Who would win /int/? Some of this may be inaccurate because I didn't have sufficient time and I did not count coastal defense vessels except for America's littoral defense vessels. So tell me from an unbiased standpoint. Who wins, the USA or Europe?
>>61298204
All of Europe?
Europe's navies
Just the EU?
US navy
USA easy
However if it's USA against Russia, that would be interesting.
USA is supposed to have a much stronger fleet but the Russian submarines are very quiet and their missile cruisers are the shit.
They can also launch hypersonic cruize missiles from small boats.
>>61299552
>not knowing what sub hunters are
>not knowing we have superior subs
Russia included, our navy would BTFO the entirety of Europe, possibly even all the worlds navies combined
It's the most important and powerful branch of our military by far
>>61298204
USA but we'd lose most of our carriers to anti-ship missiles and subs
>>61298204
>diesel submarines are loud as all fuck
Oh dear oh dear. Diesel-electrics are the quietest subs in the sea.
>>61299619
>not knowing we have superior subs
you really don't
>It's the most important and powerful branch of our military by far
Yes, which is why I said it should be stronger in theory. I don;t really believe it though.
Russia is several generations ahead of you when it comes to hypersonic rocket technology (and any rocket technology, really) which negates your carriers and surface fleet advantage. And in the sub department, you really don;t have an advantage.
>not including picture of LCS
>>61299690
>aegis
>>61299619
>our navy would BTFO the entirety of Europe
no it wouldn't
>>61299690
>you really don't
yes they do ,the Russian navy alone would stand no chance against the us navy
Russia's behind on almost any military technology...the only place russia outpowers the US is its propaganda to the easily impressed anti-nato masses but facts remain facts
>>61299845
>but facts remain facts
they do, and you are completely unfamiliar with them
>>61299921
post sources then
The Dutch navy would win. We are really stronk*
>>61299921
Nigger stop believing Russian propaganda. Russia has tried their damnedest to portray their missiles as superior and able to take on the US but every time Russian equipment goes against US equipment it loses, barring Arab examples since they lose everything to everyone because they're so bad at war.
And here's another thing to consider. Black Works. A huge chunk of the military budget goes into things the public does not know about. Most of our cutting edge weapon systems were in use 10-15 years before they were declassified. Russia is constantly grandstanding trying to show off, while the US military, knowing it is on top, does it's best to undersell it's ability.
Even then, everyone that's not a cykablyat nationalist knows the US has better subs than Russia does. Even Russia knows this. Their whole strategy in case of WW3 was to suicide against the US navy to attempt to buy time, fully expecting to completely lose their sub fleet except for the tiny handful of advanced subs they had which would survive as long as possible picking off US ships entering Russian waters.
The US is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in the 70s. The Russians are not. I would argue the Cold War Russian navy was in much better shape than the Modern Russian Navy.
OP here.
>>61299641
In weapons tests on the ex-CVA USS America, conventional missiles failed to sink the vessel. She was later scuttled.
>>61299681
When running on batteries only, yes. But when utilizing a snorkel, they are extremely noisy.
>>61299690
Yes we do, the Virginia-class submarines are the most advanced SSNs in the world, hard to detect and harder to catch. And no, Russia and the US are on similar levels of missile tech, but America has the AEGIS system, which would intercept almost all missiles.
>>61299770
Ran out of space.
>>61300602
>When running on batteries only, yes. But when utilizing a snorkel, they are extremely noisy.
And they can run on batteries for a month.
Trick question, nobody wins because war is bad mmmkay
>>61300628
True. You seem to know quite a bit about subs.
>>61300776
Not a lot, just some things I've picked up from /k/.
US Navy's air wing alone can fuck the rest of the world combined.
>>61300818
Ah, nice.
The US enjoys such massive air superiority and tech advantage when it comes to aircraft (even if we pay 10x the price) that it would likely dominate any blue-water naval conflict
However OP, looks like your chart includes the entire US Navy. We probably wouldn't pull literally all our ships to fight Europe (don't need to)
>>61298204
>German engineering amounting to anything in warfare these days
>>61299619
>>61300372
>>61298204
actually, what US navy isn't very well-equpped to firght is enemy surface navies. that is exactly because US navy is so numerous it outnumbers any potential enemy
this might change one the US actually gets its LRASMs or whatever they're called - these future missiles that will be an update on 1960es-tier anti-ship weapons the US posesses
I say it'll be a tie if Russia is counted towards Euros, Euro's trump card is super-quiet diesel subs. but not enough. Boosted by Russia's long-range and/or supersonic ASMs and Russian naval aviation they might sink just enough US assets to make it a stalemate
if sharing tech is allowed then Euro-made Russian tech like supersonic ASM or supercavitating and wake-homing torpedoes will seal the deal and current US tech would be sunk through and through (because again no up-to date anti-navy weapons)
>>61300602
>In weapons tests on the ex-CVA USS America, conventional missiles failed to sink the vessel. She was later scuttled.
