You can only post ITT if your country has at least one ACTIVE FIXED-WING aircraft carrier.
The HTMS Chakri Naruebet hasn't actually had fighter jets on it since 2006.
>>51863602
This thread is only 1/19 good enough for me to post in.
We literally don't have enough carriers.
We need at least 1 more CVN if we want to maintain a real presence in all regions of concern.
>A FUCK RAMP
I-It's under reforms now... pls no bully.
>>51863781
Looks like a carrier for gays desu.
>>51863847
;_;
>>51863847
>this coming from the country where the official sexual orientation is gay
>>51863897
Just saying it looks like a place where a lot of men would be getting fucked in the ass by other men, if you get what I'm saying.
>>51863847
>>51863897
>implying all navies aren't just a larger version of the Sacred Band of Thebes on boats
>>51863602
How much ass does Bhumi get on that boat?
Our carrier is called Gotland and she stands unsinkable in the middle of the Baltic sea.
>>51863944
>looks like a place where a lot of men would be getting fucked in the ass by other men
hm
>>51863602
Does this count?
Mate...
>>51863781
>no ciws
>>51864039
He beat us mates
>>51865382
>implying r2d2 isn't a meme weapon
>>51865707
>"Carrier"
>>51865707
>A
>FUCKING
>RAMP
aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>his countries carrier doesn't have a ramp
>>51864884
what in god's name is that?
>>51865933
A mobile meme launcher.
>>51865933
It's actually a real Belgian aircraft carrier that was deployed to act against the Islamic State.
this one will soon be decommissioned and replaced by our first indigenous one.
>>51865869
It is, bit it's also a cutie patootie
this is our indigenous one , it draws its name from our first carrier (R11) which rekt pakistan and liberated bangladesh.
>>51868998
what's the designated replacement look like?
>>51868939
I can't believe we jewed you to buy this crap.
>>51868939
>>51868998
>>51869113
They have to have toilets on them too Sanjeep
>>51869193
nah they have a designated shitting deck for that
>>51869182
tbf, at least the Indians don't need a tug to bring their carrier home vlad.
>>51869182
we needed something to counter Liaoning which is just as much crap but we've the upperhand cause been operating carriers since 1961 while the chinks made their first deck landing in 2012.
>>51865707
Blackhawk? More like Tony Hawk lmao
>>51869239
The Liaoning is just a training carrier I think.
Though there are some strong indications that their new carriers are just going to be rip-offs of the Liaoning, in which case they're doubling down on a bad design.
>>51869230
Yes they do.
It has constant problems with engines.
Google it.
>>51869239
I like this one. How many crew can it carry?
>>51869295
that was when you were conducting sea trials ,afaik nothing happened to the engine/boilers since we received it.
only accident onboard was when a pilot missed the arrestors and tried taking off again but somehow cable caught him at the last moment , even then superficial damage to undercarriage happened , jet was back in service a month later.
link me if i am wrong.
>>51869423
a better judge of how powerful a carrier is is its total displacement
>>51869423
110 officers 1500 sailors is the stationed compliment but it has bunks for two battalions of marines apart from them.
45,000 ton is displacement .
>>51863708
Wow, I never knew they used those rope things to help slow down the jet
I feel retarded
>>51869546
What did you think they were for?
>>51869489
This isn't always true. The America class is the same size as the CdG but much less effective in aviation, while the Admiral Kuztensov is about the same size as the Queen Elizabeth, but less effective than both the QE and the CdG.
Of course both of these ships have other duties besides pure aviation, unlike the QE and CdG, but still. It is annoying when people try to point to the America or Wasp as being comparable to the CdG and QE.
>>51866329
How can the aircraft even fly off? It would be in the water by the time it had enough thrust for ascending
>>51869489
What's that mean? How many aircrafts it holds?
>>51869546
that's called an arrestor.
>>51869569
I didn't know they were there in the first place m8
>>51869588
The weight of the water the ship displaces.
It's a more effective measurement than simply saying the ship's weight, since depending on it's load the ship's displacement can be significantly more than that of the actual superstructure of the ship.
>>51869546
If the ropes weren't for that there would be no more carrier-based aircraft. They'd all land then cruise into open water
>>51869575
Russia don't have carrier-based AWACS plane like hawkeye. So carrier has zero efficiency.
>>51869645
*than the weight of the actual superstructure
>>51869113
Looks nice, how does it compare to the new Royal Navy carriers in size and performance/defenses?
>>51869655
And here is Russian VTOL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPOo1jOqZTA
> russian engineering
>>51869113
>liberated
>>51869655
Not entirely true. It has rotor AEW and can also rely on land-based planes if close to shore (which is fairly like if it's being used in a defensive role). For contesting Russia's own waters it's not awful. You're also finally getting rid of the ASHMs on it, so the aviation component is getting a boost.
>>51869645
Do you want more displacement or less? Cause less may mean the boat is quicker, but more means more armour? I know fuck all about this but its interesting.
What aircraft do your carriers use?
