Nervous, American?

Oh shit, they got 90 dots.

>>34520095
>a country with very little carrier experience will suddenly build a world beating aircraft carrier
>using money from ~somewhere~

>>34520104
they have already build it and he can fly too

>>34520101
kek, butthurt amerifat upset that he only has 80 dots

>>34520095
The best navy in the world that literally nobody can contest should be worried about what exactally?

File: 311dca8f0fc504daab70920df1b6b738--concept-ships-concept-art.jpg (43KB, 736x414px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 736x414px

>>34520105
We ace combat now

>>34520095
Yeah, now show me how many of these ships each of these nations has.

>>34520118
>The best navy in the world
Who, the British or Spanish? Surely you don't mean the Portuguese.

>>34520095
How many of those dots can fly, 10?

File: 9nJ5r.jpg (94KB, 800x592px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x592px

>>34520095
>all that helicopter landing pad

so the Russian built a 100k tons carrier for helicopter

File: really_makes_pepe_think.png (694KB, 1097x802px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1097x802px

>a fucking ramp

>>34520095

The Russia Project 23000E isn't expected to go ahead same with the Lider destroyers. There's no budget for it.

So there's not much to fear given its nothing more than a plastic model.

And the QE can field 72 aircraft. Not 40.

>>34520124

What century do you think it is anon?

File: Russian Naval Ineptitude.png (369KB, 1896x1700px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1896x1700px

Everyone should read up on Russia's miserable attempt at naval aviation over Syria recently.
>vatniks can't into navy
>pic related

>>34520095
for what does the russia need the carrier for
because of russias big ass nuclear arsenal nobody would invade them
what they need is
>a small well trained expeditionary corps for interventions like syria or future interventions in
idk tajikistan like vdv+marines about 70000 men total
>3-4 landing ship docks some cheapest shit just for transport and helis
>decommision kirov slavas and kuznetsov this is hard for me to say because i really like russian navy and that ships but for cost of these ships you can built a modern navy of lets say 10-15 destroyers and 20-25 frigates
>they also still use kashin a ship from 1969
>when and if russian economy recovers they can buy a carrier
>but having only one carrier as a matter of national prestige and bombing some sandniggers doesnt make sense
this is my 2 cents

>>34520095
Does Russia even have 90 flying aircraft? Anyway their navy is the biggest joke ever.

Is this another "things Russia says they will do but never even get past the drawing board" things?

>>34520124
>being purposefully obtuse

File: 1490907754488.gif (1MB, 245x280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x280px

>>34520095
Ok, now build 10 more

god damn brit ship is so embarrassing

File: nuke_it.jpg (106KB, 488x1704px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 488x1704px

>>34520095
Russia does not need of sea.
Carriers just for maximal military dick waving, since waving thousands of nuke not safe.

>>34520259

For who? The RN got exactly what it wanted.

>>34520177
KEK fucking russians eternally BTFO

>>34520095
No, I'm not nervous of paper boats.

>>34520106
dotlets on suicide watch

File: Deus vult.webm (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

>>34520095

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

99KB, 1200x900px

>>34520095
> Vatnick shit that will never be built due to budget cuts

Orders $15bn worth's of tank
Russian PM : no more money but have good day!

When was the last time a russian procurement was fulfilled and not cancelled after a certain amount of deliveries?

I can't name a single piece of equipment that was 100% fulfilled and not cancelled

The Russians doesnt even have a shipyard big enough to build something that size.

Well unless they invade Ukraine I guess, but surely they would never do that?

>>34521067
>bongs on suicide watch because their best carrier is literally garbaRge with 90s tier electronics

>>34521086
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Shipyard

>>34521105
do you mean electronics that arn't going to even use XP.
My nigga even ATMs run off XP.

Its better than the carrier that probably runs on coal

File: 1406782423323.jpg (3KB, 250x244px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 250x244px

>>34521053
>having any flag be higher than stars and stripes
Oh shit nigger what are you doing?

>>34521131
americans have a flag on the moon, thats the ultimate high ground

>>34521126
Nothing built there has even had half the tonnage of that carrier

>>34521129
DESU, anyone who cares about MUH XP is a moron who doesn't know what they're talking about.