I'm not seing anything about anti-ship missile tests on the wiki
I remember someone posting about a NATO wargame on here where a carrier group was unable to stop a sub before it was ready to fire against the carrier, so submarines would be a problem
>win
In what conditions? Free for all melee on the open sea? US attacking Europe? Europe attacking US? Those are all very, very different scenarios.
OP here.
>>61300987
I specifically didn't include Russia, but it is certainly interesting. We are planning new missiles, and some of our ships, i.e. the Iowa-class battleships, are practically immune to waterline damage from cruise missiles. We don't currently operate the ships, but they are a formidable asset.
>>61301047
I can't seem to find the website I read that on. Simulated weapons were detonated inside her but these failed to sink her.
>>61300987
US ASMs might not be particularly outstanding but what surface ships exist in European and Russian navies aren't exactly impervious to the anti ship assets available to the US.
Let's not forget the US Navy includes the second and fourth largest airforces in the world. I think it's a pretty bloody scrap but the US navy is just so fucking big and well funded there's no way Europe comes out on top.
The three big threats in Europe are Britain, France and Russia. Other than that surface assets are negligible for the rest of Europe. Submarine assets would be significant, but then any application of them would be suicidal at best against a carrier group.
Sure there was that Finish sub that "sank" a carrier, but in a real world scenario that sub would evaporate a minute after launching it's first tube.
It would require exceptional bravery or stupidity to be an aggressive submariner in an event if war between Europe and the US.
For both countries.
>>61301125
the result is same either way, the US navy is simply much superior
>>61298204
Hahaha are you kidding me?
USA. How is this even a question?
>>61300900
You wouldn't pull it because you can't just abandon the pacific theatre. Also, it would take a fair bit of time to move the vessels to the Atlantic. Can supercarriers even cross the Panama canal?
>>61301859
There are parts of Europe that the US navy would find impossible to reach. The Mediterranean and Baltic seas can be blocked and no navy could pass.
PUTIN
>>61301349
frankly i dont believe in ships that are immune to missiles
first of all because soviets had pretty good materiel physicists, but also because i think a swarm of 5 tonn Granits flying at 2 mach can probably pierce a carrier on its own, but they also pack almost a ton of explosives
smaller but more numerous missiles like in this vid might not sink a carrier ouright, but the damage would be substantial, and the rules of engagement for american targets will be well-ptacticed. i think the ship in this vid is compareable in size to an arleigh burke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caqRJUFOMlA
main problem for russia will be the numbers, since the task is to sink carrier groups not single ships. it seems doable wth euros boosting the numbers
USA. They already have an established chain of command. Europe would have trouble trying to coordinate attacks
>>61302029
POL POT
>cons works with italy
Italy is STRONG on the sea
OP here.
>>61300900
>>61302002
This is a purely theoretical action in which the full strength of the USN was available for use against Europe. Other oceans are not considered.
>>61302032
A modern ship cannot be immune to missiles, This is a well-established fact. The P-700 Granit is not perfect, however, and lacks armor-piercing capability like any modern ASM. The Iowa-class, for example, has 12.2" (about 310 cm) of top-quality steel as waterline armor. Unless the missile is nuclear, it will not penetrate. Superstructure damage would be extensive but it would likely not sink the ship. NOTE: the Iowas are the only class of US ship, current or in reserve, to have this scale of protection.
>>61302154
The US does have many advantages in terms of logistics, this being one of them.
If the Falkland War and Operation Praying Mantis are any indication, the next major conflict involving modern ships will not last long.
So whoever can strike the hardest the fastest will probably win.
>>61302831
>This is a purely theoretical action in which the full strength of the USN was available for use against Europe. Other oceans are not considered.
Then it's not a scenario worth considering. We get this discussion pretty often in here when for example we're estimating the capability of our air defense vs. Russia; people first go and see the overwhelming differences in numbers and instantly claim that Russia would have absolute air superiority. However, they fail to consider that Russia needs to police their own airspace, which severely limits the amount of airplanes they have for projection over Finland, the location of their airbases and thus the limited amount of sorties they can make when compared to Finland, and the existence of land and sea based air defense assets.
