instead. most commercial ships just get the first two extensions as you have to go in at 20 years anyway to pull the rudder post and tailshaft. unless of course they are just going to scrap them at 20(not uncommon).

>>34398225
>You might want to reevaluate that number, because those are twelve things WE call carriers. By your standards we have about five times that figure, we tend to call those little things assault ships.

There are 9 LHDs and they're pretty poor. most of their tonnage comes from pumping systems to allow the use of well docks. They only carry about 20 aircraft each. They're not used for CAP & land strikes.

Thier sole purpose to to support amphibious operations, any fighters carried are strictly for escort & ground support.

They could probably do with Ramps

The seaframes of the Ford class are outdated, just like the virginias and burkes. We order so many of them that by the time they're outdated we're still building them and an entirely new design would be better.

There is little to any room left on the burkes for any kind of future refit short of tearing everything out of her and seriously changing the layout.

When it comes to the columbia we'd be better building them all at once.

>>34398263
>English navy

no such thing m8, unless we want to rewind to the 1500's or thereabouts.

>>34398206
that that thing can be considered a carrier, then the US has more than 20 carriers

>>34397478
>spread AIDS over a 200 mile radius
Implying there's anyone left to contaminate in Russia.

>>34395977
Is running Windows XP on your new carrier also the future?

>>34395763
>no gunz bong
>the SA80 is pretty good now
Nigga, 40 year old Soviet era AK-74's are better rifles than even the most recent version of the SA-80 that only sorta works now because H&K unfucked it.

>>34398014
>she spent her first 2 years
I remember that but it was before its operational life. (still not an achievement)

File: SA80 A2 L85a2IW L86A2 LSW Reliability.jpg (34KB, 610x144px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 610x144px

>>34398386
> A rifle that is accurized to the point anything above 1MOA is considered out of spec so sent for refurb

>>34398487
Don't come in here, posting your facts and thinking you can get away with it. You need to post baseless comments that wouldn't even pass on YouTube.

>>34398362
they already said tthe computers are being upgraded and that XP was used because it was easier for shipyard workers to use.

>>34398487
>implying most military's standard of 3-4 MOA isn't fine
>implying the sacrifices made for accuracy are worth the cost in reliability
The M16/AR-15 platform is the perfect balance for a western military. The AK-74 isn't great but I'd much rather take a first year production AK-74 into a firefight than an SA-80.

>>34398519
>implying the sacrifices made for accuracy are worth the cost in reliabilit
did you see his attachment or are you being a retard?

>>34395934
>Incomprehensible Russian nittering

>>34398307
>There are 9 LHDs
Neat, you're leaving out the other assault vessels I mentioned and particularly things like the LHA. We have 11 of those planned, by the way, and so that's 20 vessels on top of 12, and if you want to start pushing the definition we have another 10 LPDs that can provide fuel support to VTOL aircraft. There's also a slight possibility that the 12 LSDs could be used as well, but they're simply not equipped for it. That's all active or planned by the way, these numbers can grow if necessary.
>any fighters carried are strictly for escort & ground support
Not true, not even remotely true, the way the USN handles ordinance means anything that can supply aircraft in that function can be pressed into service as a carrier. Plus why would F-35s be launched with no A2A capability? That's their entire purpose, to be multi-role and not need a cloud of dedicated fighters to watch over them.
>They could probably do with Ramps
Why? More weight on an already fat ship bursting with features.
>The seaframes of the Ford class are outdated, just like the virginias and burkes.
Cite a credible source on this one, because "outdated" in a naval engineering context means decades. Not years.
>There is little to any room left on the burkes
Welcome to engineering, I guess. Our ABs were an interim solution only meant to serve 20 years, they were designed to be used up and broken up/sold off.
>we'd be better building them all at once.
Where are you going to build a fleet of next-generation submarines at the same time? This isn't like laying down a tugboat, there are national security concerns that take priority above everything else. (it's a ballistic missile sub, I shouldn't need to elaborate)

I do want you to cite that claim you made about the Fords, because I don't believe for a second they're using a hull design older than the Nimitz.

>>34395387

2-3

>>34398528
>trials in a controlled environment
>indicating anything

File: Screenshot_20170629-155808.png (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>34398307
>>34398307
Nearly everything you said is wrong.

All you got right was the burke needing great redesign to incorporate new tech (which it is) and the numbers of f-35s.

File: Kuz radars.jpg (264KB, 933x700px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 933x700px

>>34398362
hmmmmmmmmm

File: kwolity russian maintanance.jpg (215KB, 933x700px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 933x700px

>>34398654
rely maks u think

>>34398586
I've had a look about one of their forums and asked a couple of them myself.

Stoppages seem pretty rare, and its pretty reliable.