>>34520106

while you were curling up to your family there were 12 of us resquing jr olimpylcs form iran, they had hostage for 10- million dollors, but we went over and saved them,we killed 78 badguys holding our kids. what skould have been a fun gloriuse time lasted 1 nignt, the med, avac, took them to the ship the cia had other plans for us our helo got shot down, we were in a 2 day firefight, [both pilots were blown apart] we-6 green berrtes 6 navy seals 3 cia tackteckle were taken and beaten everynight for 14 nights,sorry if you don't find it so funny,unfortenetly that's the last time I volindetered for a black opt mission,thank god Reagan was in the presedent office and he gpt the britts SAS TO RESQUE US, WHAEN I CAME TOO I WOKE IN A HOSPITOL IN NJ,ALONG WITH GEN JACK KANE, -4 STAR GEN, yours truly gunny srt, 1stf class johndadmphiersr, calss a sniper-class a hand to hand combat,

>>34520095

>implying they can afford more than one

L.
O.
L.

>>34520095

This is hilariously incorrect.

Ford can carry more than 80, probably as high as 100.

Shitra has yet to release any worthwhile dimensions or proof it can carry anything like that, especially given how fuckhuge most Russian planes are. What are they counting it with 80% helos?

QE can carry more than 40, up to around 70.

Liaoning will be lucky if it can carry up to 50, probably more like 40 if they don't get smaller planes.

CDG is the only one around correct here, given it maxes at 30 Rafale, 2 E-2 and a few helos.

>>34521156
Stapel A can built ships with >100.000 t deadweight

>>34521160
You must be tarded,

Almost everything in development of software is XP since its now a solid build, its not like they're going to use XP as they're probably going to just use a battlenet system

File: 23498.jpg (28KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x360px

>>34520252

>>34520095
>Another Krylov shit

That design bureau is full of idiots. I'm not surprised that no one in the MoD approved of any of their stupid designs.

File: file.png (310KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 400x600px

>>34520177
>Those were dreadful months from the point of view of both our losses and our long-term prospects. Take, for example, our navy, which was operating in the Baltic Sea against the Finnish navy. You would have thought the relationship of forces would be not at all favorable to the Finns, but our navy made a poor showing. Here’s one of the incidents. A report was made to Stalin in my presence that a Swedish ship was passing by. Our people took it for a Finnish ship, and one of our submarines tried to sink it, but did not succeed. German naval forces observed this and, as a way of needling us, offered to help.

>Stalin told us: “The German ambassador, Schulenburg, has passed on a proposal from Hitler. He says that if we are encountering difficulties in the fight with the Finns in the Baltic Sea, Germany is ready to offer assistance.” Stalin of course refused, but he was literally thrown into confusion as a result of this incident; figuratively speaking he turned gray. You can imagine it! This was how our future enemy sized us up. He was openly proposing: “Let’s simply set aside any considerations of right or wrong. Once war has begun, it’s necessary to use all possible means to solve the problems facing one’s military forces in the shortest possible time.” Hitler was demonstratively pointing up our weakness, and he wanted us to admit it by accepting his aid.

>>34521172
>implying they can afford [s]more than[/s] one

File: bresident budin.jpg (70KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x576px

>>34521105
>Vatniks on suicide watch because while Bongs, Chinese and even fucking Poo in Loo are building carriers, all they have is a ship that's already a decrepit wreck after two decades and a 2d sketch that will never be fulfilled due to lack of funds

>>34521280
t.paki

>>34520095
Russia: 1 carrier
USA: 20 carriers or so

>>34520095
>Russian navy
https://youtu.be/cFSY1rlrkVI

>>34520095
Why would we be nervous? In the only major deployment for a Russian aircraft carrier in god knows how long, they lost two naval aircraft almost immediately to preventable equipment failures, had to move their entire air wing ashore and operate it off land for the rest of the deployment and then fucked off back home after barely two months of doing not much at all.

Rather than being nervous, I can't wait for the comedy to ensue when they try and launch a bigger carrier.

>>34521307
>american navy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5VVXfJFj3c

>>34520095
I'm assuming the dots are aircraft carried, which would make the QE number of 40 incorrect.

But good luck carrying 90 fuckheug russian anything.

File: IMG_0067.jpg (223KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 2560x1920px

>>34520124
>quality shitpost

Have a (you)

Of course that picture is worrying, the fact that Russian's are this deluded is dangerous.

>>34520095

nervous about fuckwit mooslimes yes

russia is now USA ally

>>34521387
you build that?
breddy noice

>>34521387
is that the HMS Constitution?

>>34521444
With all the guns on the weather deck? Are you nuts?

>>34521444
>Constitution
>a 22-gun sloop of war
anon...

