Who's next?

I'm pretty sure Thailand converted theirs to a museum and only actives it for large scale rescue missions.

Philippines has reviews for Mistral class to be converted to F-35 short take off carrier with ramp.

>>34956234
How many of these can actually deploy with a functioning air component?

File: burgers embracing of poo-in-loo.jpg (94KB, 567x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 567x768px

>>34956392
I am pretty sure that the poo-in-loo boat is just for show, because they have not done a single test game on it yet

>>34956433
plus I am pretty sure that shitting on the top deck isn't good for the metal

>>34956433
Even if they did manage to do anything with it, they would either ram a jetty, fishing vessel, or catch fire.

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Naval_accidents

>>34956342
Hahahahahahahaha ha hahheheheheee

geez, from now on I guess the French get a pass

I'm gonna be sick, all those
>ramps

>>34956234
Brazil-fag here, our Navy is gonna retire and scrap it's carrier, and if you ask me then I'd say it's about fucking time.

>>34956600
any plans for a replacement?

>>34956619
None. Just dreams.

File: --izumo-japan-maritime-self-defense-force-kantai-collection-and-original-drawn-by-butcha-u-and-okamoto-kazuhiro--ae088aac81fdf78aafeee5dd5d4a05ed.jpg (350KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 800x792px

>>34956234
If we're including helicopter carriers like the Queen Elizabeth, then Izumo chan should be on there too.

File: cover.jpg (35KB, 393x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 393x500px

Finland is giving me that Submarine Titans vibe right now...

>Acknowledged, will comply. *Sends bio-engineered Dolphin bombs to destroy ports and research labs*

File: 1503314541699m.jpg (53KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x576px

>>34956511
>implying the competition is any better

File: 7th.jpg (641KB, 1384x1892px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1384x1892px

>>34956745
>7th fleet
Ah yes.

>>34956234
>no Japan in OP pic

>>34956716
>someone else remembers this game
[90s techno intensifies]

File: 1503540529042.jpg (1MB, 1865x1614px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1865x1614px

at least we didn't fall for the ramp meme.

>>34956949
White Sharks or BTFO

>>34957146
Fuck you, the "canadian" carrier is swiss

>>34957146
Maximum lyl.

But back to seriousness, is there any room for anything approaching the size and role of a carrier in Canada's naval doctrine?

File: maggie1.jpg (15KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x325px

>>34957179
>surrounded by three oceans and not having a carrier program.

We used to be a Carrier country ;_;

>>34957179
No. They do need a decent sub and asw force though

File: 7261570516_644f17e161_b.jpg (239KB, 1024x696px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1024x696px

>>34957179
where are the funds for a carrier gonna come from? Our CF-18s were obsolete during the first Persian Gulf War. Our Frigates are no longer sea worthy & half the destroyers have rusted out. The submarines we bought off Britain are a fucking joke and as >>34957399 pointed out we need some kind of asw, the CP-140 Aurora is probably fine spotting North Korea tier shit but that's about it.

But not all is bad, the Saudis are showing us our LAVs are pretty good at crushing civilian uprisings

>>34956234

Space Carriers when Nasa?

>>34956716
Good god I thought I was the only guy to play this game. White Sharks Terminators ftw.

Didn't the Argies had a carrier?

>>34956234
>I hear Turkey is already in the running.

Yup they are buying one based in the Spanish one, just like Australia

Personally, I wonder which country is the first to develop smart sleeper torpedo-mines and send the carriers where the cavalry's gone.

>>34956234
>USA
>France
>Hue
Only these have real carriers and not
>ramps

>>34956433
>free smells

>>34957399
Reminder that the Victoria class a shit and has been nothing but trouble since its introduction.

>>34957179
Nuclear carrier/icebreaker with a well deck: basically just a mobile base for Arctic ops?

Canada's ideal navy:

>4 ASW helicopter carriers, two on each coast, fitted for but not with F-35s
>12 Halifax replacement frigates to operate with the carriers
>8 Arleigh Burkes to operate independently in sea lanes
>Various minesweepers and ice breakers
>2-4 large replenishment vessels
>8-12 diesel electric submarines that actually work

But I might as well ask for a nuclear program at that point of "shit that will never happen"

>>34956234

Americans are in the middle of a replacement program. They are retiring a Nimitz Carrier every time a Gerald R. Ford class comes on-line. The US plans for 10 of these modern carrier groups.

