why do americans glorify their aircraft carriers so much?
>implying destroyers cant sink billions worth of equipment and tech
>implying american carriers don't have subs shadowing them that would sink destroyers well before they got a shot
>implying all ships are not susceptible to any kind of long range guided rocket
its even sadder that we think a boat that does nothing other than transport a few planes is note worthy in any type of warfare
its really just a homosexual cruise boat. an excuse for "straight" men to suck each other off at sea where their wives and families can't find them
fun fact: the NAVY and coast guard were literally established to get around anti sodomy laws at the time by going out to international waters so men could buttfuck each other
>>55360791
>>55360916
how did this happen??
>>55360918
And people call us gay.
>>55360791
>>55360916
>australian shitposting goes above shitposting limit
>>55360947
>>55360708
>why do americans glorify their aircraft carriers so much?
The same reason the escort fleet of one, larger than your entire navy, triggers you.
>>55360708
so we shouldn't build useful military equipment because it might get destroyed?
>>55360708
USN has the best of both.
>>55361127
>escort fleet
>2 tugs
>>55360708
our navy can destroy your tiny swamp country in mere minutes
>>55360708
Aircraft carriers don't excel at ship-to-ship engagements, they're for power projection.
>>55361127
>Black F18
What is going on?
Do Aussies know about battlegroups? There are usually subs, destroyers, maybe some old frigates, etc. around too.
>>55360916
>implying the millennium falcon is not the fastest ship in the galaxy
>>55361127
why even bother? Your government doesn't have the balls to pick a fight with even remotely capable opponents anyway...even desert storm was against completely outdated equipment, like tanks without any composite armor.
Skeet shooting in third world countries doesn't require any of that fancy navy.
>>55360916
>>55360998
>>55361035
>>55361072
>>55361128
fucking australians they ruined my thread
>>55360791
>>55360916
spooky shit
anglobros connected by the astral tethers
>>55360708
Because aircraft carriers allow mobility. The United States can have 50,000 troops with full sea air and land support anywhere in the world in 48 hours.
Even if there was a conventional Naval battle (this hasn't happened since World War II) they have submarines and a full contingent of fighter jets and attack helicopters for support.
And we have 12, no other nation in the world has more than two
>>55361175
>The current (Carrier Strike Group Eight) flagship is the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). The other units of the group are the guided-missile cruiser USS Hué City (CG-66), Carrier Air Wing Seven, and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 28.
>Currently the Squadron consists up of the following Ships: USS Mitscher (DDG 57), USS Ramage (DDG 61) USS Gonzalez (DDG 66), USS Bulkeley (DDG 84), USS Bainbridge (DDG 96), USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109).
Chinese have cruise missiles that can split an aircraft carrier in two.
>>55361381
Iraqi "monkey models" were equal to equipment in then current use by the Soviet Union.
*AustraliaN
One m(2^3)
>>55360954
>And people call us gay.
You ARE gay.
>>55361673
t. Han
>>55360708
They glorify it so the patriot sheeple can be happy about arbitrary bullshit.
There's sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missiles out there, hell US navy-sailors quit the Navy after Russia flew a couple of anti-ship missiles over them in Crimea. They'd probably abandon ship if that happened on a carrier.
>>55361679
> tanks from the 70s
> export models
> expired ammunition
OH YEA GUYS WE WERE PRETTY MUCH FIGHTING THE SOVIET UNION, I TELL YOU HWAT!!
Fuck off, yank ;)
>>55361612
>shaped like a huge cock
>navy confirmed for faggots
Because they are a symbol of America's ability to project force.
Everyone knows that submarines are the premier warships of any Navy, but you can't launch an amphibious landing from a submarine squadron. A submarine lets you destroy - aircraft carriers let you control.
>>55361127
Norfolk
o
r
f
o
l
k
>>55361175
Toot toot.
>>55360791
>Implying cheap, small, swedish subs don't play around with whole american fleets.
>>55367813
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s
>She (the Swedish underwater penis) has really run rings around our carrier battlegroups
>If I was too look at our coast in north america, is there any place you couldn't go?
>No.
Please sven Gief sub and we'll remove babeK
>>55360708
>why do americans glorify their aircraft carriers so much?
Because unlike European nations, we need to be able to get our air-force across an ocean before we can use it
So we built mobile airports
>>55368466
So you glorify them because you need them? That doesn't really make sense to me.
They are very cool though.
>>55361127
>The same reason the escort fleet of one, larger than your entire navy, triggers you.
Ask yourself why it needs an escort at all.
Pro-tip: because it's a 6 billion USD target that can't defend itself.