>>34520095
To be honest they would have better spent their money on heavy missile cruisers like a Kirov replacement. Those things, while not great projectors of power like a carrier offer as good if not better area denial at 1/4 the cost.

The coolest part about the USN is that by the 2020s they will have both the V-22 and V-280 tiltrotors, with larger ones plausibly on the way. I really want to see a C-130 sized tiltrotor based from a carrier.

>>34521514
4 engine tilt-jet?

Makes me think of those orca lifters from command and conquer in the 90s

>>34521036
kek

>>34520105
pics or it didnt happen

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (41KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1280x720px

>>34521141

>>34521547

I was thinking something more like a quad or hex tiltrotor. It'd be obscenely huge, but why not.

>>34521444
>HMS
R u memein me m8

>>34520095
Higher plane capacity with lower space and tonnage.
That translates to 1 of the following.
1. Manlet planes that are much less capable
2. Overcrowded hangar and deck space slowing down combat operations and making damage control risks

But no American carriers aren't worried because even if Russia made 1 of these they have 11 flat tops and by the time Russia starts work on the second they could be on 14

>>34521740
It's thiccer than Nimitz

>>34520095
Is this a new carrier they're planning on making? because they can't even get the old one right. They crashed like 25% of their capacity trying to land on the kuznetsov.

>>34521740
>That translates to 1 of the following.
You missed one. They CAN stuff more aircraft in with a smaller hanger deck and roughly equal flight deck, but there will be a much, much higher fraction of rotary wing VS fixed wing compared to a Nimitz or Ford.

File: 1495959406210.png (167KB, 318x308px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 318x308px

>mfw I realize the QE2 is a fucking straight deck WW2 style carrier

>>34521843
If you didn't realise this some time ago then you may be blind, tarded or both,

>>34521843
Why use an angled flight deck when they neither need nor want arresting gear and everything will be landing vertically? It just makes the deck flow way more complicated.

>>34520095
80 F--35s .> 300 Su-35s derivatives

>>34521874
Nobody ever uses VTOL if they don't have to, too fuel costly. It's a secondary capability.

>>34521856
I never actually looked at it from the top desu

>>34521874
Because maybe they'll come to their senses and stop pretending the F-35 is a helicoptet

>>34521899

That's a wrong and silly opinion. Stop posting.

>>34521880
in your fatnik dream

>>34521899
No one uses vertical takeoff for the reasons you noted. Vertical landing, however, is standard flight profile for the F-35B. That's why it's called a STOVL aircraft - Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing.

Angled flight decks are for safe landings so you can deck park aircraft but still give pilots the option to wave off in conventional fixed wing aircraft. There's absolutely no need for it if everything in your air wing lands vertically.

>>34521290
C'mon now. We have 10 carriers, ~3 in mothball/disassembly and then 9 LHD's that can launch Jets and Helo's too. No need to exaggerate.

>>34521910

The F-35B is literally referred to as STOVL in most cases, because that is how it is most often going to be used, hence the ramp. In fact, considering the development of the SRVL techniques, even the "VL" of STOVL isn't the whole story.

>>34521910
harriers are STOVL
>>34521947
this guy gets it

>>34521963

Ah, I misunderstand the meaning of your post. I thought you were incorrectly referring to STOVL aircraft entirely, rather than the mode.

Do the dots represent how bad the air pollution is on deck?

>>34521874
>>34521947
This guy.

The F-35B doesn't even have a tailhook. Why the fuck would it not operate just like a Harrier and not require an angled deck?

>>34521053
>>34521131
FINLAND STRONK

>>34521874
The Brits will be performing rolling landings in their F-35Bs, not sure if an angled deck would allow them enough room to run up for takeoff a though.

Have the Russians even built anything larger than a frigate since the collapse?

Do they even have the capability to make a nuclear ship anymore?

>>34521131
>not recognizing naval customs
Nigger, what are you doing?

>>34522275
>The Brits will be performing rolling landings in their F-35Bs
Not aboard ship unless there's an emergency or for some reason the aircraft is still heavily loaded (fullish fuel plus munitions) on landing.

Without arresting wire, rolling landings at sea are very dangerous and risky.

Rolling landings, including short landings in "half" nozzle position, at normal land-based airstrips are common practice, as it reduces stress and wear on components.

