Is America the only country that is able to project its military force technically and practically all over the globe?

They have nothing. All colonies in africa are overrun and lost. Mali and Algeria have fallen to Islam and France itself will soon too.

I'd rather be in charge of a guano island than France. It's worth less than a pile of shit.

The Charles de Gaulle is a good ship that I think has proven her worth, she recently had her mid-life refit so she's set to go for awhile. Only current combat aircraft is the Rafale M since France retired the Super Étendard, which were pretty old. Within the next year the French government is supposed to decide if they want another carrier (nuclear or otherwise.)

Attached: French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91)_underway_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_on_25_October_2016 (4928x3280, 724K)

They don't own any colonies in the region anymore, but the French military maintains a major presence in the Francophone regions of Africa. Especially with increased geopolitical competition due to Chinese investments in the south, both France and the US have been working together to increase their influence in the region.

>CDG

Attached: 1333ED04-F757-4E1C-ACCE-762A37A6C672.jpg (3120x368, 170K)

>Mali and Algeria have fallen to Islam

Attached: 1400451838572.jpg (756x1100, 209K)

And those troops are literally doing nothing than watch and get kicked out as one town after another falls into the hands of al Qaeda. Just look at Algeria. Went from essentially southern France to a hellhole worse than Pakistan.

lol. I like how the island being closer to the bow looks. If it's not going to be placed in the middle of the ship's length.

Attached: US_Navy_101210-N-1261P-028_The_aircraft_carrier_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_(CVN_72),_back,_and_the_French_n (2100x1500, 1.8M)

>rust
with such discipline, how can the west ever hope to match the red dragon?

Attached: beauty.jpg (4928x3296, 1.01M)

By spending more time using their ships than painting them, probably.

forget rust, that chink shit is leaking water

>RAMP
>A
>M
>P

England yes France no. France needed US and UK airlift just to get into Mali

Why can't France do what the UK can?

France is arguably more effective at expeditionary deployment due to the fact that they've been operating a CVN for quite some time. That, and they've been all over Africa for decades. The UK generally has the ability to deploy farther, however.

It turns out that ships that spend their time at sea and conducting operations will reflect that usage. Ships that just go out for a few days, come back to port, and get repainted, will keep their 'newer' look for longer.

Attached: 66RfDLWv7COEBSAqRVN-Y1tXYsBBVucXki-r7Bj2xFg.jpg (1280x825, 206K)

Kuznetsov is probably a bad example of wear and tear not affecting functionality, though. There's a middle ground to be had between constantly breaking down while underway and primarily keeping a ship in port for display.

The best looking carrier and she can't even go anywhere ever again.

Attached: 1476762323796.jpg (1000x667, 272K)

It'll likely be repaired eventually. Russia needs to maintain its carrier aviation capability if it wants to project the image of being in the big boy's club, despite how useless carrier aviation is for a country whose primary focus is continental warfare.

Perhaps it was a bad example. While the Admiral Kuznetsov has done actual work and gotten dirty, she also suffered the post-USSR neglect. She started off with a handicap and it's only gotten worse.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if the Russian Navy keeps throwing money into it. I can't see them affording a replacement anytime soon, and if Russia wants to project power as far as it seems to, a carrier is somewhat vital, for appearances if nothing else.

>repainted
lmao. Chinese military grade paints never fade.

Hey Pajeeet, are you niggers still importing your paint?

They do have other capable docks and repair yards, don't they? They would just need to arrange transport of the ship there. It would be a lot of time and money. It is a tough spot for Russia since they don't explicitly need a carrier but not having one would hurt their image and require modifying some of their naval planning. The Admiral Kuznetsov has been used in Syria but the Russians also have airbases there anyway so they haven't lost their ability to fly in the region.
So while they could get away with having no carrier, I don't think they would accept that and we all know they don't have the funding right now to build something new.

I think they have one other dry dock, which is used exclusively by the submarine force or something like that. I’d imagine that Russia’s subs are much more important to them than their naval aviation, though.

Retard

Having access to both oceans with a large amount of coastal area, they're in an ideal location for it.

Anyone with ICBMs can project military power over the world.

Heh... hope your not american

Depends on the scale. The USA is the only country currently that can fight a war half the world away for over a decade.

There’s no surer sign of a collapsing empire than a globe-spanning superpower that has garrisons all over the globe but can’t secure its own border.