>>55360791
>implying that would help while ven old german Diesel U-Boats managed to sink modern US carriers
>>55369088
>Poland making fun of people who can't defend themselves
>>55360708
we have small penises
>>55369264
Not making fun. Being realistic, while you
Carriers are NOT for sea combat. Carriers are for bombing some third world countries that don't have subs. Serbia? Iraq? Libya?
Let's be honest here. The US would not send carriers to fight any nation that has relatively modern subs or guided missile frigates. The risk of loss would be too much.
>>55360708
>>55360918
>>55360947
>>55360954
>>55361381
>>55361673
>>55361949
>>55361999
>>55362528
>>55367813
>>55368335
>>55369088
>>55369216
>all these implications
Apparently you faggots have never had a carrier as a duty station. You are forgiven, because you know not what cometh from your cum dumpsters.
>>55369577
>The US would not send carriers to fight any nation that has relatively modern subs or guided missile frigates.
Not until the waters were safe. Then you bring in your carriers, your light carriers and gain air superiority.
Then you bring in your landing hovercraft and MEU and start an amphibious assault
>>55369672
>Not until the waters were safe.
That's what I said, isn't it?
If you have to make the waters safe first, then some other ship has to do it. Ergo, carriers are not for sea combat.
> Then you bring in your carriers, your light carriers and gain air superiority. Then you bring in your landing hovercraft and MEU and start an amphibious assault
What I said. It's a sea mobile platform for bombing land targets on a foreign continent.
>Not building an aircraft carrier-sized ship that's full of missiles
>>55360918
>a few airplanes
>100 aircraft
pick one
>>55361195
BIG
![SHIP_SSBN_Ohio_Class_Tubes_Open_and_Full_lg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hIDcMN9.jpg "SHIP_SSBN_Ohio_Class_Tubes_Open_and_Full_lg[1].jpg")
>>55360708
>What is power projection
We glorify them because we can park an airforce off the coast of any country we want and nobody is going to do shit about it.
The world knows that if you attack a carrier your pretty much going to be in for a nuke in return. Are they vulnerable? Of course, but its what backs those carriers, is why nobody will fuck with them.
Lets face it, the carriers are a good show piece, but the real muscle, the real threat from the USN is the missile submarine.
You're all kind of correct. See the Falklands war. The threat of the navalty was dealt with first and the carrier never went near it- because it's mission critical that a carrier is not sunk hence why it is defended. Without air superiority everything else will fail so submarines (sinking of Belgrano) and long range bombing runs to disable air fields (operation black buck) must occur first or else you're just making a risk that will potentially cost you a war and at the very least your largest ship.
Aircraft carriers are necessary when fighting a war a large distance from any of your countries military basesbases.
>>55369904
I wonder why no one has really picked up this idea seriously. I'm guessing there's a good reason for, I'm guessing mostly mobility and putting too many eggs in one basket.
>>55369620
>Carrier being "destroyed" multiple times by a Swedish sub
>And implication
Wtf. I'm not implying shit. I'm telling you as it is. Carriers are not some retarded auto-win they are easily destroyed by subs etc. They are good for projecting force over seas, yes. but for actual fleet on fleet battle, no.
>>55370084
That's why they have ballistic missile subs and tube launched cruise missiles from attack subs.
>>55367813
>Implying the Swedish wouldn't be too busy getting spitroasted by a troupe of Muslims and blacks to fuck around with a US Carrier.
>>55369904
Why do you Germans have a fascination with building impractically large guns?
>>55369866
It's blatantly called a fucking aircraft carrier, it's for air superiority and having a mobile base to launch airplanes from.
I know this is difficult for you since your country's Air Force consists of a rubber band and a paper airplane but those of us with power and money build cool helpful shit.
>>55370084
Since we invented gunpowder our offensive capabilities have advanced at a much quicker rate than our defensive. The bomb the size of a Finnish benis can destroy a tank thousands of times it's size and weight.
Also like you said why put all your eggs in one basket.
With the times you usually want to be as small as possible since if you're hit you're pretty much fucked anyways so putting on extra weight only reduces your mobility etc. Armor just doesn't matter that much anymore.
>>55370382
I'm sorry but "Finnish benis" made me lol
>>55370192
Keep in mind that the swedes aren't exactly know for being moral when it comes to selling weaponry. My example was just to shut these idiots who think that a aircraft carrier is some kind of battle ship rather than used for force-projection.
>>55370453
Y'all make some dope guns that's for sure. I just swore into the navy so I'm reading up on the history functionality etc.
>>55370289
that is a big black cannon
>>55370519
>Europe
The thing I always found most impressive about the US carriers is the fact they are powered by nuclear reactors.