>>34959346
>4 ASW helicopter carriers
You're going to need 6 if you want to keep one on station on each coast constantly.

>>34959346

Shit list.

>>34956682
Got more modern botes?

File: 1478161791692.jpg (43KB, 344x344px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 344x344px

>>34959277
You forgot Finland

>>34956682

Dunno why you think the QEs are helicopter carriers when their primary tasking is strike/cap.

>>34959205
Hopefully they have better luck than us, they were basically in the dry docks for two years fixing problems.

>>34956342
Poornoy you need to go back

File: Canberra Class CBG.jpg (2MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2400px

Australia will dominate the world

>>34956619

They might be getting HMS Ocean for cheap to at least keep a rotary aviation capability, but that ship was bought on the cheap when new and has been worked to death.

>>34960238
>a ramp on a boat that can't launch planes

File: 1503585496478.png (32KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x300px

>>34960256
>Non-US country gets carrier
>B-BUT IT HAS A RAMP HAHA ARGUMENT INVALID

Pan America btfo

>>34960272
cunt i'm an australian, that's not a carrier

>>34960274
Fully capable of launching planes if provided with ILS and cable arresting equipment

>>34960274
If we didn't want a carrier we would of gotten rid of the ramp, watch one of the ships undergo a conversion when things start getting hot

>>34960281
yeah sure mate, planned for carrier operations, not fitted for or with

are you going to tell me that our new submarines are going to have nuclear missiles? get fucked

File: HMCSJeanChretienMO.jpg (53KB, 404x303px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 404x303px

>>34957146

>>34960272
>>34960274
Embarrassing.

>>34959700
It's bait.
He wants attention.

File: Ladji_Ankaran_in_Triglav.jpg (84KB, 900x589px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 900x589px

>>34956234
slovenia

>>34959907
lyar....

>>34960891
>>34960288
>are you going to tell me that our new submarines are going to have nuclear missiles?

Israels dolphin class submarines even not being SSBNs are suspected to have nuclear tipped SLCMs, so it's technically feasible for an SSG like the Collins to have such a thing, plus if you hadn't been under a rock you would of noticed the debate in defense circles about the possibility of converting one of the LHDs to fixed wing :) nothing stopping us from having a carrier other then the political will.

>>34956234
North Korea.

>>34960288
>>34963600

Also i'd do like to point out that the HTMS Chakri Naruebet in OP's pic stopped operating fixed wing aircraft in 2006, but i guess that still doesn't make it a carrier even with the Ramp.

>>34963600

Not him, but sure it is technically feasible. However, the reality is there's a prohibitive cost implication and technical risk hence why such plans have been binned.

You'd have to do a lot of work to the ships to provide credible capability.

>>34956600
>>34956619

Buying the HMS Ocean would be such a fucking mistake and i'm not even in the Navy.

t. Armyfag.

>>34963685
true, but in the face of the largest peacetime military buildup ever stuff like this should on the table, and if things go south in Asia we will have the money and reason to do such a thing.

Wish my country Chile was less Irrelevant internationally so we would get some nice battle fleet :P

>>34963720

The kind of expenditure you're thinking about will not cover the costs. The amount that will be spend may as well build new ships that have fixed wing support build in.

>>34956234
>turkey
>south korea
>japan
>indonesia(most unlikely candidate and even if they do it will be in a very distant future)
but only STOVL
irrc spain and australia wont have fixed wing aircraft but i might be wrong
brazil would scrap there carrier a shame i think
because my fetish are small countries operating carriers
thailands doesnt count really they lost fixed wing capacity and the carrier rarely leaves port
back when marked was flooded by cheap carriers after ww2
they were operated by:
>argentina
>australia
>brazil
>canada
>netherlands
all fixed wing also india has a long standing aircraft carrier tradition and has used them in wars
unfortunately building and operating a fixed wing aircraft carrier has become to expensive and manpower intensive even if new countries get carriers they will be STOLV

>>34964820
carriers are a fucking meme brazil better build some nuclear subs instead

It really fucking angers me that the Minister of Defence keeps fucking beating around the bush when it comes to the Navy, We have the AOPS ships being built and a tanker being refitted for support but for fuck's sakes. The Athabasca is gonna hit a growler in the water and explode and half the Halifax class are going to keep getting refitted and rearmed until they just drop dead in the water and drift into a lighthouse.
They keep talking about securing the Arctic and making sure when it melts that they tax the shit out of any ship sailing through but they won't have jack shit to back it up. The Victorias are going to catch fire in Halifax harbour and The Orca's are just gonna sit around at dock because they aren't used for anything. Hell, We haven't even begun talking about the SCSC project that they decided to postpone for four years.

