Does the US really need 11 carrier groups?
There's another 4 in development right now, with 4 new types of carriers, as well as the other 11 current being replaced, so will be 15 total carrier groups, with 15 new carriers.
For literally what purpose? I am not a liberal leftist faggot, but even I think this is stupid. This money would be better spent on education, health and crime prevention. You don't need 11 carrier groups, let a lone 15.
How do you expect we police shitposters in the New world Order?
How do you expect they maintain the welfare of millitary industrial complex shareholders?
>>76808248
australia could easily destory the united states
dont overestimate us
>>76808113
>You don't need 11 carrier groups, let a lone 15.
Well. What else are they gonna do with all of their airplanes then?
>>76808113
>For literally what purpose?
>What is imperialism?
>What is power projection?
So they can turn around and say "Fuck you" when they default on their debts.
>>76808337
lol
>>76808113
Welcome to the military-industrial complex.
i would love to be in charge of the holding tank on one of those bitches... save up a couple months worth of the shit and piss from the 4000 crewmen, then dump the tanks when we were driving by italy... not gonna make much difference on the italian coastline, as italians are dirty enough as it is,,, it will probably be an improvement
>>76808113
Protecting your asses. You faggots can't even field a helicopter landing craft.
>>76808337
You just overestimated yourself, you dolt
>>76808113
Better question is, why don't you need them?
rest of the free world is too poor to afford carriers
>>76808113
>look at me I know everything about geopolitics and force projection!
To cuck China
>>76808113
US Navy forever!
/k/ ?
also .. the military own the world .. plus the jew financial system so... just fap to the "glorious" war machines sheep.
What else would you do in a strategy game when you maxed out all the tech? You mass up on the best stuff available.
We shouldn't be building anymore carriers after they moved all those jobs to Mexico. Fuck carriers.
>>76808472
It went above your head didn't it, best is to snuggle into some pajamas with a hot coco and discuss healthcare
>>76808299
Using debt
>>76808113
>You don't need 11 carrier groups
Prove that I don't.
>>76808652
Oh, I read 'us' as us, not U.S
Still, what the fuck.
Because we have to protect your dumbass country and every other fucking dumbass country from literally everything in the world. We are the only adults in this fucked up world, you're like the little brown skinned stepchild who doesnt wear shoes and runs around the yard with scissors in your hands.
The Ford's are replacing Nimitz's, we will not have 15 active groups.
How do you expect Mr. Merchant transpacific's free trade deals to work if the US Navy isn't there to protect all those slow cargo ships that are slam-packed full of cheap Chinese shit from piracy? They might have to make them in America again, and that would be unprofitable!
>>76808750
>Prove that I don't.
The US greatest "threats" don't even have 3 carrier groups, combined. That number will rise to MAYBE 5 in the next 50 years if china's 2 new fleets actually get out of dock.
>>76808113
When the dragon king resurrects and launches a war against humanity to reclaim the earth with his army you will be grateful every carrier and every shell was made.
>>76808897
What the fuck
>>76808113
to maintain world domination
We have 0 Lol
Thank the french they will send us 3
So
We will be the first in the middle east to have aircraft Carriers
We literally rule the planet. We need a way to keep that control, which is fading
>>76808113
>Does the US really need 11 carrier groups?
No
>will be 15 total carrier groups
Ten years to build so some will retire.
>>76808864
It's not carrier against carrier. The US uses them for many things. They need to be everywhere at once. Or at least they need to be able to if needed. Threats can come from anywhere for them. Even if there are no more real military threats to them, maintaining their hegemony over the world is a huge endeavor.
>>76808113
Becaue = bigger military = more countries can be occupied at once
>>76808572
basically this. When was the last time you put resources into social aid in civ?
>>76808113
Well realistically speaking the UN is shit so NATO is all we have and the US is the main contributor and yeah, they'll need that shit.