>>34522313

No really.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/f35-simulator-bae-systems-warton

>>34522286
>Have the Russians even built anything larger than a frigate since the collapse?
Nope. IIRC, their largest ship built since the last Soviet designs were completed (the last Kirov in this case, which was laid down in 1986 but completed in 1998, a single Udaloy laid down in '89 and commissioned in '99) was a 5,200t AUX and one other thing I forget, maybe an LST analogue over 5,000t. All their surface combat ships built since then, and everything laid down after 1991 which is in service has been 4,000ish tons or less.

They have built several submarines which displaced much, much more (Borei, Yasen), but that's a whole other can of worms, and those are being built slower than molasses.

>inb4 Mistral
Yes, yes. But they didn't exactly build that with their own industrial capacity, did they? The whole reason they needed to do the deal was to train up their people and rebuild facilities for large ship construction.

>>34520101
FPBP

>>34522339
>https://www.wired.co.uk/article/f35-simulator-bae-systems-warton
>“The UK decided it wanted to be able to bring back a higher level of payload than the F-35B can hover with, which is quite a major problem because it was not designed to do that,” says Wilson. “So we had to come up with a new type of manoeuvre.” The SRVL works by keeping ‘forward speed’ on, so the wings are operating to provide some lift.

Just as I said, it's a payload thing. If they're still carrying too much payload for an easy VL, they can execute a rolling landing. But it's neither the safest nor simplest process at sea, and can make the deck park and deck flow a nightmare during ops.

I wasn't aware they were seriously training this capability. It seems a good idea to have as an option, and as they say eventually the USMC will train up with it. But they'll still be executing vertical landings whenever they can. No one wants to put a 100m dollar aircraft in the drink because of ship motion and a wind gust.

Honestly, it seems simpler and safer to just dump fuel.

>>34521165
Really?

By the time the blyats get to build it they will be able to buy a dozen second hand type 003 carriers from China.

>>34520158
Is that Shiah Lebouf?

>>34521165
Were those words?

>>34520124
Meh

>>34522414

I wasn't disagreeing with you fella. More just putting out that the RN was being serious about it.

They've done a lot of work on this along side with the USMC. Working on very positive relationship that they've had for a while now. We can expect regular deployment of USMC crew/jets on the QEs.

>Even Italy has more carriers and naval fighters than russia does
kek

>>34520124
Did you hear about what happened at Trafalgar?

>>34522505
>More just putting out that the RN was being serious about it.
Appreciate the correction. It is surprising that they're training enough in this to make it part of standard flight ops.

>We can expect regular deployment of USMC crew/jets on the QEs.
IIRC, there's also an option for RN squadrons to deploy on gator navy flat tops to keep skills up and train, especially if the QE is delayed.

>>34522469

Yes, he was arrested

>>34520095
I was expecting better from china

>>34521874
Because now they cannot take in allied planes that need to land due to emergency etc.

>>34520095
Why? You aren't going to do shit pussy.

WOLVERINES

>>34523217
>Because now they cannot take in allied planes that need to land due to emergency etc.
When could they ever? They could never do that with their older carriers once their last CATOBAR carrier went out of service, why should they be expected to now, especially when any such jet landing on the QE wouldn't be able to take off again (no catapult). So why should they have to install a massive, complicated and maintenance heavy arresting system on their carrier when just tanking and diverting to the backup field is the long established procedure?

>>34520095
I have an advanced degree in Master Naval Shipbuilding Logistics and Planning.

I can authoritatively tell you that the new Russian carrier is inferior:

>Double runways at wrong angle
>Too many net radar posts on the prow
>Double hanger access elevators to the stern
>Two super structures
>Too wide and angular amidships (will lead to stability issues)
>Helipads all over the flightdeck (this WILL lead to crashes)

Get a fucking clue.

File: fuck_that.jpg (374KB, 1920x1054px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1920x1054px

>>34521444

Is this the 1790's naval equivalent of the famas meme?

Well done.

>>34523356
>>Helipads all over the flightdeck (this WILL lead to crashes)

Based on that last deployment it's possible the vatniks don't know you "can" land on a carrier.

>>34521444
HMS

I like this new meme and will use until no one finds it funny anymore

File: Fitzgerald vs cargo ship collision comparison with diagram (not mine) and course(17-06-2017).jpg (615KB, 1612x1390px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1612x1390px

>>34521326
>Two scout boats full of dudes, one boat having engine trouble, get chased down by boghammers
low tier fucking bait mate
could have at least fucking tried

>>34521165
arfcom/10

File: black-man-in-suit-thinking.jpg (14KB, 300x232px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x232px

>>34520095

Do aircraft carriers have any real value now that missiles exist?