>>34956234
I don't have the article OP but I read that the Turks are going to purchase 2 LHDs off Spain and convert them to small aircraft carriers
Idk what they will do with the well dock and all
I just think the Turks are just copying off Australia first the Oliver hazard Perrys then the MEKO 200s now Spanish LHDs

>>34960281
>>34960284
It's unable to take fix wing aircraft not even VTOL navy being navy cheaper out and the flight deck isn't strong enough and the reason they kept the ramp is because they would've had to have paid the Spanish over 100 million to change the design

>>34964820
Spain operates Harriers now. They'll probably buy the F-35B, since it's not like there's another Harrier replacement ever happening.

>>34964820
>thailands doesnt count really they lost fixed wing capacity
It's less that they lost capacity and more that they lost replacement parts for first gen matador harriers. Unless that's what you meant.

>>34964983
that chart is outdated

>>34965313
yes and it was in like 2006 the carrier is rarely used and never leaves port i doubt they will get new planes which is a shame because they could get some real nice better and newer harriers from USMC or others seeming they get replaced with f-35s

>>34965434
Every Harrier in the world is a tired old bird at this point.

File: future_chinese_carriers.jpg (116KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1000x562px

China plans to eventually operate 6 carriers concurrently. Their second carrier and their first domestically built one CV17 Shangdong is ahead of schedule and will probably be ready by late 2018

>>34956234
damn...lost technology from the finno-korean hyperwar...

>>34965174
>the absolute state of the ass end of the anglo world

>>34965611
6 operating all at once? seems like a huge waste of money desu

>>34965709
6 is the bare minimum they'll need to maintain a credible blue water presence. We don't have 10 supercarriers because we need all 10 deployed globally, we have 10 just so we can always have at least 2-3 strike groups actively deployed at any given time.

>>34965709
Yes, thats good. The only way to beat China is to bait them into overspending on expensive high maintainence hardware. The US should transfer more ships to the Pacific and sail close to Chinese waters. The Chinkniks will howl behind their Great Wall of the Internet and their government will bow to public pressure to build more ships. When the inevitable economic slowdown occurs, they'll end up like the USSR.

>>34966093

But china only spends half as much as a % of GDP as the us

>>34966093
The USSR economy is nothing like the current PRC system and nowhere near as globally integrated.

>>34965709
>>34966093
like >>34965888 said they're building up their navy so they can be more globally relevant.

>>34965709
>>34965888
>>34967186

Once the other carrie4rs are in service, CV16 and CV17 will probably be relegated to training and other close, domestic duties. CV18 and CV19 are supposed to be proper American style catapults with no ramps, and CVN20 and CVN21 are projected to be nuclear

>>34965888
Doesn't france only have 2 tho

File: royalcaliphatenavy.png (3MB, 1772x997px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1772x997px

>>34956234
Here's a concept design of Turkish origin.

>>34965174
>the flight deck isn't strong enough

i challenge you to back that up

>>34967996
They have 1, and it's in refit right now.

>>34956433
fuck even the water in the pic for india looks like shit. Really indicative of thier country as a whole.

>>34968069
Think hes confused with the coating used to protect the deck from exhaust gasses.
The RAN has played up the difficulties in flying F-35s from the new LHDs mainly to lull the RAF/MOD into a false sense of security.

>>34968610
>RAF
RAAF

>>34959660
Bless you Perkele spurdo finn.

File: laughing_whores_dot_jaypeg.png (2MB, 1760x894px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1760x894px

>>34965611
>mfw China over-invests in military when thy could get better political outcomes by sorting out their deeply fucked economy or putting the money into the AIIB to buy influence

>>34965363
How is that chart outdated?