Well over half of UN countries violate UN laws. Even the US did with their gay marriage laws. Russia is a cesspool of illegal activities yet they're still there. Fuck even half of africa is in despite them chopping pregnant womens tits off with a machete.
International treaties are completely meaningless. It's making deals with criminals in exchange for protection from other criminals
>>76808113
They provide America with a force projection that gives them access to anywhere in the world in mere hours. America's response time lies within its carrier groups. In the event of a major disaster, carrier groups can act as aid resource centers and provide a force large enough to restore order.
America is feared mostly due to its carrier groups. One group can decimate most of the world's navy in mere hours.
Course we don't. The US Military is the biggest socialist program that has ever been undertaken. A huge portion of the economy is based on government contracts to build things we don't need.
>>76808113
War is coming friend.
>>76808113
Of course we do, how else are we going to keep china in line when they get big enough to push you chump countries around? Lol
The whole world is literally cucked for the U.S. get over it cucks. We don't care about our citizens we run everything. Nothing you can do about it. New World Order Faggots. Take in Some More Immigrants. Hillary Will Usher In The Golden Age Of The Browning Of America and the whole world.
I was looking for an article that explained why aircraft carriers are cool, couldn't find it.
Copy and paste these on Firefox, hit the stop loading button to avoid the paywall.Might be an interesting read.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/26/why-america-still-needs-aircraft-carriers/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/25/this-week-at-war-does-the-u-s-need-more-aircraft-carriers/
The US's entire foreign policy centers around us controlling and safeguarding the oceans for all our allies and economic partners.
If China's navy can compete in the Pacific it starts to crumble.
If their navy becomes outright superior, it's over.
>>76808113
fuck yeah murica
America would crumble on itself if they stopped the massive scam of circular military economy.
Several solid reasons actually:
1. Geopolitics
Aircraft carriers are mobile military bases that can be parked in international waters and there's nothing you can do about it except start a war.
2. Nuclear deterrence
The carrier is not only a floating, mobile symbol of nuclear destruction, it is feared (by China, at least) that sinking one would invite nuclear retaliation from the US.
3. Maintenance
It takes several years to refit and refurbish a carrier. Having a plurality of carriers means you can compensate for losses and lack of availability.
4. Diplomacy
The diplomatic effect of having a multi-billion-dollar war machine parked on your doorstep is quite substantial.
>>76808113
Your Navy has the second largest Air force in the world, gotta keep them somewhere.
>>76810440
more like:
1.the American economy and job market is almost entirely dependent on the military industrial complex' contracts and jobs
>>76808337
You already underestimated the emus
>>76808113
>For literally what purpose?
So that, in the even of a major war against a first world military, they can still hold global presence after losing 3 carrier groups while a 4th was bombarding the capital of the opposing country.
>>76808454
This
>crew is 5000
>>76808113
The thing about force projection and fighting wars is that these actions take time, and the more of these actions there are, the more thinly stretched out the carrier groups are. They're out for 6-9 months (sometimes even a year) at a time and that's time that those sailors aren't spending in home port. Additionally, those ships need to go into shipyard periodically and after 25 years they have a 5 year period of being refueled, rehauled and retrofitted with new equipment. Also I may be missing something but the Enterprise (CVN 65) was taken out of service ~3 years ago, we only have 10 carrier groups at the moment. Hell, the last conventional carrier we were using, the Kitty Hawk, got decom'd in 09. In any case, the US will decide how many carrier groups are enough for us.
>>76809634
How much would it cost me for some glorious Estonian camo.... I know it's not avail anywhere.... (cross poster from /k/)
>>76808113
>Does the US really need 11 carrier groups?
It takes that many to have 4-6 available at any time.
>>76811958
*hell, a hat would suffice. (Complete with ensign)
(For collecting)
>>76808337
Get back in your hole Duncan.
>>76808113
That ocean is way too blue. Where is that?
>>76808113
If you ever studied military planning you would understand. Better to have and not need than need and not have.