You absolutely have to consider the realities of the situation. The USN is built around power projection on a global scale, and that has to be taken into account. Conversely, the European navies are built with defense in mind (with the possible exception of the Bongs), so they would probably have a larger share of vessels present in the theatre.
>Diesel submarines loud as fuck
M8 a German sub sunk a US carrier in an exercise, because the whole carrier group didn't notice it.
>>61303592
>>61303540
Amusingly those are still diminishingly small numbers compared to WW2
>>61298204
Out stirling engines are pretty much undetectable. Say what you will of our "army" but out submarine tech is pretty fucking good.
>>61298204
>Italy
we lose
>>61303772
Sonar technicians can hear Swedish sailors moaning while they're taking turns fucking each other in the ass.
>>61298204
China would join the EU's side or at least gain total dominance in asia if America were to pull out there
Fleets and armies are built for a reason you genius
>>61303540
>>61303592
>>61303646
>>61303699
>>61303769
>>61303834
>>61303896
>>61303958
>>61304024
>>61304089
Wew lads, clap for the freedom fleet
>>61303216
this piscture basically illustrates what I'm saying
US has a numerous and powerful navy, but it's built for and around expeditionary landing-bombing operations
in OP's imaginary scenario quite a lot of US ships will be acting pretty much as air defence for the relatively few carriers
Don't know much about euros, but Russian Navy (Soviet Navy basically) was buiilt specifically for harrying and degraiding a larger surface force at sea, pretty much every ship is a fighter and a threat, and let's face it, there are what, only about 20 surface targets to sink before the best of US anti-ship capability is out of commission
>>61298204
there's literally nothing wrong with Italy's naval forces
>>61303689
They also can do way more damage in a much shorter time than the entirety of the WW2 airfleets. Carpet bombing could do more total damage, but actually targets would still come off far less damaged.
You see this happen a lot in history. Initially numbers are what wins, then technology gets better and the guys who have more of the good stuff beat overwhelming numbers of inferior equipment, people catch up, numbers bulk up, eventually someone gets ahead technologically and small numbers beat inferior equipment.
After the downsizing of militaries going into the Renaissance, followed by the up sizing of militaries into the late 18th century, culminating in WW1 and 2, you soon saw a lot of downzising following that. Now we're back at the small numbers of high tech stuff, more so than we've ever been. It's hard to say where we'll go from here, but I do believe the next time we'll see militaries go for raw numbers will be when drones come fully into being.
I hope I'm too old to fight by the time drone swarms become a thing.
>>61301349
i'll detonate my weapon inside your mom
OP here
>>61303057
The Falklands War was not an excellent example of a conflict due to the degraded morale of Argentinian crews after the loss of their flagship.
>>61303435
I've stated this before, diesel subs must recharge and are loud and vulnerable while doing so. German submarines are excellent, but the moment it fired a torpedo it would have been engaged and destroyed, if not before it fired.
>>61303689
Aircraft are considerably more expensive today. Cost is the reason why we don't operate an air force of 20,000 F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs.
>>61303772
Submarines are good and all, but US passive sonar is notable for being extremely high-quality.
>>61304114
This is a purely theoretical scenario in which ONLY these two fleets are relevant. ONLY US vs Europe. China and Russia are not part of this scenario. Yes, Russia is part of Europe, but I don't see "Nuclear-Powered Battle Cruiser" on the image, so it's safe to say Russia was NOT invited to this party.
>>61298204
>germeme engineering
if the cupholder falls off the whole ship sinks
>>61303160
>Other
kek
I forgot we even had that relic
>>61302018
>what is US navy force projection of air superiority
you could do absolutely nothing to block us off
>>61303160
>USS Constitution
ol ironsides is all we'd need to conquer europe tbqh
>>61304809
OP is back to explain what's happening. The USN regularly practices anti-ship and anti-submarine exercises. AND ALSO: this is a SEA-ONLY fight. In this scenario, all US Ships are armed with AShW, ASuW, or AAW weapons. Ground attack is not present here. PERIOD. The USN would devote 1/4 of its vessels to ASW and another 1/4 to AAW, or maybe 1/3. That leaves far more than 20 ships remaining to do the job.
>>61304836
I was joking. Italy is actually formidable in this scenario, possessing two fleet carriers. Nicely done in that respect.