>>51869588
the amount of water displaced
>>51869575
you can't compare the Wasp or America class ships to either of those because it they are not full size aircraft carriers. they are amphibious assault ships, significantly tailored to be use to assault a beach, etc.
the real corresponding american carrier to either of those is the Nimitz class, which are far superior to either the QE or the CdG
really the corresponding ship in the Royal Navy to the America class or Wasp class would be the current flagship, the HMS Ocean.
>>51869239
>taking off from the INS cvvvdcgyf
>taking off
>>51869239
>>51869113
>>51868939
>>51868998
Carefully hidden via photoshop: fire and explosions
>tfw your country will never be blessed with CVN-77 supercarriers
>>51869588
the hangar space can't be judged from displacement alone Vikramaditya carries 30 MiG 29k and 6 Helis of different kind.
>>51869675
the elizabeth class is 65,000 ton , Vikrant is 45,000 so fundamentally it is inferior
>>51869712
yes
>>51869748
launched , happy now?
>>51869714
> rely on land-based planes
Why not use land-based fighters too? What's the point of aircraft carrier at all then.
> defensive role
But carrier is offensive weapon.
Russia don't have blue water navy anyway so I don't understand why we need it at all. Our navy is defensive, shore defense + some submarines.
>>51869730
Armor isn't really a factor, though larger ships are naturally more survivable (ships are actually remarkably difficult to sink in general).
And it's not really a matter of want. More or less displacement isn't inherently a bad thing either way. Obviously larger ships will generally be more capable, but you'll also want smaller ships for some duties that you don't want to spend obscene amounts of money on, plus they're better for littoral operations.
![100227-N-4408B-613[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9lnshsL.jpg "100227-N-4408B-613[1].jpg")
>>51869730
The fastest surface ships in the US navy are the carriers, they can easily outrun the escorts due to the huge nuclear reactors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KnCqcTEOU
>>51869655
I don't think that's true, and it is not like Mig-29's can't do AWACS-lite duties.
>>51869489
But that's not at all accurate.
>>51869822
you aren't a superpower unless you have at least one carrier to project power. Russia should really have 3 desu, one for Baltic Sea, one for Black Sea and another for Pacific
>tfw you end a war with 82 more carriers than you started with
>>51869730
Armor doesn't matter much if you have a strong fleet to protect you (e.g. cruisers)
>>51869698
Why are you butthurt?
Our F-35b lift engine design is partially based upon >russian engineering
>>51869712
Must've learned from the best :^)
>>51869818
>liberated
Isn't the newest carrier 65k tons?
>>51869822
The Kuznetsov itself is defensive though. It's only role is to provide planes to keep the Russian navy from getting rekted by American air power. That's the reason for all the SAMs and ASHMs as well, it's a different design philosophy than American carriers, which are more offensive.
Russia's naval philosophy has never been to rout NATO's navy, that hasn't been a realistic option since the 60s. It's to keep them out of Russia's waters while Russia's land forces attempt a rush into Europe's heartland.
Nowadays they're attempting to shift it into a more offensive role since the likelihood of needing to contest Russia's waters is lower, but it's pretty difficult both because the Kuznetsov wasn't designed for that, and because it's old as shit.
>>51869864
Baltic and Black seas are puddles. Black sea is small you can use land-based planes above it. And Turkey control bosphorus.
Baltic sea would be all in mines in case of war like it was in WW1 and WW2.
>>51869911
nope 45,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)
the 65,000 ton nuclear one is Vishal which hasn't started construction yet.
>>51869854
>The fastest surface ships in the US navy are the carriers, they can easily outrun the escorts due to the huge nuclear reactors.
This is not true. In fact one of the major design requirements for US escorts is being able to keep up with the Nimitz. Obviously the Nimitz has greater endurance, but practically this is rarely an issue with US logistics.
>>51869822
Well because AWACS usually can go further and have a better effective range than carrier based fighters.
Russia has a blue water navy by every definition. How else are you guys parking four ships off of Syria while training with the Chinese in the North Pacific?
It's a shadow of 1990 though. But better than 2010.
Can't say there was similar turnaround for the US navy, sadly.
>>51869943
If the Nimitz goes full speed it will leave its escorts behind.
>>51869875
Armour doesnt mean much.. Do you even sword fight bro?
But really cant a submarine take one down?
>>5186985
I don't think that's true.
>>51869920
Black Sea and Baltic are of pretty big strategic importance. I'd say you really need at least an amphibious landing carrier in each of them. They aren't expensive, hell you could probably buy a stripped-down Wasp-class off the US if Trump got elected
>>51869951
>It's a shadow of 1990 though
We had a lot of ships and submarines but most of them were very outdated.
> But better than 2010.
Yes in 2014 navy got 40 new ships. And there are a lot more being built.
>>51869953
That's not true. The Flight 2 burkes beat the carrier.
Of course we have never seen the theoretical limit but there's a reason we don't test that limit.
>>51869937
Oh wow. A big length carrier for a small displacement.
