Rumor has it that as the Ford-class carriers begin taking precedence, the Nimitz-class carriers will be sold to other nations. A few weeks ago the USS Eisenhower hosted the Secretary of Defence and two high-ranking Indian gov't officials for a tour of the ship.
What the hell would Indian need an aircraft carrier for?
>Indian
I meant India, sorry
Why do you NEED a navy?
Why do you NEED an armed forces?
Seriously fuck off
>>28294779
Nah, Probably for latest Bollywood movie set.
>>28294779
They're running out of designated shitting space in the Indian Navy. So they must acquire more.
disaster relief. Aircraft Carrier can be made into makeshift floating hospitals.
>>28294798
Thank you for the constructive response.
>>28294816
Stop posting retarded fucking questions and maybe you'll get one
>>28294823
Why so bent out of shape? Too much curry?
>>28294779
Shipmate you need to stop listening to the rumor mill. You seriously think we would sell nuclear powered carriers to anyone? You really need to stop shitposting during working hours.
>>28294779
Usually we sell off old equipment to ally nations.
China for example is one reason why indians might want a carrier.
>>28294798
Why do you NEED 10 bullets to kill a deer?
>>28294779
Baguette here
Pls gib
>>28294856
Because it's a retarded question you stupid fucking cunt.
>mfw someone shits in/on the steam catapult
>>28295356
Would your Rafele-M's be compatible with our steam catapults?
>>28295115
Because I used a .25 auto
>>28295356
Only if you give it a badass name like Napoleon
>>28294779
Designated shitting decks
>>28294779
DESIGNATED
MOBILE
SHITTING
STREET
If it helps fund other military shit, then I say we should go for it.
Simple.
China is trying to control the water near where India is (via port construction), and India doesn't like it.
Muh emerging power rivalry.
>>28295486
Naval noob here. Why is there a mast right in the middle of the runway? Does it never get in the way, or does some poor bastard have to run to the end of the ship and take it down before launching planes?
>>28295570
its a nav light
and yes it does
>>28295486
Am I stupid for thinking they should cram 2 more cats on these carriers? Surely they can make cats just as powerful and more compact under the deck, this technology is decades and decades old.
I also think carriers twice as many AA missiles and at least a dozen ASROCs. I also want carriers to have a few VLS cells for cruise missiles and ASMs.
I adore the Russian doctrine of making carriers more capable of operating independently from escorts, and I think we should do the same- just not as extensively.
2 extra cats, and a few extra missile batteries.
Is that too much too ask?
>>28295447
Rafales have been to Nimitz-class carriers before
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qstMCOji58
>>28295644
>Am I stupid for thinking they should cram 2 more cats on these carriers?
yes, you are
>Surely they can make cats just as powerful and more compact under the deck, this technology is decades and decades old.
i am sure it is, but there is this little problem
4 cats already take up all possible place for sequential aircraft launch adding more is at best redundant
>I also think carriers twice as many AA missiles and at least a dozen ASROCs. I also want carriers to have a few VLS cells for cruise missiles and ASMs.
you already have aircraft for those adding them to carrier would be at best redundant
>I adore the Russian doctrine of making carriers more capable of operating independently from escorts,
russian doctrine is one of need and not choice and no russia never operates their carries without escort and none should ever do that
>I think we should do the same
usa carrier are already as good as they can be adding more unnecessary shit would make them worse for their primary role
>Is that too much too ask?
yes
>>28295644
Nigger the thing already has four catapults crammed on its deck.
And the Russian's tendency to arm their carrier to the teeth with shitloads of dakka isn't because it's a superior strategy. It's because it's a poor but ultimately less costly substitute to having a proper carrier battle group.
>>28295447
Same kind as on the Nimitz, just shorter.
>>28295676
>those Rafales on that big American carrier deck
I am so hard right now
>>28295737
well its not like its first time for little french girls to be on large american de(i)cks
>>28294779
Unrelated to thread, but I think our flag buckle is better than yours.
>>28295768
>keks were had
India is building a conventional atm
And plans on building three nuclear
They were probably showing up the reactor and and catapults and shit
Murika is helping India arm up to dick around with China and Pakistan
>>28295826
They're also building 3-5 Arihant class SSBN
The first has been completed and beginning trials, second awaiting trials
Then they plan on 6 SSN
>>28295826
>showing the reactor
>foreign nationals
lol no
>>28295846
they gave Pakistan nuclear weapons in the 80s
>>28295452
In that case, carry on.
>>28295768
>Rafale squealing "mon Dieu!" as she climaxes, her afterburners on full blast as she's held securely and intimately in the Nimitz's catapult, moments from freeing her into the night
>>28295855
nuclear reactor != nuclear weapons
nuclear reactor spaces are posted as restricted, preventing any foreign nationals from entering them. it's partly for national security, partly for medical safety, and never relaxed.