>>61305482
But remember the two carriers will be manned by Italians
>>61305587
Southern Italians or northern Italians ?
>>61298204
>diesel powered submarines are loud as all fuck
>not counting vespa subs
OP here.
>>61306306
I don't want to have to go over this three goddamn times, the subs require recharging and are extremely loud while doing so.
>>61306515
We are talking about long-range ships, not you suicidal handbaskets.
>>61308944
they'll fuck u up m8
>>61298204
>German naval strategy works with Italy
>>61309484
Don't make me dump my folder of Italian naval victories in WWII
>>61298204
USA, our carrier battlegroups would annihilate them, and its hard to take them down considering we have spent decades of research to do impossible things like anti-torpedo torpedos so little shits like you guys cannot just fucking take out our amazing godly carriers with your god damn subs. You guys will be fucked our carriers will go over to your dinky little continent, make it bend over the bed and fuck its asshole until it cries for mercy and then we will do the same to all your women.
All of the world?
US navy
>>61309766
dog bless
OP here.
>>61309428
Virtually useless unless our carriers are unescorted and at anchor.
>>61309647
I get sick and tired of seeing nothing all day long, why do I want to look at it again?
>>61310103
>I get sick and tired of seeing nothing all day long, why do I want to look at it again?
>American """banter"""
>>61310150
I want to hug her
>>61310184
So do I.
>>61298204
>Ayy guys let's compare my navy with my allies because they're totally not designed to cooperate and work with it and are definitely made to work alone.
at least compare it with russia or (maybe) china if you want to get your ego stroked.
>>61310457
>Compare with China's Navy
No thanks, I wanted to have an actual interesting debate instead of a one-sided slaughter of one side who is barely there to defend themselves, because the European navies are actually fairly strong when they work together, and Russia is overused. I decided to try to make an original idea.
That's a big navy.
>>61298204
>Diesel-powered submarines are loud as all fuck
>totally ignoring the new German ones powered by a fuel cell
>>61299619
>Russia included, our navy would BTFO the entirety of Europe, possibly even all the worlds navies combined
>>61313674
MFW explaining this for the umpteenth fucking time
Loving to read these american power fantasies that wouldnt work in real life at all.
>>61316154
What? Like carpet bombing europe with carrier based nukes?
Wonder who the first target of the Navy railgun would be.
It could be USA vs The rest of the world and the US would still win by a large margin
>>61316154
It's hardly a power fantasy, it's a legitimate question.
You eurosquatters forgot that the US have the fucking Railgun and Laser guides guns.
You're going against the future with cold war tin cans ya pathetic bitch fucks.
>>61316154
>fantasies
>>61316644
Filipinbro got our backs, hot damn
we don't need a big army because we have nukes in 4 nuclear-powered attack submarines
we use your army for fighting terrorism but we don't even consider a war with another country
>>61298204
Against the US navy ? Ho.. just the french would be enough.
http://sputniknews.com/news/20150306/1019130173.html
>>61299619
>Can't even beat Vietnam
>Would BTFO the entirety of Europe, possibly even all the worlds navies combined
You do realize that India & China also exist, right?
>>61298204
US Military, including the Navy, is hands down the best in the world and could very likely take most if not all the world's forces.
Our budget is ridiculous, our technology is unmatched, and our untethered views towards drones don't hurt us.
>>61303160
God the Gerard Ford class is so beautiful.
>>61324405
>what is conventional naval warfare
If we stayed in Vietnam we would have eventually won, we lost the war because we pulled out due to pressure back home
If we decided to invade Indonesia it would be suicide for you to even have a thought about fighting back, let alone the entirety of Europe, they would at least kill a bunch of us before being flattened to dust
>tfw your country doesn't have nuclear anything
>>61298204
I have no opinions about his but man, you Americans should really stop worshiping your military, or at least control it.
Yes, we get it, you're rich and powerful but come on. No one likes the kid who flounders his money around
>>61324587
Did you ever read the Foundation and Earth?
>>61298204
It seems like you didn't include all the european countries with navies in this?
>>61324576
You have something nuclear, nuclear staging grounds, like 80% of your country
Haven't grand fleets been declared useless in a war against an enemy with modern military tech?
These fleets are very large, very easy to find, very expensive and very easy to target after all.
>>61324803
Landlocked countries get out immediately
>>61324794
>>61324820
I mean imagine Austria had a real army. We could target your ships without being anywhere near the damn ocean.
