Post ur cunt's Navy

Post ur cunt's Navy.

Attached: file.png (568x373, 425K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6Q7fxXKpu1E
youtube.com/watch?v=4NXFCDgyanA
youtube.com/watch?v=saCdvAp5cow
youtube.com/watch?v=U-Gi9Au4Wvg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

youtube.com/watch?v=6Q7fxXKpu1E

Attached: 3 carrier groups.jpg (840x420, 50K)

...

Attached: 1545566287389.jpg (1600x900, 152K)

Attached: 1545566560733.jpg (1315x877, 756K)

Attached: f219 sachsen.jpg (1276x850, 614K)

Attached: ARM_Reformador_Frigate.jpg (925x616, 185K)

Attached: 50479880_p0.jpg (1748x1181, 358K)

The US navy truly is a site to behold although carriers are slowly getting outdated.
Can't wait to see the next generation of ships.

How many ships composes a "carrier group"?

FACT: Canada, Iceland, Greenland, Norway and the Faroe Islands have the most BASED boats in the world.

Attached: 0141.jpg (1280x960, 458K)

Our navy might choose those Sigmas, since SAAB is envolved and the shipyard that is suppose to make them is being modernized atm.

FREMM are cute!

Attached: fremm_aquitaine.jpg (1912x1235, 1.75M)

They are cool ships
Budget is still being debated here in regards of building 4 6 or 8 of them

Attached: arm_reformador_with_heli.jpg (1200x801, 181K)

Attached: f221 hessen.jpg (1200x800, 144K)

>inb4 India and China sinks them all with just 10 missiles

Lel

4-5, two destroyers and a cruiser, sometimes another cruiser. This doesn't account for the submarines.

Attached: u212.jpg (1600x900, 203K)

>implying that they wouldn't get the nuke if they did that

Attached: uBRPv1m.jpg (1201x800, 283K)

*heads towards you*

Attached: colombia armada.jpg (1024x542, 317K)

Here they said it's only 4, budget reasons too.

Subs don't take part ususally?

i don't know, they don't tell us

>most BASED boats in the world.
Pretty sure nobody but us have nuclear icebreakers

Attached: bb91b224f7688f11565bd30581330e1c.png (1310x939, 473K)

youtube.com/watch?v=4NXFCDgyanA

Attached: file.png (1280x850, 2.08M)

Wouldn't be surprised if it were 2 there.

How would they defend themselves against supersonic missiles ?

Attached: 1544831564801.png (1000x800, 285K)

cлaвный

They couln't defend against a single sub tbqh.

Attached: oups.png (884x784, 921K)

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 46K)

By staying away from their coast

>*glug-glug-glug*
>interesting...
>*glug-glug-glug*

Attached: c-ex5-4.jpg (998x607, 134K)

I always heard about those "single sub sinks carrier" stories, but idk if it would be the same case in a real combat situation.

the swedes did it as well

Yes i heard about that one too.

youtube.com/watch?v=saCdvAp5cow

Thats' the point of aircraft carriers though: Bringing in an airbase to enemy territory.

The point of American aircraft carriers is deterrence, as is the rest of the US military. It's big stick diplomacy.

>missiles will not reach you, if you're staying far from their coast

Attached: images.png (218x231, 6K)

This is just wrong. Aircraft Carrier is an offensive weapon, not defensive.
And it's not destructive enough to be nuke-tier deterrence.
The current point of American aircraft carriers is bombing Middle East.

Long range missles could be mistaken for ICBMs

it wouldnt, there would be a skirt of frigates around the carrier and patrols of sub marines searching for subs in the area

The best defence is a good offence. And if China or Russia were to ever sink a carrier, nukes will come shortly after. It's a deterrence because they're backed by nukes, and it prevents China from building a formidable navy of their own because we are always present.

Those are just decoy carriers lad. By the time you sink them you're dead kiddo

>The current point of American aircraft carriers is bombing Middle East.
wtf i love aircraft carriers now

I guess a nuclear submarine at the bottom and quiet wouldn't call their attention.

>nukes will come shortly after.
nukes will come from both sides

Yes, which is why it's in their best interest to not shoot at our aircraft carriers

Attached: file.png (620x380, 388K)

Which is at your best interest to not put your carriers in places they don't belong.

I doubt there weren't any escorts in those military exercises.