Also the ship within a ship thing is always fascinating.
>>55370295
> those of us with power and money build cool helpful shit
Your shit is just not cost-effective. There is no way to defend this. You are making a gold-plated toilet seat and you are bragging that you can afford it.
You can afford it but it's still a stupid concept.
Again, you can only use your carriers against shit-tier nations or land locked nations.
If you try this against Russia, China or even Iran, you wouldn't dare to bring the carriers into the combat zone.
>>55370567
Nuclear is very good for large ships, especially for cargo. Once oil gets more expensive there will be an increased pressure to allow cargo companies to have nuclear powered ships.
>>55370700
>If you try this against Russia, China or even Iran
>>55370780
Even at $100 a barrel it wasn't worth it
You know what could be worth it though?
Sails.
Just the kite on autopilot can reduce fuel usage by 10-20%, if oil costs rise again they'll definitely start using hi-tech retractable sails
>>55370700
Lolpoland.
I realize that you come from a kek race that has spent its entire history alternating getting fucked in the mouth and in the butt, but there's no reason to lash out.
You do realize that Aircraft Carriers are more than capable of obliterating other naval targets, right? That they carry planes which carry missiles? That these missiles, when placed on planes, mean that an aircraft carrier can engage ships before they even know that the US ships are there?
Fucking morons thinkging they know better than every navy on the planet, god damn. Go clean toilet.
>>55370908
>10-20%
M8 the thing with nuclear is that it occupies a small amount of space (thus more for cargo) and drives the refueling times to virtually zero. Sails just make you use a bit less fuel. Just imagine a huge ass nuclear powered cargo ship going from China to USA with no pauses.
Can you bomb it from the orbit?
It's a giant target and not really fast.
>>55371072
Do they really have to refuel often between usa and china? HAve no idea about these things and too lazy to google.
Sails do sound pretty smart though it's a pretty much no-cost. so even if the effects of them are small it's a win.
this thread reeks of RIDF
>>55370700
>you wouldn't dare to bring the carriers into the combat zone.
you know, you don't park the carriers near shore.
>>55371072
>drives the refueling times to virtually zero.
Even USN nuclear vessels spend almost half the time in port undergoing maintenence. Nuke ships are hugely epensive to make and operate. Hell, even getting rid of them costs hundreds of millions.
>>55371148
Wut. why is the speed/size really relevant when it comes to bombing something from orbit? I asume you're talking about some kind of missiles and they'll hit anyways even if the ship is moving 150 km/h. It's not like we can place mac-canons or anything in orbit-
>>55371216
I don't know if "ballistic" applies when you send a missile from the orbit (I'm not talking about nukes). The aircraft carrier probably has some defense system against guided missiles, so, maybe, a ballistic missile is the best option.
>>55371153
Well I assume it's practical to refuel every time you are in port in order to carry as little fuel as possible. It takes a bit to cross the fucking Pacific ocean so I assume that over a lifespan of 10 years you'd save more using nuclear instead of oil.
>sails
There's a really good reason they aren't using them for hundred plus years you know.
>>55371180
Not to be the free market faggot here, but progress in nuclear is insanely slow due to government monopoly and huge red tape. Nuclear, just like space used to be, is almost exclusively done by government and they are shit at these things.
>>55371473
Alright, fair enough.
>>55360791
>>implying american carriers don't have subs shadowing them that would sink destroyers well before they got a shot
>>55361127
>The same reason the escort fleet of one, larger than your entire navy, triggers you.
Pic is the USN Abraham Lincoln battle group
>>55371621
Was not thinking about conventional sails but rather "sky-sails" like in >>55370908 pic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
Not the main propulsion of the ship but more as a adition, like a hybrid car or something.
>>55371778
Is the commander of the battle group on board the air craft carrier or do they all get their commands from some central office and are independent from one another?
Like, how high ranked is the top ranking officer in a Nimitz aircraft carrier? On one hand being in a giant ass ship with wifi and free food every day is probably very comfy during peace time, on the other hand if there's 3-star Admirals walking around all day you can't relax at all
>>55371778
>>55368335
>Swedish sub sneaks past your battle group
>Takes good pictures (means they are easily close enough to fire)
>Leaves unnoticed
Of course you can argue that the firepower of the sub is not enought to take down your carrier but still a "cheap" little non-atomic sub has the capability of taking down what I'm guessing is the most expensive military vehicle to ever exsist.
>>55372006
+ a shit load of airplanes and whatnot
>>55371936
>Is the commander of the battle group on board the air craft carrier or do they all get their commands from some central office and are independent from one another?
Wikipedia article explains it good.
Composite Warfare Command structure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
Why can't the us just build the ultimate railgun battleship.