Apparently the most common reason for a stoppage is firing pin being damaged.

The ammo they fire (Radway A2) is supposed to be the best ammo available with even the Radway A1 getting rave reviews.

Anyone here have the image of the SA80 that got hit by the IED that bent the barrel and the user managed to fight out of an ambush with?

File: Kuzenov engine telegraph.jpg (229KB, 933x700px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 933x700px

>>34398663

Lot of talk coming from a navy whos main carrier is fighting a loosing battle with rust

>>34398610
>All you got right was the burke needing great redesign to incorporate new tech (which it is)
Having a look at everything new there are entire spaces dedicated to refit for new modules.

having served on an AB its pretty cramped even on IIA boats. refit after refit the space gets even smaller

File: ford drydock.jpg (110KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x534px

>>34398565
>Cite a credible source on this one, because "outdated" in a naval engineering context means decades. Not years.
the hull looks like it belongs on a 70's tanker, doesn't look very hydrodynamic.

Look at that falloff at the edges, i'd hate to be in the ships wake i'll tell you that.

>>34395417
People have lots of different backgrounds on /k/. I'm actually confident I could answer some /k/ related questions most people here wouldn't when pertaining to certain subjects.

>>34395380
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/724000/Channel-russian-war-ship-aircraft-carrier-malfunction-dover-technical-smoke-pipes

Whatever the bongs have, it's better than this

>>34398739

>What is CIG

you tried.

>>34398842
> no knowledge of hull design

>>34398906

>no knowledge of hull design
>says the man ignoring CIG

pottery

>>34397248

>Struck a nerve, didn't I?

A completely calm, rational post is a nerve being struck in your mind, apparently?

You really are stretching for your imaginary narrative.

>>34397264

If by "discussing a thread's actual topic and making occasional points" counts as that apparently...

>>34398912
CIG is a method of construction , its got nothing to do with Hydrodynamics, there's a reason they haven't released its actual speed yet...

>>34398912
what are you smoking and where can i get some

Is this the thread where Vatniks and Bongs argue with each other.

>>34398983
It's basically a dick waving competition in, which is what carriers are for these days anyway.

>>34398654
>>34398663
Thing is, with mechanical computers that are on the Kuznetsov, you can't infect them with a virus like you can with Windows XP

>>34398958
>CIG is a method of construction
Kek, nope try again.

>>34396762
Canadian

>>34399201
lad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior_(R31)

>>34398958
>there's a reason they haven't released its actual speed yet...

Neither have they for the Nimitz.

The official speed is the same for both, over 30 knts

>>34399156
>>34398739
>Kek, nope try again.
Well you must work at some funny shipyard or you're making this shit up.

CIG is prefabrication in the shipyard industry.

Having worked on hulls its a shitty design that only tankers & bulk cargo vessels use to maximise hull space at the cost of hydrodynamics. Its Ok at the front and back but that centre needs fixing. Almost everything below water line would have to be ballast to counter those verticals and cantilever weight.

I'm waiting to hear from someone i know on board.

Unless you're being a retard and referring to CFDS,

>>34399294
nimtz also suffers from a listing problem, with these flat hull designs listing is especially problematic as they're harder to right as the verticals try to act like a centreboard whilst also generating wake, in addition to vertical hulls being susceptible to swells.


Round hulls are much better if you want to go faster

So yeah i guess you could say shes outdated. That and the QE supposedly has an automated weapons handling system, allowing them to reduce the number of knuckledraggers on deck

>>34398739
>looks like
Is not a credible source.

I asked for a credible source and you haven't given one, and honestly NNS knows what the fuck they're doing and I'd trust their engineers and architects over some random guy on the internet mumbling about how something looks. (NSS is owned by HII by the way, go look them up and marvel at how they managed to get it right for three-quarters of the largest navy in the world)

>>34398663
>>34398684
>>34398654
>old is bad
underage out

>>34399445
>NSS
Oh no I've fucked up corporate initials! My credibility is destroyed.

>>34398279
Top kek

>>34399445
See my above post, I've worked at Philly and Norfolk yards for the past 18 years.

>>34399443
>CIG is prefabrication in the shipyard industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5X8qDDMC-o

>>34399487
And im a US navy seal with over 300 confirmed kills.

Still is not a source.

>>34399501
Well you're out to pull someones leg, come on then open up buddy

>>34399515

Im not pulling anyones leg here, im just mocking you at this point.

File: keels.jpg (109KB, 815x407px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 815x407px

>>34399511
care to guess which type of hull nimtz uses?

>>34398654
>>34398663
>>34398684
Analogic devices are not that stupid imo. Cheap, reliable, safe, easily repairable etc... There's many things that doesn't require high tech eletronics to operate a boat (aside armaments).