File: b-52 carrier landing.jpg (28KB, 326x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 326x500px

Yes, but, can it do this?

>>34520164
>And the QE can field 72 aircraft. Not 40.
40 is what they can afford.

>>34523802
Anon, I really hope you're not that stupid.

>>34523356
>>34523648
No it just shows that function of the ship.
The Kuznetzov they sold to China has 9 helipads to their 10
If we assume the same spit as that airwing wise then its safe to assume 30 to 40 of that 90 airwing are rotary craft

>>34523789
They are often surrounded by mobile missile-carrying anti-missile defense platforms, allowing them to launch proxies able to engage various targets with their own missiles outside of standard missile range.

TL;DR until a nation state creates a legitimate aircraft-carrying submarine, and no, three seaplanes don't count; surface ships will continue to exist as a mainline status.

>>34522509
Italy has a bigger economy too lol

>>34520095
why isnt the tug boat on the blueprint?

File: Kuz (4).jpg (98KB, 790x444px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 790x444px

>>34523859
Because it won't be using the same power plant as the Kuz?

>>34523789
To shoot down whoever is carrying those missiles

>>34520164
>>34523815
72 is Max ferry loading in the same way a Nimitz can load 100, 40 is a realistic air wing for her

>>34520095
>no catapult
Even the French are laughing at them.

>>34523855
Recoverable oversize VLS tube Drones with 1 or 2 harpoints each is what I predict the future of carrier subs to be

>>34523913
Nimtz can load about 170 on ferry

QE can genuinely carry 70 maybe 80 aircraft on a push.
Maybe 120? 130 on ferry?

>>34523924
>French are laughing at them.
honhonhon from drydock...

File: WTFDidYouSay.jpg (127KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x800px

>>34521165

But truly, and all memes cast aside, how completely would the Russians BTFO the British if it come to a naval fight?

>>34523945
>honhonhon from drydock...
Kinda like every Russian ship larger than a destroyer?

>>34524015
In naval warfare there are 2 kinds of ships, Submarines and Targets

The RN subs are far more up to date

>>34520095
Good, little slav. Now if you can build that one you will need 17 more.

File: Carriers VS SUW.png (72KB, 937x686px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 937x686px

>>34523789
Pic related. Carriers kick the shit out of anything else on the ocean in terms of strike range, AA coverage range and anti-ship range. Which, of course, means the carriers themselves stay safer longer and put more warheads on foreheads because they can worry less about getting schwacked.

>>34523789
Why *wouldn't* your naval combat swarm include air power along with all its other capabilities?

"You know what would make this armada full of air defense, air power, and submarine warfare even better?"

"What, Carl?"

"If it didn't have air power."

"... Goddammit, Carl."

>>34524015
The Arctic and baltic fleets as individual fleets are on par with the royal navy

Together they're larger, but royal navy will be defensive only, has better training

Royal navy
One carrier
One helicopter carrier
two Amphibious assault ships
One ship of line
4 Vanguard class SSBNs
3 astute class SSNs (more near completion)
4 trafalgar class SSNs (more awaiting decommission)
Numerous other subs awaiting decommission
6 T45 daring class destroyers
13 T23 Frigates
4 Corvettes/ OPVs
5 Cutters
8 Hunt class mine warfare vessels
7 Sandown class mine warfare vessels
2 multipurpose survey
One destroyer used as accommodation and training ship
Numerous patrol craft, army logistics vessels

3 dock ships
3 tankers
4 tankers nearly completed
1 multi use replenisher
2 solid replenishment ships
one "casualty receiving ship/ aviation trainer" helicopter carrier
4 ferries
Numerous ships taken from trade that could be fitted with makeshift weapons

>>34523815
>40 is what they can afford.

Forty of what? They're getting 138 F-35B and have an entire navy air arm and air force to draw rotary assets from.

>>34523913

The forty number comes from 36 F-35Bs and four AWACS only. You'd see more aircraft than for a warload.

>>34520095
Scared of what exactly? I mean its not like the Russians are building a new carrier anytime soon, and one carrier with about 30 combat aircraft isn't exactly a threat.