>>76810577
Yes, and? It has been working for them for the better part of the century. What's your point?
>>76808113
Will have 8 Carrier groups when they are done
4 will aways be in some sort of re-hab, re-fueling, only 4 will be on a patrol
Never have all 8 up and running together, too expensive and they only have enough certified Air Groups to man 5.5 of the Carrier's at any given time
4,000 sailors per ship, in the Ford Class and at 15 billion a pop, they will be used sparingly
Can't afford to lose them to the new Chinese and Russian Carrier Killer missiles
The Carrier's will have to operate at a distance so far from the Chinese mainland each F-35 mission will require a minimum of 4 re-fuelings just to reach the coast and back
No US Carrier has been attacked since WWII, it is showboat, to impress and frighten minor countries and keep them in line
A better use of US Naval dollars would be on Fast Frigates and Submarines, but Americans like BIG and they don't like the idea of sneaking in launching and slipping away, also there is a mini-carrier the new USS America, but the Defense Secretary wants no more of them, too bad, a swarm of small maneuverable Carrier's could mobilize a larger air detachment, assure survivability and overwhelm defensive systems as well as being able to project power over many areas at once
Remember Military Intelligence is anything but
Did my 25 on several Carrier's and glad to be out, not my Navy anymore, big counseling session complete with group hugs and team building bullshit, most Carrier's are now fitted out like Cruise ships
Disgusting
>>76808113
If I recall correctly, one carrier task force costa 16 billion $ per year to maintain so they have enough money I guess.
>>76808337
[Laughs in emu]
>>76809118
Maple syrup right correct
>>76808897
Based diverfag knows about the box!
>>76812140
I have more than a handful of those different caps just sitting in a box, West German and Estonian
>>76808337
>>76808113
The education system is run by women so spending money on it is about half as useful as burning cash for heat.
>>76812928
Whats the basic range of attack, and range of defense of each ship? Think they play these into the scenarios also? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2Rqte6XOs
>>76808113
>Does the US really need 11 carrier groups?
Of course we do anon. It's vitally important to the security of the world that we are able to bomb the fuck out of everyone all at once. If you don't believe that you're probably a lolbertarian and no one will take you seriously anyway.
>>76808337
Yes, but only by immigration, not by invasion.
>>76813712
Jesus Christ what retards lose a war against birds
>>76813795
A longer vid showing where they can implement these systems, and more of whats in them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUU_9bOcnM
>>76813974
You just weren't there man
so much dignity lost
>>76813894
Whenever lolbertarians mention "the floating city revolution" i answer "what, aircraft carriers?"
Dear god, the idiocy on these folks.
>>76808113
Considering they are not made in China it also help economy
>>76808113
>you don't need 11 aircraft carriers
GOOD THING IT'S NOT THE BILL OF NEEDS
>>76808113
we need more
>>76808113
Globalism needs a leader.
Guess who the leader will be
We have no say, they build what they want to build. People need jobs and we may need to blow up the world one day.
>>76814433
USA USA USA
>>76808113
How the fuck else would MURICA spread the glory and joy of the reign of God Emperor Trump (coming in 1st quarter 2k17)?
>>76808113
The United States Navy serves the same purpose the Royal Navy once did; both allowing us to quickly act on or in defense of our interests across the globe, and serving as the "policeman" of the sea by patrolling/safeguarding naval trade routes critical to the global economy, such as the Strait of Malacca.
We are the primary agent of international law and the global economy, and our navy is absolutely critical to both these roles.
>>76808113
>Does the US really need 11 carrier groups?
No, but we need 11 carriers to support our 5 different carrier groups. You can't keep a carrier at sea indefinitely, you know.
Don't need them because nuclear deterrence
>>76815037
Sandniggers are too dumb to fear nukes.
>>76815147
Getting involved in sandnigger business is dumb
>>76808395
That's pretty much it. Nukes don't do much to prop up currency, but WHOA, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