Have sex

I would but my balls are still empty from blowing a load in your mom’s ass. Maybe in another hour or two.

Cringe and virginpilled

>using memes created by people who want you unarmed

*won't

No.

>Effectively

Yes.

>France can't even project it's power into Paris.
Au contraire mon frère

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1066x720, 213K)

Israel

>rust
Look at the running rust coming down frm the hawsepipes, will you? How can China expect to compete when their ships start rusting before even leaving harbor?

I wouldn't say so. Seems like the actually surrendered.

What are you a Marine?

>skater boy tune kicks in

OP mentioned US

as a toad, I agree with this. Shit is a fuck hole here. please come police this shithole, burgers.

CVN 72 has been operating in salt water for thirty years.

Liaoning has never completed a patrol, in part because it's engine room is a death trap that has killed more people then the barely functional aircraft it carries ever will.

Implying no retaliation from whoever. Would it be possible for chinks to invade and occupy Australia using their current equipment?

No, It's just the only country retarded enough to want to.

Attached: 1556089329873.gif (245x245, 1.06M)

Not without nuking Australia. Otherwise it all falls apart when the PLAN can't protect their forces in Australia's backyard.

Wow what an enlightened post. World peace, friend!

By any practical measure? Yes. Nobody else can just go and fight a war somewhere without support.

Yeah, which is totally why both rely so heavily on US logistical support. Look at Mali as an example.. frenchies can’t do much of anything without help, and the Brits fully surrendered expeditionary capability in all but name 2+ decades ago.

>commie trash with a fucking ramp
>best looking

That shit isn’t even aesthetic unless your particular fetish is buck toothed asthmatic girls with FUPA’s

Nigger, it fucking SANK.

And yet antifags are still rioting every weekend.

>Is America the only country that is able to project its military force technically and practically all over the globe?

You're leaving out the important part - that it's foreign countries offering ports and bases which enable this.

France and the UK are the only countries which have their own territory all over the world and technically don't need foreign bases.

>buck toothed asthmatic girls with FUPA’s

Attached: 1544652486752.gif (339x338, 1.81M)

Chill dude, your sister only dates black guys remember?

Whatever you say, anglo.

>Brits fully surrendered expeditionary capability in all but name 2+ decades ago.
So that's totally unrelated to them having strategic airlift, logistical & amphibious ships, and overseas military bases then?

> brits surrendered expeditionary capability 2+ decades ago

And yet the UK is still the only nation in Europe who:
> can deploy and sustain at division level or higher anywhere around the world (51,000 at peak Iraq, 11,000 at peak Afghan)
> can deploy and sustain amphibious operations at brigade level or higher (7,000+ Royal Marines plus naval logistics)
> has troops in over 50 countries around the world either training, advising, mentoring or providing security
> can reach most countries in the world just from its own bases alone

Same thing.

Yep, all of that is only possible with American logistical support. They are completely incapable of any of that without US dragging their asses at each turn.

None of what he said involves US logistics at all. The Brits self deployed on all of those.

Hell just this year they self deployed division to brigade level forces to something like 4-5 countries simultaneously to exercise that.

I'd like you to demonstrate where American logistics enters the force structure.

I'd also like you to explain why American would even carry that burden when it can just deploy its own forces.

Prove it. Prove that every single aspect I mentioned relies heavily on US support. Cus im pretty damn sure that the Royal Marines dont need US help to conduct marine operations, as was proven on the recent Ex Saif Sarea 3 (however you spell it).

Ive also been to multiple countries around the world with the British Army, and not once have we flown on a USAF plane.

I believe we deployed 4th Infantry Brigade to Norway as part of Trident Juncture, completely under our own steam from the UK to Norway. We also tested out the rapid reaction force and I believe we drove a brigade from the UK to Poland in under 4 days. There was also Saif Sarea 3 in Oman that I mentioned above, which involved amphibious assault by 3 Commando Brigade followed up by some Challys rolling around in the desert. So we are definitely capable of deploying fairly large bodies of men and equipment at short notice to various places around the world, without US assistance.

For the practical purposes of fighting a war somewhere? Yes. They have token assets geared towards a joint environment where the US is doing the heavy lifting. Full stop.

Hanhahhahhahahahha

On their own? That’s a good one. Pull the other, it’s got bells on it.

