How can India become a superpower in under 4 months if their sole carrier still uses A FUCKING RAMP?

You can do sick flips tho

they use the rafale which operates from french carriers with no ramp

There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen

Don't know. The Netherlands and the UK actually waged war before about us selling weapons to their enemies. But hey, you cant pass up on a good business oppertunity.

For example for the American revolution.
>Britain protested bitterly against the continuous trade between the United Colonies and St. Eustatius. In 1778, Lord Stormont claimed in Parliament that, "if Sint Eustatius had sunk into the sea three years before, the United Kingdom would already have dealt with George Washington". Nearly half of all American Revolutionary military supplies were obtained through St. Eustatius. Nearly all American communications to Europe first passed through the island. The trade between St. Eustatius and the United States was the main reason for the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War of 1780-1784

Catapults almost instantly launch planes to their take-off speed. This not only (usually) means a higher sortie rate (which is how many planes a carrier can launch per minute) but also means it can launch planes with a lower thrust-to-weight ratio (meaning heavier planes with heavier payloads) and also means the plane spends less fuel taking off (which means it can use more fuel to actually fly, increasing its operational range). On the flipside, catapults do slightly damage the planes over time (especially when the flight deck is short like on the Charles de Gaulle) so it requires a lot of upkeep/repairs for the planes.

I guess those Rafales use the "rolling take-off" or whatever then. Either that, or the models they've bought straight up take off vertically (which I doubt, as it would mean the FUCKING RAMP is redundant).

Its outdated too.

>the entire indian army is rusty and outdated as fuck
That's not really true.

Nigger, it's literally the most modern carrier around. Ignoring their decision to go for A FUCKING RAMP rather than a catapult (because it's cheaper) it's heavily automated. It's roughly equivalent in size to the CdG but can be operated by about half the staff.

I can't even fully blame them for going for a non-nuclear FUCKING RAMP carrier. The downsides compared to a nuclearly powered ramp carrier are relatively minor. For example the improved sortie rate would only really matter on a carrier-on-carrier conflict, which the UK almost certainly won't engage in for the foreseeable future.

Well yeah, nobody else has an automated floating ramp.

Ramp or no, having a floating airbase which can legally be parked within 50 km of any coastline around the world is a massive boon in terms of power projection given how important airpower is in modern warfare.

I imagine it's mostly useful against third world countries. Because countries like Russia and China could just sink them easily with submarines. But it's perfect for bullying Belgium.

Dam, 4 months left for india

>Because countries like Russia and China could just sink them easily with submarines.
A pirate can sink them with a tool kit from Home Depot.

>One only needs to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.

I seem to remember things going rather poorly for the person who said this

Attached: 300px-Reichstag_flag_original.jpg (300x216, 19K)

lmao

thats because he had to deal with mutts, anglos and french rebels all the while invading the eastern shithole

IDK bruh, things were going pretty bad pretty quick

Attached: german-soldier-at-stalingrad.jpg (800x517, 57K)

>Because countries like Russia and China could just sink them easily with submarines
Not really. This is mostly based on results of military exercises (like the French Rubis-class submarine supposedly sinking the USS Abraham Lincoln and its entire escort fleet) but this is mostly proof of America's sub-par ASW capabilities. On top of that it ignores the nature of these exercises compared to real life conflicts. The main goal was to test America's passive detection skills. In a real conflict a submarine would only be able to launch 4-6 torpedo's at a time (far from sufficient to sink a carrier in a single salvo) before being forced to reload. During that time the torpedo's would hit and send the defending fleet into panic mode, meaning their own submarines and destroyers would switch from active sonar to passive sonar, helicopters with dipping sonar would be sent out, detection planes would take of et cetera. At that point the submarine's best bet is to retreat before it is detected and try another surprise attack later. Best case scenario, the carrier is damaged in a vital area forcing it back to port for repairs.

news.yahoo.com/fear-french-nuclear-submarine-sunk-180000735.html?guccounter=1

This article actually gets into that. The results of such exercises tend to be heavily overstated for sensationalist purposes.

That being said, carriers are just as useful against other modern navies. If two surface fleets face, one of them has a carrier and the other does not it means that one fleet can strike the other from a safe distance. In a modern land conflict (especially in far away fronts) it can also help in allowing a country to exercise air-to-surface bombardments.

There's a reason why China and Russia, the countries investing the hardest in anti-carrier warfare, are themselves also investing in carriers (especially China). Not because carriers are outdated, but precisely because combined arms tactics are the name of the game.

Seething Paki. Reality is the Indian Air Force is need of extreme modernization, but they've purchased 36 Rafales, 8 Apaches and have a $15 billion contract for more fighters open to international firms right now. So militarily, they're fine for now

Plan is to buy the design of the UK's new aircraft carrier and put an electromagnetic ramp onto it
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vishal