File: russian-space-shuttle-space-ship-buran-on-the-rhine-on-its-way-from-B2C0R8.jpg (240KB, 1300x956px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1300x956px

Germany operates a soviet space shuttle that can be launched from a river or a truck or even both at once. They dont need a moon rover by doing that. Truly superior engineering :^]

Picture related, luftwaffe shipping in rapists from distant parts of the universe to cologne to strengthen diversity

>>34959346
Australia is sort of close to this.

>>34965539
>QE
>CATOBAR

>>34957146
This carrier is swiss you cocksucker

>>34969027
For a brief period the design was changed to CATOBAR, until the Tories decided it would cost too much to convert both of them, so went back to STOL.

>>34956342
WTF? This is obviously fake.

t. Flip

>>34956234
I have 0 carrier/plane knowledge.
Whats the big deal with ramp? Isn't it a recent invention?

File: RuN Aviation Cruiser.jpg (764KB, 1400x940px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1400x940px

>>34969672
Ramps limit the weight of the aircraft that can be launched. That means those aircraft can't carry as many weapons or as much fuels as a CATOBAR carrier. It also prevents the use of existing fixed wing AWACS and refueling assets.

The advantage of a ramp is that it is cheaper and much simpler to maintain than a catapult system.

File: USS Ronald Reagan CVN76 & A12 Sao Paulo.jpg (996KB, 2100x1225px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 2100x1225px

FYI: as of February the São Paulo (A12) is scheduled for decommissioning.

>>34969693
But the carriers during the second world war didn't use ramp?

File: JMSDF_Hyuga_DDH181 - Japan Helo carrier.jpg (142KB, 990x684px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 990x684px

>>34969709
No. Aircraft were much lighter at the time.

File: 1499850170312.png (380KB, 647x744px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 647x744px

>>34956835
that damage report. oh boy

>>34963600
But you decided to not buy 214 class subs... no nuke for you

>>34969672

Not a recent invention.
It provides extra 'runway' length and a boost to aircraft who are not conventionally launched.

>>34969693
>Ramps limit the weight of the aircraft that can be launched.

Wrong!

>that means those aircraft can't carry as many weapons or as much fuels as a CATOBAR carrier.

Semi-correct! As it also depends on the aircraft.

>It also prevents the use of existing fixed wing AWACS and refueling assets.

Also wrong!

>The advantage of a ramp is that it is cheaper and much simpler to maintain than a catapult system.

That's not to with the ramp, that's to do with the type of aircraft. The discussion is ramped vs unramped STOVL/VOTL/SRVL operations. Not STOVL vs CATOBAR.

3/10 go read the /k/ archives for STOVL vs CATOBAR.

>>34969714
Is it because of the ramp that the hms queen elizabeth can't welcome rafales?

>>34969709
Takeoff runs were short enough that they didn't need catapults for flat tops. Catapults, or ski ramps, only really became a necessity with the advent of supersonic jets in the 50's though they also allowed for much heavier subsonic aircraft as well.

>>34969729
>>34969693

And I've just realised that you made this post afatoldman because of that I am disappointed in you.

You should know better.

>>34969731

It's because she lacks the catapult to launch the aircraft and the traps to catch/recover them as she is configured to carry F-35Bs which do not require them.

>>34969709
Hydraulic catapults where used (especially by the Brits) to launch heavy laden strike aircraft.
Battleships and cruisers used gunpowder catapults to launch floatplanes.

>>34969729
Are you claiming that the E-2C/D can be launched from a non-CATOBAR carrier? Because I'm pretty sure they can't be.

>>34969757
>F-35Bs
These won't use the ramp then?

>>34969767

It can indeed.

North Grumman offered E-2s to both the UK's for QEs in STOVL configuration and India's Vikramaditya in STOBAR configuration.

>>34969783

They aren't required, but assist in providing maximum takeoff load and takeoff in poor weather conditions.

>>34969783
They'll use the ramp because there's no reason not to. Just because it can VTOL doesn't mean it's the best way to get off the ground, a short takeoff run and ramp into the air puts less stress on the engine and lets the plane get off the deck with a greater weapon and fuel load.

>>34968890
charles de gaulle has 8x 20mm guns
indian carrier has 4x ak630 cwis
Liaoning has 3x cwis and 3x missile launchers
vikrant will have 4x 76mm guns

>>34969708
such a shame the last meme country to operate carriers

>>34956234
How are the French and fucking BRAZIL the only other countries without >ramps

>>34969913
Cause the Brazil one used to be French.