Feel free to disprove every single one of my points then, with decisive proof. Ill wait.

Neither should african and mexican countries, Hose.

Isn't it the case that this ship's reactor is way too weak for it's size and weight?

Yes, 27 knots max.

>They have token assets geared towards a joint environment where the US is doing the heavy lifting. Full stop.
Except, you know, they have history of self-deploying and have continued to do so.

Britain can too, probably behind only the US.

When? The falklands?

Give me a fucking break.

Falklands, Gulf/Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone - subsequent exercises.

You're yet to show where this US heavy lift enters the picture.

Not anymore--this asshole made quick work scaling back our military while allowing other nations to step in--and not all of them were allies.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html

Attached: download (4).jpg (300x168, 6K)

That was the INS Vikrant

Plus Syria, Libya, Balkans.

how stable are these vessels in bad seas? Do they just avoid them altogether? I've been on a big ship being sunk by weather fever for the last few days, I've never really thought about an aircraft carrier in this scenario, dunno why.

just read this I guess you all know this shit already but here you go.

> They’re enormous ships with a very high deck. Most sea states don’t ever put water across the bow. The same oceans that will potentially sink a smaller war ship will barely be felt on a carrier. They don’t frequently rock and roll like a small boy, they don’t pitch (up and down front to back) very much because they’re typically longer than the wavelength/period of an ocean wave. The wavelength is the peak to peak distance, (the period is the time it takes to travel that distance) between two waves in a set and if your ships is longer than this gap the bow will be into the next wave before it could start to go “downhill” or “uphill” on one single wave.

Well, in the case of the Gulf and Afghanistan, my understanding is that they relied on US logistics to help transport their equipment to the country. Given how much effort was put into the Falklands, I think that works against your point that the UK is a fully-capable expeditionary force. That one Vulcan raid that required like 5 aircraft for 4 in air refuelings to reach its target, while an impressive show of commitment, is indicative of a lack of long-distance strike capability.

>Well, in the case of the Gulf and Afghanistan, my understanding is that they relied on US logistics to help transport their equipment to the country.
Specifics, please.

You are welcome to explain WHY American logistics ships were diverted to pick up 53000 British troops instead of American troops - it just doesn't make any sense.

>Given how much effort was put into the Falklands, I think that works against your point that the UK is a fully-capable expeditionary force.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

>That one Vulcan raid that required like 5 aircraft for 4 in air refuelings to reach its target, while an impressive show of commitment, is indicative of a lack of long-distance strike capability.
And yet they were able to carry out the raid? So I'm not sure what your point is.

You still haven't point to where US heavy lift enters the picture.

Yes that's why it's called a superpower. The Soviet Union was considered a superpower because it had global reach

>Yep, all of that is only possible with American logistical support.
I'm so tired of this meme and people like you trying to act like you know how force projection works.
Does the UK and other US allies rely on US logistics to maneuver around the world? Yes. Obviously, but that doesn't mean that they have absolutely no capability to organically project power.

Your same exact argument can be used on the US. Is the US capable of projecting power throughout the world without having to rely on any ally in any form? Of course they can, but why would they even consider to do something so stupid? The US needs allies just as badly as they need the US, just for different reasons. There is no realistic flashpoint or conflict that a US ally would get drawn into that the US wouldn't intervene in as well, and vice versa, especially somewhere in the Pacific where the UK or France would actually require an Expeditionary Force. Are you implying that close allies using each others logistics is somehow a bad thing?

Attached: ztcxa4yze6o7oekos6xs5f92gyw3f7qb-xlarge.jpg (620x348, 35K)

because after trump got elected our allies showed their true colors and i highly recommend watching some euro tv shows/news/politicians talking about usa and we are on same boat till ivan gonna stay valid bogyman, thinking that anyone with questionable exception of uk will support usa in pacific crisis is delusional at best, they are parasites and their contributions in last 2 decades were miniscule

>thinking that anyone with questionable exception of uk will support usa in pacific crisis is delusional at best
You know, apart from deploying four different ships in the pacific doing FONOPS.

>yes goy, it is of vital German interest to die in the pacific for israel

Unfortunately for our friends down under, there are no blades of grass and their ain't no damn rifle behind each one either.

It had the capability to land troops in neighboring countries, but that was about it.

>my understanding is that they relied on US logistics to help transport their equipment to the country

Citation desperately fucking needed.