>>34524015
>>34524159
Arctic fleet
one typhoon class ssbn
3 sierra class ssns
1 victor class ssn
6 delta class ssbn
1 borey class ssbn
6 akula class ssn
1 aircraft carrier
1 battle-cruiser
1 cruiser
2 Sovremennyy class destroyers
5 Udaloy class destroyers
7 kilo class SS

Baltic fleet
1 krivak class frigate
2 Sovremennyy class destroyer
2 Neustrashimyy-class figates
4 Steregushchiy-class corvettes
1 lada class ssn
2 kilo ss
8 parchim class corvette
5 sonya class minesweepers
6 other minsweepers/ patrol boats
4 Nanuchka class corvettes

but the question is when was the last time some of these ships left port? how long is there stay at sea?

>>34520095
>Russian "we're totally gonna" concept they can't actually afford

>>34524285
Better question, how is the baltic navy going to leave the baltic sea?

>>34524295
thats a good point they're stuck in port 6 months of the year due to ice, and the remaining 6 months ships are under manned to the point where they have skeleton crews aboad

>>34520095
Oh, you mean that plastic model with navalized PAK-FAs, the plane which is still in development and will only have like 12 aircraft ordered, on it? Yeah, I bet that the US is very, very afraid. Funny how the meme image doesn't compare the slavic vaporware with the Ford either.

>>34520095
yes but not for that reason

>>34521407
Lolno

File: danish-straits-1_438x0_scale.jpg (106KB, 438x255px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 438x255px

>>34524323

File: The USS Constitution passes the Boston skyline 2012 COMMENT.jpg (241KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1000x666px

>>34521444
Kind of hope you are tarred and feathered.

File: blown.jpg (68KB, 600x420px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x420px

>>34524476
> I hope you like being tarred then blown from cannon?
FTFY

>>34524331
That is the Ford you tourist.

>>34520256
And that's just the super carriers.
We have another 10 of the smaller carriers.
imho i'd like to see half our carrier fleet mothballed.
We are 20 trillion in debt after all, and not fighting for our survival like in WWII.

File: 170.png (454KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1200x800px

>>34523770
>American boat engine is of shit working
>Not even last whole day
>We still best!

>>34520104
without american dollars, china is nothing

i say we start another opium war to remind the yellow slopes of their place.

File: url[1].jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

>>34526325
How many planes did you lose before cancelling all Kuznetsov flight ops?

>>34526354
>randomly bringing up China
lolwut

>>34521036
When will they learn?

>>34520158
I wonder if he thinks about how fucked his career is now. First he was minor B-list actor who could have possibly made it to the big time. Now, he's a risk to everyone's life and probably blacklisted for his autistic behavior

File: don't you dare deny the holocaust you goy.jpg (26KB, 609x343px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 609x343px

worst language and worst alphabet ever made = Russian.

I cannot wait until Russia collapses again, only this time the whole country will fragment and Russia will finally be a thing of the past. And the rest of the civilized world can move on and put communist insurrection to rest because Russia will be dead and no longer undermining free market economies.

File: efdf.png (44KB, 652x578px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 652x578px

>>34520095
the nimitz can carry 90 fixed wing aircraft and the ford class is bigger and supposed to be able to support more aircraft.

>>34526354
Hey bud China holds 1 trillion in US debt

File: Go ahead, kiss it.jpg (42KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x450px

>>34526823
hey bud, that debt doesn't matter. The chinks are buying everything outside of china because chinese economy is collapsing just like the Russian one.

>>34526384
How many hours you spend in paint friend?

The carrier of Russia lets no smoke, is lie. Plane is fine is not lost.

It's not the number of dots... But the quality of dots..

>>34523770
Has there been any sort of official announcement on this yet? I left for two weeks a couple days after it happened.

>>34520095
What's going on at the front of the Russian carrier? Does it have a battery of broadside guns?

File: 1492575990407.jpg (61KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 531x640px

>>34526886

>>34526886
Which plane? there were at least 3

>>34520095
And how is Russia going to afford this?

>>34527428
Trump will buy it for them.

>>34523770
Can someone explain the map thing at the bottom.

>>34526862
>implying Americans buy much of anything American

>>34527733
>Implying it isn't just that we've offshored low-skill manufacturing and assembly

>>34526792

It might carry fewer than the Nimitz does at the moment, but that would be due to the withdrawal of the F/A-18C/D from service for the larger F/A-18E/F and F-35C

File: 1495251306656.jpg (225KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 800x533px

>>34520095
>Russian carrier can hold 90 aircraft
>mfw 10 roll off the side

File: Kuznetsov_leaving_Severomorsk.jpg (56KB, 777x437px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 777x437px

>>34526384
>"Old Smokie"

File: Kuznetsov_steaming_in_Black_Sea_seen_from_ISS.jpg (53KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x635px

>>34528308

>>34527826
Not anymore.