>>34969913
french is mostly because rafale and they never operated STOLV and pride

>>34969729
wut?

A fully loaded F/A-18 super hornet is not taking off the QE.

Ramps limit payload, unless you spend the money on developing a plane just for the ramp, which is why the F-35 costs so fucking much.

>>34969731
Fun fact, both Rafale and FA-18 can operate from ramps.

>>34969913
Sao Paulo used to be called Foch, sistership of the Clemenceau. And it's french made.

>>34970043

Ramps do not limit the payload or navies wouldn't them on. The limitation of payload exists with the aircraft and method of takeoff.

Ramps do the very opposite of what you state for STOVL / STOBAR carriers.

>>34969762
Gunpowder catapults! Why its not used anymore? How inferior was it compared to steam?

>>34970141
Are you daft, navies operate ramps because they are cheaper and less complicated, the trade off is less capable jets and for most that's okay.

>>34970209

Nothing you've said disputes my above post, however you mean they operate STOVL jets instead of CATOBAR jets because they are cheaper and less complex.

File: 1499911628118m.jpg (126KB, 758x1024px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 758x1024px

>>34959660
Oh fug :-DDDDDD

>>34970256
wut? STOVL jets are more complex and cost more. Ramps are cheaper to build and maintain than catapults.

The only reason anyone would choose a ramp based carrier is because they can't afford to operate a catapult based carrier.

Ramps mean jets with lower gross weight and less jets per minute can be launched.

File: 010v2.jpg (709KB, 1024x1365px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1024x1365px

>>34965174

>It's unable to take fix wing aircraft not even VTOL

Spanish navy begs to differ.

File: 1493970948116.jpg (40KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x381px

>>34970319

What even is this entire post.

>STOVL jets are more complex and cost more.

They are more complex to develop and that's about it. STOVL/VOL aircraft do not even remotely reach the complexity and difficulties that conventional does.

Creating and maintaining CATOBAR skills is manpower, equipment-wise and cost intensive. Which is totally nothing like STOVL, which you can train in days.

>Ramps are cheaper to build and maintain than catapults.

Correct.

>The only reason anyone would choose a ramp based carrier is because they can't afford to operate a catapult based carrier.

Or that it doesn't match requirements.

>Ramps mean jets with lower gross weight and less jets per minute can be launched.

You are saying that a STOVL aircraft would have a larger takeoff load if it were to take off from a non-ramped STOVL carrier, is this correct?

Not true at all. STOVL, as type of aircraft can produce more sorties proportionally than CATOBAR.


>>34970475

Juan Carlos I class is not the same as Canberra-class. The Canberra-class is not designed to support fixed wing in its current configuration.

>>34970319
>less jets per minute can be launched.
I don't understand this bit. I would think it would take less time to launch jets from a ramp because you can just get the jet in position and launch without having to attach to or set up anything.

Is it because ships can only have bow ramps, but catapults can be at the bow and waist (more launch positions), or is there some reason that one ramp would be able to sortie fewer planes in a given time than one catapult?

>>34970632

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Otherwise he wouldn't be trying to argue that STOVL jets are not ramp jets.

>>34956234
Seeing as Turkey will be facing a Syria tier civil war shitstorm in the next 5 years, I don't think so

File: 4.jpg (478KB, 2000x1517px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2000x1517px

>>34965611
Navalized J-20s for the 002!

File: 5.jpg (481KB, 2000x1518px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 2000x1518px

>>34970884
And Sharp-Sword UCAVs.

File: 3.jpg (463KB, 2000x1517px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 2000x1517px

>>34970892
And fixed wing AEW&C.

File: 1 (2).jpg (476KB, 2000x1518px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 2000x1518px

>>34970897
Dual-Band Radars.

>>34956234
Italy here, we're probably gonna scrap the Garibaldi carrier in 2022, with the new Trieste replacing it

>>34970599

Interesting, i thought they where basically the same, i will try to find more ino on that.

>>34970892
<< Destroy the Arsenal Bird! >>

>>34970884
>J-20

How can the F-35 even compete?

>>34970884
>Austra
>>34970892
>>34970897
>>34970931

talk about steal ideas and designs...