>>61324869
But then how would you target them
>>61298204
We'd still win from numbers alone, but European submarines are top-notch. Our fleet would be crippled
>>61324934
I'm not gonna walk into something claiming to know the answer, but to me it seems like these numbers OP posted are highly inaccurate. If not, though, then it's just sad on our part.
One thing he has forgotten is all our combined naval special forces that could independently from each other launch a ton of sneaky attacks towards us and destroy important industry related to her navy. I don't know how much difference special forces can do in all of this, but at least it's a thought.
>>61325142
>then it's just sad on our part
Not really, that's the benefit to having a military alliance with a country willing to put one 20% of it's budget into it's military
>>61325396
I guess so, but you end up controlling the world. I mean, don't get me wrong I like USA, but Europe has given away her power in the world to USA. In a way US is an extension of Europe, but then again you're a single country with all the allies on your leach more or less. NATO does your bidding. A good example is Norwegian defence policy, we put most of our cards on USA, not on NATO. The politicians don't even hide it, they say it straight "our defence is USA, without them we could not trust that NATO would be a proper security". It's kinda sad that NATO is not stronger than its leader's will to fight our wars.
>>61298204
Guys... you know that literally next year, the US navy is going to start installing the laser anti-missile systems that have been in development since the 90s? Like, they don't just have a "working prototype," they have a production-ready model that has been mounted and tested extensively on warships in live-fire exercises. They can shoot down missiles and artillery shells with a frickin laser beam. Yes, artillery shells too. And then there's the railguns... Point-blank range is defined as the range at which one does not have to aim above one's target at all to achieve a hit. With railguns, point-blank range is measured in kilometers. Shell travel time is not a thing. They're busy developing a self-guiding finned shell for railgun use, I believe it was around 300mm but I can't remember. Stupidly long range and perfect accuracy, as well as being practically impossible to intercept, unlike the significantly slower ASMs and naval artillery. This alongside the simple ferromagnetic slugs which only cost as much as a couple hundred kilos of iron, because that's all they are; and can punch a hole through meters of steel with significantly greater accuracy than a conventional and far more expensive shell. The kinetic energy they impart on impact is something retarded, nuclear bomb scale stuff. As of right now I'd say the US wins, provided they escort their carriers properly. Give it two years and there's not a hope in hell for the rest of the world in a straight fight, seeing as ASMs and conventional naval artillery will be pretty much useless. Give it till 2020-2025 and it'll be an even more skewed fight. I would fully expect the EU navy to not get to fire a single artillery shot, as railguns outrange conventional artillery by such a ridiculous amount. So it would be a missile duel where one side is also firing shells with the energy of early atom bombs, while using FRICKIN LASERS to shoot down the other side's missiles.
>>61325859
That thing you're describing has been co-developed in a number of western nations. Krauts have a track mounted version I believe.
>>61325859
>stupidly long range
You don't do it justice
It can literally fire over the fucking horizon
>>61298204
The US will win even when the rest of the world is in war against it.
>>61325859
Also the railgun you speak of is being developed by BAE, which as you know is a Bongese company
>>61325766
I believe you meant to say that Europe is an extension of the US
>>61326059
That's a stupid myth. As much stuff as they have, they still don't have enough. The world lacks power projection to reach North America, but US would be bleeding itself dry if it tried to expand. Therefore it would come down to manpower and industrial capacity, which is hilariously skewed against the US.
>>61326151
This.
I also think this is true if it was US against Europe.
>>61326151
Pekka relax, I know it's hard to accept but it's good for you, we're on your side
Our primary capability as a military power is force projection, multiple fronts are no issue for us, we have the largest carrier fleet in the world with more planes than the fucking air forces of other major nations
Accept it, and be happy, we'll be the first in line to defend you if Russia tries some shit
>>61310817
But these navies aren't made to be compared. They're made to cooperate and count on american support, the only moment when it'd be plausible to compare the two would be at least ten years after the dissolution of NATO and the reorganisation of euro-navies
>Aegis
>best in the world
>literally uses PESA radars
Daily reminder the APAR and SMART-L EWC are the best naval MFR and long-range radar in the world.
>>61326003
Couldn't find the article I was looking for, but I came across this. Pretty neat.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a17425/germanys-got-a-4-barrel-laser-gatling-gun/
>>61326225
I'm not upset over the US being superior, as a nation of a minor nation you'll have to accept that everyone's stronger than you. Sure we'd give anyone a hell of a bloody nose if it came down to it, but that's beside the point. I'm upset over the retarded claim that he made. As good as they are, clapistanians cannot beat the whole world.