>>Over 1.5km long
>>capable of throwing tank-sized projectiles at Mach 10
>>anti air laser defence system
>>quadruple fusion reactors
>>over 2000 Vls tubes
>>capable of launching drops and VTOL jets
>>over 100 billions dollars cost.
>>55367813
You would think that American sonar would pick up random "Allah Agbar"s but no.
>>55360918
Confirmed for not knowing shit about naval warfare. The carrier changed the game, faggot. It made big guns and battleships obsolete because of it's ability to project power from miles away. Get the fuck out of my /pol/, kuckboi
>>55360916
you can put a AShM on a Super-Hornet (or soon F-35) and fly that plane out away from the carrier in and THEN launch, giving you more range than a destroyer
>>55372191
sounds like ratte tank
cool but absolutely useless, what the hell would you need to shoot a fucking rail gun at, godzilla?
>>55360708
>why do americans glorify their aircraft carriers so much?
Because its objectively funny that one of our boats is literally more powerful than your entire country
>>55370700
Check out Generalissimo Polski, the greatest combat theorist of all time.
>>55372191
I guess the only thing that could make large ships worth it is super effective rail guns. But then again no matter how perfect, expensive and well defended your ship/airplane/tank is something will always find it's way through your defense and once that happens it's over.
>>55372191
where can it sail?
Where can it dock?
dumb ship 0/10
>>55372317
>what the hell would you need to shoot a fucking rail gun at?
Whatever the fuck you like, anon
Whatever the fuck you like
>>55361175
Sorry, can't hear you over us ćucking Poseidon.
>>55360708
There a missile defenses, and its not as though American carriers/subs/destroyers would just like enemies fire on them
>>55361381
Oh and who does? It's certainly not Germany or Russia.
>Shithole country A is upset that America has the best Navy in the world
>upset that the amount of carriers America has is probably three times as many ships their country has
>starts comparing apple to oranges
Different day, same shit. Continue to be jelly and under our wing of protection.
>>55372710
All of it will be useless when the niggers take over.
>>55372444
I want a ship that is more powerful than 10 carrier groups
The return of the battleship is inevitable
>>55370289
It was conceived in anticipation of the Maginot Line.
I'm literally in that ship at this moment. They are built poorly.
>>55361145
Ayy illerminate
>>55366074
NEWPORT
E
W
P
O
R
T
NEWS
E
W
S
>>55360708
Nice raft, holland
Do you use it to bring in "refugees"?
>>55361181
MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD
>>55361949
Why are you perpetuating a lie about the russian fighter in crimea?
>Europe in charge of navies
Lmao stay c ucked.
>>55373472
nigger city
Aka Virginia's Detroit
>>55361127
please, we had the best navy when it was relevant, it's pointless now
>>55361127
USS harry s. truman Ive been on that ship.
Great vessel would go on aboard again.
>>55372932
Yes! Bring back the battleship, and make one even bigger than the Yamato and Musashi, with a nuclear reactor and railgun/laser turrets along with at least 18inch conventional turrents (gotta have the smoke and fire!). Battlewagons like that are an intimidating "Big Stick", imagine pulling up off the coast of some snackbar shithole and shelling them into oblivion (during the first Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers surrendered to an observation drone flown from the WWII era BB which shelled the fuck out of them).
China's idea of a carrier: Russian coldwar surplus scrap heap, with laughable "Ski Jump" launch, diesel engine, and sold as a floating casino (Chinese refitted it to sail again).
>>55361673
>Chinese
>"can"
Pick one.
>>55360708
Because we learn from previous wars and WWII. They save american lives. No need for hundreds of thousands of american need to die like on D Day. Own the waters, use missiles and air attack. You own everything except for policing the streets (ie iraq/afghanistan).
Especially when countries around the world no longer want to spend their budgets on defense. Thus we shall only worry about a few dozen countries and most of them are not on our level.
>>55371621
It's true, but there is a huge shit lot that goes into nuclear powered ships. The US Navy has an unimpeachable safety record, such that even nations that have bans on nuclear power allow nuclear powered ships in port there. To do that, the ship has to be built and maintained at a virtually perfect state. Any deflect or flaw overlooked could create serious issues. On top of that, you need to train people who can run these complicated systems flawlessly day in and day out, which takes money and time to do. Meanwhile, a regular gas turbine powered ship is less necessarily perfect, training to operate and maintain them is substantially easier, and if you don't have that absolute need to go anywhere at any time like nuclear powered warships do, it's just not efficient.
>>55372384
He is a bit off, but if carriers were deployed against Russia or China, ICBMs would have easily gotten rid of them.
+ww3 start.