China's Lianoning is 67.5k tons, yet it still carries a similar sized air wing. I guess they put less on for training Exercises.
>>51870019
after all you did try to buy 2 mistral-class ships off the French before the whole Ukraine thing.
>>51870019
Before we keked France Russia was on track for what you are describing.
Tbh, the money is better spent keeping their economy afloat.
>>51870070
It was criticized here a lot. Like the deal was made due to corruption or to bribe French so they would lobby forgiving us for 2008/8//8 in Europe.
There was popular opinion that we don't need such ships or at least should develop and build them in Russian shipyards.
>>51870125
Are you indian naval commander? He was a good military shitposter.
>>51869953
No, it can't. Most estimates put it at something like 31.5 knots. Some eggheads did the math and got a potential max of around 37 given the shape and reactor output, but that'd probably be dangerous as fuck.
That said, he reason nuke ships are much faster than conventional isn't really due to an actual higher max speed, it's that it can actually travel at it's max speed continuously, while conventional ships are optimized for a lower cruising speed to reduce fuel consumption.
>>51870146
Sometimes other nations do things better than Russia.
Russians, like Americans, prefer everything domestic but at least in this case the French had a proven design and they are a good diplomatic ally in Europe.
The Mev made a decent deal in my view.
>>51870166
>He was a good military shitposter
I should add that to my CV.
>>51870146
I read somewhere that you guys are planning to build those 2 ships in a similar sort of mistral-style back in Russia anyways, but it won't be a huge priority.
>>51870202
French have history of installing backdoors into military hardware they export.
And domestic production is good for economy - it gives jobs, etc.
>>51870174
It's very little too with fuel consumption and more to do with maintenance down to vibration and stress.
The Italians and Japanese went all out for speed in the 1920s and 30s and when it came down to actual battle conditions, British and U.S. ships were quicker. They had a lower peak speed, but could keep a higher average over time.
>>51870234
>but it won't be a huge priority.
Our priority should be not to die of starvation now.
>>51870202
If you lose the capability to build ships its something that will take decades and hundreds of billions to get back.
The U.S., in terms of fit and finish and overall efficiency, is way behind the French and British yards. Tolerances and give are looser, methods of construction poorer and the costs greater. This doesn't really matter, because the equipment they put on is as good or better. They could get a better hull elsewhere, but choose not to because they can retain the capability and avoid security issues that come with buying foreign.
>>51870275
>mfw $40 a barrel
Indian carriers bring new meaning to the term "poop deck"
>>51870354
Do you have any source for that? Because just through sheer economy of scale alone prices tend to be lower and problems tend to be found earlier.
>>51863781
>brazil is literally a more significant nation than most of europe
hue
>>51869546
They use a sling to help boost their speed during takeoff as well. With carriers, it's never as simple as just taking off or just landing.
>>51865899
you realize you will be replacing your ramps with catapults once you can afford it, right? your new carriers are designed to be convertable.
steam catapults are too difficult for most nations to handle, but the new electric ones will probably see the ramp carrier phase out.
>>51870275
what do you think military is for? If you start running out of food you can invade poland.
Or germany. Germanys pro muslim stance is going to make them the bad guys again once europe nationalizes
>>51870646
liz class won't have EMALS though because they don't have nuclear reactors to power it, i don't know the math but i doubt the conventional engine in them can accommodate anything but steam catapult and even then their speed would go down because of it.
>>51868939
I hear you guys have a nice poop deck
We really need to stop setting ours on fire.
>>51870892
>implying it wasn't treacherous Paraguay
>>51863781
>Brazil has a carrier
>Canada no longer has carriers
This is what happens when liberals take over.
>>51870646
>>51870827
More like it won't have EMALS because they gave up on having the design be convertible way back.
>>51863708
>tfw F-35s can take off and land vertically so every small ship can technically be an aircraft carrier
>>51869962
>tfw remember an exercise where one (1) german U-boot took down the carrier even though it was protected by its whole strike Group
Us was pretty pissed i can imagine
Thailand and India really like talking about carrier
Pretty sure Spain has one too, maybe we sure call them to this thread
>>51877677
Ours is fucking useless.
>>51877700
I doubt Thai or Indian one is useful
Come on man tell us about it
>>51877677
the old used spanish carrier is biggest pride for thailand people and they even can't use it because their poor military expenditure
>>51877750
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_aircraft_carrier_Pr%C3%ADncipe_de_Asturias
>The ship became a victim of defence cuts, being officially decommissioned on 6 February 2013.
We have some half carrier ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I_(L61)
>Juan Carlos I is a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship in the Spanish Navy (Armada Española). Similar in role to many aircraft carriers, the ship has a ski jump for STOVL operations, and is equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft.
>itt people who think carriers haven't lived out their time in war
Nothing but force projection. First to sink in actual battle (i.e not farmers in the middle east).
>>51877750
ours are useful , we've blockaded our primary concern pakistan in 3 wars with them 1965 , 1971 and 1999.
don't talk about shit you don't know japan.
>>51870215
Which part of the deck do you shit on?