>>34399539
I knew you were bullshitting

File: 1448716832676.jpg (48KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x332px

>>34399487
>I've worked at Philly and Norfolk yards
So a welder is telling me a multi-billion dollar company that has a lot of experience building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is getting it all wrong. Got it.

If you've "worked at" those yards you should know the very long production train that trails behind any operation like this, meaning that you can't just up and change the largest fucking part of the ship on a whim.

I don't care who you are or what you've done, unless you provide some sort of accreditation or a credible source backing up your dubious claim I'm going to write it off as bullshit.

>>34399564
Whatever helps you sleep at night, kiddo.

Get better at larping.

>>34399549

Care to guess why?

>>34399569
Welder haha.

I'd recommend
Applied Naval Architecture by Robert B. Zubaly.
Ship Stability for Masters and Mates by D. R. Derrett, B. Barrass, C. B. Barrass

Chapter 6 in the first book and chapter 9 in the second book will confirm what i'm saying.

>>34399613
try harder kid you might loose your virginity one day

>>34399637

Still cant figure out what CIG is? Not showing up in your google searches?

Its almost like i picked that acronym specifically :^)

>>34399634
>>34399613
>>34399569
>>34399564
>>34399555
>>34399539
>>34399511
>>34399501
> REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I can't come up with a valid argument so i make shit up and call everyone a liar

Frankly kids this is high school science

Remember kids its fake and gay, but especially if its true.

>>34399665

>guy comes up making BOLD CLAIMS without evidence
>YOU CANT CALL ME A LIER

Yes i can, and i will.

>>34399663
You retard you mean CFDS

>>34399674
REEEEEEEEEEE
not even him

>>34399678

Nope. I meant exactly what i wrote.

Maybe if you google harder. Maybe.

File: 12794426_561213710720644_3304323581256529004_n.jpg (57KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 540x720px

>>34398675
this one?

>>34399690

>REEEEEEE LISTEN TO MY BOLD CLAIMS REEEEE I DONT NEED PROOF REEEEEEE

>>34396834

Hypersonic missiles can't be intercepted, CIW's is a last ditch chance of hope, its not reliable whatsoever.

File: Nicks wrecked 80.jpg (45KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x360px

>>34398675
>>34399701
or this one?

>>34398519

SA80 is probably the worst weapon design on the globe.

File: 1498535963861.jpg (95KB, 625x623px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 625x623px

>>34399637
I don't know you. I have no idea who you are and I have no reason to believe you.

As for what you're saying you said it was an outdated hull, but later you said tankers use it. So is the world's population of tankers and cargo ships sailing on outdated hulls? Is the entire world getting it wrong? If only we just listened to you, all of this could have been avoided!

... Or... They recognized the trade-off as virtually a non-issue since the listing "problem" is actually a failure of the LCS design and the solution is a super easy fix that they definitely included on the Ford.

>>34399665
>that one (You)
My argument was, "the people paid billions to do this and have a track record of success probably know what they're doing." My evidence is over half the most powerful navy that has ever existed on the planet being A-OK. I'm not making outlandish, fantastical claims about hull design and asserting things like, "oh we should build all the Columbias all at once!"

My argument is simple, and it's valid, I have no need to make anything up.

>>34399701
That one's for shooting around corners.

>>34399747
Said the guy thats never fired one

>>34399784
indeed

>>34399732
>Hypersonic missiles can't be intercepted

Now thats what i call memes vol 2

>>34395637
Why is it that, no matter where you go in India, there's always about 40 million people milling about, even on this FUCKING NAVAL DOCKYARD

>>34399244
boy
I thought you were questioning the syrupnigger portion.

>>34395445
autism speaks

>>34395783
>take back what's theirs
>implying a bunch of drunk bog trotters can do anything useful
Kek alright then paddy use some more of germoneys shekels to buy some knock off hardware

>>34399732
>hypersonic can't be intercepted
That's the reason USN introduced CEC(coopetative engagement capability) or over the horizon interception

>CIWS is only hope
kek you are wrong again
at leasy current gun-based CIWS system
1) doesn't have enough time to engage hypersponic projectiles.
(short range)
2) energy of hypersonics is enough for the missile to approach and damage warship even if CIWS intercept it
(remind that CIWS has very short within visual engagement range)

This is coming from Russia, the country that uses an ancient run-down carrier as an excuse to look strong

>>34395496
Global climate change is a Russian Navy plot to open up sea lanes.

>>34400013
Vatniks have used it in Syria, Mediterranean and etc.
Yeah i know it's a old shit is more than worth it.
btw, submarines are their actual pride and (SSN, SSGN, SSBN) core of Russian stratetic force and MAD.

>>34400124
>but is more than worth it