>>61326404
As a citizen of a minor nation. I need sleep.
>>61326151
the usa has an endless supply of rednecks to send off to war
i live in san diego and we are infested with military
the vast majority of them are inbred rednecks and prisoners
only russia has similar capacity
>>61326426
The rest of the world has India. They'll drown you in feces.
>>61301403
>Finnish subs
we do not operate sub marines
>>61326003
The primary co-developer is Israel, and the US is the only nation that has the funding to install significant numbers. These things are not totally effective, you need many of them to ensure full protection. Rheinmetall's stuff is really good, and Germany has a very advanced military, but America's is slightly more advanced and a hell of a lot bigger.
>>61326082
Yes, but the power draw of a railgun is immense. Pretty much need a nuclear reactor on board if you wanna keep it firing at around 3 shells per minute, which was I believe the target performance for the first generation of railguns to be installed, or else you need huge and very expensive capacitor banks and have a severely limited amount of shots, and I'm pretty sure that most nations, when they get access to the technology, will purpose-build ships to fit the cannons. The US plans to retrofit some of its ships with nuclear generators. So they'll have the railguns first by a long long way.
>>61326681
He's thinking of the Gotland class
>>61326715
So you're just pulling stuff out of your butt. Ok.
Also, US is not the only nation to employ nuclear reactors on their vessels, although that is a matter of funding. It isn't due to a gap of technology that the US has better stuff, it's because European politicians are retarded and jew the armed forces out of funding.
Bongs for example had to decide between two conventional carriers or one with a reactor. If they had more funding, they could have had two nuclear carriers.
>>61326466
Honestly this thread should be about whether or not the US and Europe together could invade India. There wouldn't be enough NBC suits to survive the fecal attacks
>mfw us navy still can't detect swedish subs
japan: not have military
>>61329609
Japan, blown the fuck out since 1945
OP here.
>>61323665
The odds of this happening again are slim to none.
>>61324405
India and China's navies are not remarkable, but numerous. India uses a lot of American and Russian tech.
>>61324587
I don't control our government (thank god).
>>61324743
I let out most of the Balkan states except for Greece and I stupidly forgot to put in the Baltic states, but it was 4 in the morning. I'm tired then.
>>61324869
How do you plan on targeting them?
>>61325142
They're mostly accurate. I missed a few countries but their navies aren't significant, just a couple frigates and obsolete Cold War-era diesel submarines, like Foxtrots and Romeos.
>>61326003
Sheesh, Germans and railguns
>>61326050
So can missiles and many naval guns from the early 20th century.
>>61326151
Manpower is rarely skewed against the US, but in the cases of China and India, if they thrown enough shit at a wall it'll stick.
>>61326238
It was four in the morning and I don't think good then, my bad.
>>61326316
The integration is different. AEGIS integrates multiple sensor systems to create a truly lethal defense network, while most European vessels (with the exception of some Spanish destroyers) don't have advanced detecting-processing-eliminating systems.
>>61326840
This is correct. Nuclear-powered vessels are expensive to maintain and build, and cannot simply be scrapped after decommissioning.
>>61327219
Top kek
>>61329551
>MFW you don't have enough
>>61333208
Good morning, how was your sleep?
>>61333208
Maybe not, but we could just borrow some nukes from France and you would be toast
EU>US
We win you lose
USA wins, no contest. US navy probably beats every other navy in the world simultaneously. Only a few countries have relevant vessels: UK, France, Russia, China.
>>61333481
Good, thank you very much!
>>61333549
>when the US has 18 ballistic missile submarines capable of raining death upon all of Europe from above and your warships are equipped with the AEGIS ballistic missile defense system.
>>61299619
Pretty much this. I doubt the US Navy would suffer much in losses either. If any battles took place where F-22s could be launched from land to gain air superiority it would be even more one sided, but strictly Navy vs Navy the US would win easily. To even sink 1 US carrier without nukes involved would be a monumental accomplishment, they are just too well protected.
>>61324869
And the ships could target the land without being anywhere near the land.
>>61334686
>without nukes
This is where you think wrong.
>>61300602
>conventional missiles failed to sink the vessel.
One missile to the flight deck would make it combat ineffective.
>>61323665
>>61324405
hopefully only pretending
>>61299845
>no it wouldn't
Yes it would.
Remind again, how many super carriers does europe have?
Do any European ships have fucking rail gund and anti missile laser weapons?