>>34528440
Not anymore what? Nobody's making CPUs anybody wants in Shenzhen, buddy.

>>34520164
Thank the frackers for that. They have hurt Putin worse than anybody else.

>>34528515
I can tell English isn't your first language. Let me break it down for you, pajeet. The other poster said we offshore for low-skill manufacturing. I said not anymore. As in we don't offshore anymore you idiotic child.

File: 1491985120579.gif (2MB, 296x235px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 296x235px

>>34521694
fuck

>>34528322
This is a fake but how big of a hazard is the Kuznetsov to the security of every other ship in the fleet?

>>34528885
>kuznetsov inevitbly breaks down
oh no dmitri, worst posting in russian navy has broken down once again. now we must decide to have fleet loiter vulnerably to protect shitty ramp or send them on their way and possibly have rust bucket sink on its own

>>34528885
>centerpiece of your battle group cannot be counted on to steam for 7 consecutive days without a significant engineering casualty
>the ship responsible for the vast bulk of both airborne sensors and air defense
>the ship enabling standoff strikes against dangerous areas
>the ship making up a huge portion of your long range ASW strength
>and the bitch is so close with her ocean going tug they're practically common law spouses

You tell me...

>>34528990
>they're practically common law spouses
oh fuck too real

>>34520095
So its a conceptual drawing of was Russia wants to achieve against a Ford class ship. But less troops are not a bad thing in terms of efficiency due to automation or space for aircraft on board instead of shit tier conscript bunks taking up space.

>>34520118
Can you not see the inequity in the little square dots? We're on the wrong side of an adverse correlation of dots. Congress needs to pull their thumbs out of their asses and appropriate some more dot money. This is intolerable.

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

20KB, 371x282px

>>34523802
>MURRICA into SCIENCE again

>>34529515
I knew someone divided by zero on that damn shuttle. There's no other way to get past Warp 9.

>>34524367
The danish straits aren't some impassable obstacle, ships have passed there for centuries.

>>34529602
>The danish straits aren't some impassable obstacle, ships have passed there for centuries.
But they are constricted, shallow and within pissing distance of every coastal gun, AShM launcher, airfield and other implements of ouchie for three different countries. If they wanted to shut it down, the Russian navy would loose a lot of toys trying to open it back up.

>>34529623
But why would Britain have access to coastal guns, AShM launchers, airfields and other implements of ouchie of three different countries?

>>34529636
Well, see, there's this little thing called NATO for the Danish and Norwegian Tools of Bad Touch, and then there's the fact that the Swedes get mighty pouty whenever the Russians fuck with them using just a sub or two, so if a shooting war kicked off on their doorstep, I can only believe they'd come running to mama NATO to help give them the chance to even the score up a little. They're certainly not going to be giving Russia a reacharound followed by eggs and bacon in the morning.

>>34529662
But then you're being an idiot and including things which weren't involved in the original scenario. Just leave the goal posts where they were, okay?

File: Strangelove is pleased.jpg (104KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x768px

>>34529623
>implements of ouchie
>>34529662
>Tools of Bad Touch
>a reacharound followed by eggs and bacon in the morning.
You. You I like.

>>34529673
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to bring reality into your little sand box while you were playing.

Mind the cat shit. The neighborhood cats LOVE that damn sand box for some reason. Don't forget to let the other little kids play in it too.

>>34529688
Why are you being so salty?

Article 5 doesn't apply if Britain is the one doing the attacking, and the nords may just as well say "fuck wasting lives for your stupid shit".

Do you understand now why you don't include unknowns in a scenario like this?

for real, what are the dots?

>>34529723
Planes, you silly clod.

>>34529720
>Do you understand now why you don't include unknowns in a scenario like this?
I can think of several ways in which Britain could reasonably drawn into a conflict with Russia, but there is literally zero profit for Britain to be attacking Russia on its own. For what reason? To what end? Aiming at what gain? It makes zero sense.

Any conflict the UK and Russia find themselves on opposite sides of will most certainly feature NATO involvement.

File: Admiral Kuznetsov.jpg (87KB, 886x1200px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 886x1200px

>>34520095
>No dry docks in Russia big enough to build carriers
>All of the soviet Union's naval engines were built in Ukraine
>Putin is cutting the budget this year
>Budget cuts are even worse when you take inflation and currency markets into account
>Sub 50$ oil is here to stay
Yeah, good luck with that one

>>34529742
And in what way would Russia profit from a conflict with Britain? How would other NATO members benefit from a conflict with Russia.

