Aircraft carriers - are they absolutely paramount for political

Aircraft carriers? The 1940s are over. What a waste of money.

>>131794691
they are for aggression.

jets are short range.

aircraft carriers don't make sense for defense of russia, for example... they can just fuel up on land.

if US wanted to battle in south china sea, for example, it would probably need carriers.

I love ramps.

It just shows that your jets are inferior when they need a moving base instead of flying home after bombing mudshits back to the stone-age.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-29 at 10.09.24 PM.png (737KB, 1664x1406px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1664x1406px

>>131795189
And yet they keep on building them. Power projection!

>>131794691
Waste of money, only good for meddling with shit that doesnt concern you halfway across the world

>>131794691
Probably a good idea to have a few, even if only to facilitate global communication to troops and whatnot incase China takes out your satellites.

>>131794691
>Aircraft carriers - are they absolutely paramount for political power projection?

Yeah, unless they have a ramp on them. Then they are just funny/sad/expensive.

good for bullying countries that don't have ICBMs