>>28295911
fine whatever, my point is they're showing them the stuff they can show for the contractors to do the three nuclear carriers they intend on buildings
>>28295447
Rafales will likely be operating from a US Navy CVN in 2017 because Charles de Gaulle will be in refit and France has no other carrier to continue conducting missions against ISIS in Syria.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3384
France should outright buy one of the US carriers really, or have the Brits build them a 3rd QE class (with cats) like they were going to do originally with the "Porte-Avions 2" project
>>28295951
Nah. Everywhere carriers go, high ranking officials visit. China, Philippines, Korea, Saudi Arabia... They're normally just to shake hands and have a nice meal.
>>28295974
>and France has no other carrier to continue conducting missions against ISIS in Syria.
They have 3 LHD that their Tiger helicopters can operate from
Or alternatively they might operate from air bases in the Middle East
Worked in Libya
>France should outright buy one of the US carriers really, or have the Brits build them a 3rd QE class (with cats) like they were going to do originally with the "Porte-Avions 2" project
They weren't then they wont now
>>28296051
choppers I mean worked in Libya
>>28294779
They are running out of room. Need designated shitting deck
>>28294779
>Tfw Canadian
>Navy is an embarrassment
Sell us some ships, America. Please.
>The government is SO FUCKING ADAMANT that we have our Navy built here, when we don't hardly even have the capability to do so
And these retards didn't even learn from the Griffin procurement.
>>28296051
The ISIS territory that France, US and the UK is striking is far inland in Syria and Iraq.
Far beyond the range of Tigre even if they parked the ship inside Syrian waters (which Syria and Russia would not allow).
Basing in other countries is a possibility but it means the aircraft have to fly for longer from further away and use more fuel, so will have less time on station inside the ISIS airspace to attack targets of opportunity before they have to return to base.
This hugely limits how effective the French air group can be.
Of the countries surrounding Syria and Iraq; Turkey and Cyprus are the only one hosting NATO strike aircraft. Purely because the USAF and RAF have permanent bases there anyway. Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are unlikely to agree to French aircraft being present in the long term.
The UK had offered its territory in Cyprus as an emergency recovery base for French aircraft, but the French have decided to switch CdGs location from the Mediterranean, to the Arabian/Persian Gulf
>>28296303
America and England Australia already strike from their Gulf bases
>>28296165
>poop deck
heh
>>28295694
You say "redundancy" like it's a bad thing.
>>28295694
>4 cats is enough
I just think it's possible for them to launch more aircraft more quickly... and that one or two more cats, or better cats, would help.
Anyone know how fast a carrier can launch fighters?
>the carrier has fighters to protect it against subs and ships
Oh yea, like that'll work %100? Cops have body armor too, but they still get killed.
What if a new stealth ship sneaks up on it? What if something undetected sneaks up? What if the first thing you hear is a torpedo launch?
You think they can scramble a few jets and that's going to be enough?
NO. It needs redundancies and contingencies for those scenarios.
>adding more unnecessary shit will make them worse
I'm just saying, a better cat system would not hurt carriers. Neither would having a spare cat or two. And are you seriously implying 2 extra missile batteries and 8 VLS cells would destroy a carriers functionality?
>>28295697
I'm not saying we should put as much dakka on our carriers as Russians do.
I'm saying we should equip carriers to operate independently of constant support just to be safe. I'm not asking much, just a spare cat and a few missile modules.
Have you ever seen what a Midway class carrier looks like? Insane amounts of old school dakka. More dakka than some cruisers!
>>28296639
>>28299222
Even capital ships of big gun navies didn't operate independently. You're always going to need at least a small contingent with the carrier. The jack of all trades thing works in theory, and some extra armaments on a carrier may help, but you still need specialized vessels
>>28294779
They're gonna send them over to Bangladesh to get chopped up and auction the components off to China, Russia and the middle East
Also, they're gonna poo all over them
>>28294779
I seriously doubt that. We only truly ended the Enterprise in early 2014, so if the street shitters wanted it they would have said something before.
The Nimitz will be around till 2022-2023, so they are going to have to wait if they want an extremely old carrier.
I doubt it. The US Congress and our military secret's people would stop it. India, like many nations, favors its own arms production over anyone else. They would have to build a harbor far larger than their current ones, and refurbish the Nimitz. The only place that can truly refurbish a Nimitz is currently building the JFK.
No one is going to sell nuclear powered aircraft carriers. And even if, India would be near the bottom of the list of possible buyers.
>>28295809
I hope you're not on board now.
>>28294894
India is a nuclear state. They have the resources and knowledge for upkeep on the ships reactors.
>>28299191
nigger if the first thing to detect a sub is the carrier you're already fucked because it got past your entire CAP and your escort ships
>>28294779
Because their current ships are fucking death traps to the crew and not their enemies
>>28295826
Why wouldn't we have just given them the decommissioned coventional carriers and let them convert them to nuke or whatever.
>>28294779
>Rumor has it that as the Ford-class carriers begin taking precedence, the Nimitz-class carriers will be sold to other nations
That's absolute bullshit.
This just in.
OP is still a fucking retard
/thread