I'm not going to get into a shitty speculative argument with you when are incapable of staying within anon's simple scenario.

>>34529765
>>No dry docks in Russia big enough to build carriers
Are you sure about that? Even fucking Finland would have drydocks big enough to build carriers, and Russia have a lot bigger naval bases.

>>34529765
Imagine the vatnik tears if they were forced to give up Crimea entirely. Their navy would be a dead force walking.
>yes, walking, because they can't replace their engines anymore

>>34529790
>Russia forced to give up Crimea entirely
Not going to happen, sorry senpai keep dreaming.

>>34529766
Fine. Throw your temper tantrum. But the point remains that a proportionally small amount of RN assets could make passing that strait very, very costly even without Danish/Norge/Swede support.

>>34529787
Basically all of the Soviet Union's large shipbuilding capability was based in Ukraine, and not even Crimea

>>34529798
Except if the assets were moved out before the outbreak of war. It's not unreasonable to assume that Russia would move them out as relations with Britain or anyone else worsened.

And if war immediately broke out, it would also take time for RN to move assets close enough to close the gap.

And again, if nords weren't involved on Britain's side as co-belligerents, they could prevent Britain from acting within their waters or airspace.

>>34529812
>Except if the assets were moved out before the outbreak of war
That would be a retarded move, all of your shit would get Graf Spee'd in no time

>>34529812
>leave the baltic unprotected
>as war is breaking out

Genius plan.

File: 764d8273fef2512a0e9ca6828df37cf8.jpg (430KB, 1600x911px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1600x911px

>>34521653

>>34529828
...
That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.

>>34529822
What are you referring by "my shit"? I'm not a slav.

>>34529827
As opposed to what, leaving the rest of Russia undefended? It's at least easier for Russia to defend access to St. Petersburg by land- and air based assets if UK decides to move their ships in.

>>34525022
The why do the slavrunes read "Nimitz", nigger?

>>34529869
The configuration is clearly the Ford.

>>34526756
>autistic behavior

bipolar*

File: terrifying russian army.webm (3MB, 696x528px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 696x528px

>>34521182

Also, at the end of the day it's Russia. There problem hasn't been their designs but rather that they can't afford to field them in any real numbers, certainly not anywhere close to the US.

>>34529858
How long have you been here? lol

File: 1488120728847.gif (472KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 500x281px

>>34529869
Russians can't tell ships apart when they don't look like rush hour in Beijing.

File: Slavess.jpg (214KB, 1036x818px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1036x818px

Slav women are like fine wine.

Just keep getting better with age.

>>34528717
You're clearly a complete idiot who has no idea what he's talking about.

>>34529595
>18xC
>Warp 9
More around 2.5.

>>34530209
i am russian

and pfffffffffffftttt

all our woman explode into fat swamp creatures after they hit 25

>>34526184
they are cool, but same here matey

U.S. NAVY = Earth Defence Force Navy

>>34530706
I don't want to live on Earth where Defence Forces are just surrendering spic monkeys

>>34530706
Aliens would just send a few space freighter barges and ram the USN into oblivion.

>>34521141
you mean in texas or wherever the studio was

>>34526184
A majority of that debt is welfare programs, not military.

File: 140624-CWCE_Food_Stamp_Scam_POST_CHART[1].png (205KB, 638x638px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 638x638px

>>34531604
Yeah, corporate welfare. Even the individual welfare you're talking about is usually subsidizing corporate payroll because they can get away with paying unlivable wages.

>>34520232
bombing sand niggers always makes sense.

>>34526184
half the federal budget is spent on gibs

>>34531734
Your post reads like some retard OWS wannabe and your infograph is oversimplifying a problem. Fuck off

File: Walmart-food-stamp-medicaid-workers[1].jpg (34KB, 500x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x331px

>>34531918
No. It's a hard fact that Walmart is a major symptom of corporate welfare and how low minimum wage perpetuates income disparity. They drive small, local businesses that kept money in the local economies out of business, which forces often several towns in an area to compete for far less jobs. They pay so little and keep hours so short nobody qualifies for benefits. And they instruct their employees to get on welfare. Which then the store becomes the only place they can afford to shop at.

And all of us are paying for this graft with our tax dollars, and here you are blaming the employees.