File: 200244apldzppmg8nx1plw.jpg (512KB, 2800x1233px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 2800x1233px

>>34970884
Unironically the most aesthetic fighter alive.

File: 001706guqg98dp98l1g8tg.jpg (96KB, 2000x950px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 2000x950px

>>34971148

>>34966093
more like USA bait itself.

>>34971145
>talk about steal ideas and designs...

Most American innovation was based on British and German work.

Without the Tizzard mission, the US would not have been able to develop the following at the rate they did:

Radar, jet engines, rockets, sonar, proximity fuses, computers, cavity magnetrons, nuclear weapons, cathode ray tube's, long range navigation, inertial navigation,

>"When the members of the Tizard Mission brought one cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores".

>>34956342
How are they going to pay for that? Sell a bunch of monkey pinays to Saudi Arabia?

>>34970319

Amusingly, at the moment, the F-35B is cheaper than the F-35C. Though that is because there is greater commonality with the A airframe, the volume of B orders is greater than C at the moment, and the C is further behind in development. Not due to complexity, the lift fan system got a big head start.

>>34971514
Yeah, C orders are going down while B orders are going up. It's weird, I thought the opposite would happen.

File: Harrier Norway.jpg (560KB, 1275x868px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1275x868px

>>34971514
B is the most versatile airframe.

C might be able to be launched from carriers, but there's no reason you's choose it for anything else.

b can operate from carriers runways and rough strips.

people HUGELY underestimate how important STOVL is. Many countries have unfriendly neighbours who are within striking range of their airbases.

Launching 5th gens from motorways and runway mats laid overnight is an essential trait.

>>34958157
They don't anymore.

>>34956234
Brazil's carrier has been decommissioned and scrapped

File: america is asshole.jpg (413KB, 1180x1736px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1180x1736px

>>34970632
>I would think it would take less time to launch jets from a ramp because you can just get the jet in position and launch without having to attach to or set up anything.

That's exactly correct anon

>>34972448
>none at sea at the start of the year, two at sea now.

>>34970884
First seeing that was a serious muh dik moment

>>34972448
But where are the LHAs?

File: Su-33.jpg (502KB, 1451x1015px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1451x1015px

>>34964983

Hmm, seems like making your ship a guided missile cruiser/carrier hybrid isn't a...bad idea.

Too bad it's a ramp and not a CATOBAR.

>>34957146
If I wanted to see ski-jumps, I'd go up to Winter Park.

>>34974714
It's fine if you don't want to use it as a traditional carrier, but the Russians clearly do. It's the same size as the QE and bigger than the CdG and can't carry half the number of jets either of them can.

File: brazil.png (331KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1280x1280px

>>34963707
Replacing a worn out frog carrier with a worn out bong one, what could go wrong?

>>34971145
"Good artists copy. Great artists steal."

-Steve Jobs

>>34956716
One of my favs growing up, /k/udos

>>34957559
>half the destroyers have rusted out

Nigga all 3 of them are retired and being scrapped.

File: drinkin robots.jpg (306KB, 1280x671px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1280x671px

>>34957146
>tfw we used to have 2 carrier groups and the liberals decided to scrap both carriers because liberals gonna liberal.

>>34968331
The problem with having one is that it spends half the time in dock/refits/repairs . The spend 50% of their time without a carier.

Any country that wants a carrier should have 2 at a minimum.

>>34972249
The British seem to realise every fucking time and still get mocked for it.

>>34978066
To be fair, carriers are hopelessly expensive to run.

>>34963600
>SSG like the Collins

I'm not sure that being able to fire a TLAM or Harpoon from your torpedo tubes really counts as being a SSG(is every nuke attack boat in NATO an SSGN?)

Australia even shitposts when it comes to hull classifications

File: IMG_0600.jpg (207KB, 750x1105px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 750x1105px

>>34968863
>$40 billion is "over-investing"

>>34971148
Sexy and I know it

>>34971148
>delta-canard fighters making the best fighters for two generations now

>>34970298
oh fug :DDDDDD

>>34956234
>Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Argentina
>Maybe North Korea in the form of a shitty Chinese-made clone of a Japanese WW2-era carrier

>>34960440
What's going on here?

>>34981969
Probably some sort of stone age ferry.