No, China will submit to us

China is shitting out 055's faster than US Navy does their Arleigh Burkes.

>It's a deterrence because they're backed by nukes
America doesn't use nuked unless provoked, sinking a single ship won't cause us to use nukes

China can't even handle their own coast. If canada would let me hit the ocean I'd personally go fuck em up

the goal is to keep up the charade that we would use nukes

Idk, they're building tons of artificial islands and besides US, nobody is doing nothing there to stop them.

Attached: file.png (650x488, 672K)

The fuck does artificial islands have to do with anything.

Bases for missiles?
Anti air guns?
Logistics?

>american education

Like 50 miles from china itself? Lol
Japan is basically US soil, right off their shores, and we didn't have to build it.

Yes, that's why they're expanding in the first place.

Point is they can hardly control "their" waters. The fact you state of them building artificial islands and having minor bickering with every nearby cunt exposes how weak they are. China is going to be a force but as it stands now they are weak as fuck

Attached: d140625as1181.jpg (3140x2093, 2.71M)

Attached: 45108665_1651640804941664_2731521379743563776_o.jpg (1760x1174, 345K)

Yes, my initial point was how quickly they are growing their Naval capabilities, atm they have two carriers under construction.

Attached: file.png (750x507, 502K)

Attached: 14589737_1331389320214103_1306935922250502953_o.jpg (2048x1536, 352K)

Attached: 36267250_2002670179803884_971135287226793984_n.png (927x616, 735K)

warship from 1868

Attached: Buffel.jpg (900x600, 89K)

>China is going to be a force but as it stands now they are weak as fuck
They have some friends.

Any arm worth their salt has missiles that glide along the surface of the water to make it harder for enemy forces to locate and/or intercept missiles targeted on to ships like carriers and what not.

Even harder in the case of the BrahMos missile (project between India and Russia) because it does not go along a parabolic path, it shoots up and immediately readjusts itself to align horizontally along with the surface of the water. And it's fucking fast.

People don't build carriers because they are infallible. They are the only legitimate way to bring a base near enemy territory.

Pic related

Attached: descarga.jpg (223x226, 3K)

None that matter

The RSM-56 Bulava doesnt thinks so.

Attached: 1519428064122.png (349x307, 205K)

Thought it was a benis for a second.

all i got

Attached: 48408992_512442499232331_1259434206761582592_n.jpg (720x960, 195K)

>If you defend yourself by sinking a hostile warship we'll indiscriminately kill millions of civilians

Why even have a millitary. Just cut the bullshit and go straight to nuclear holocaust.

It's amazing to think how the US (despite some waning dominance) is still totally unchallengable in a head-to-head pitched battle over the open sea. But thanks to guided weapons increasing in effectiveness the closer the USN gets to land the less invulnerable it will seem.

The Pentagon may want to consider bringing lighter carriers back to acknowledge this reality. We already have the F-35B's STOVL capacity to make a shorter flight deck viable.

comfy
what kind of ship?

16ft jon boat.

multi-barrel turrets are SEX

LPD, San Antonio class, nothing special, just transport type shit
was a decent ship though

Attached: 47688048_2046609005418682_2408397563997716480_o.jpg (2048x1365, 230K)

Attached: 48788766-old-small-wooden-fishing-boats-moored-in-small-bulgarian-town.jpg (660x440, 182K)

A stretched Scorpene.

Attached: file.png (889x524, 712K)

Attached: file.png (1000x750, 955K)

America class?

Attached: 4001_03l.jpg (1687x1150, 2.51M)

Izumo?

Ōsumi-class tank landing ship

Attached: LST-4002_しもきた_(1).jpg (2000x1312, 1.17M)

HMS Queen Elizabeth (aircraft carrier) & HMS Dragon (Type 45 missile destroyer)

Attached: 38480186591_e42bbd303b_b.jpg (1024x819, 335K)

Why would a purely defensive military need a tank landing ship?

I'm Britbong

Attached: e825e5edcfe40463e99e4ddaa2281b01.jpg (700x940, 121K)

Navy is the weakest element of our army, but we are currently working on improving it, mainly by developing fleet of modern and very silent submarines operating long range missile systems like Tomahawk.

youtube.com/watch?v=U-Gi9Au4Wvg

Attached: yHMXeUJ.jpg (3456x2880, 825K)

This ship is mainly active when a disaster such as an earthquake occurs.
But next to Japan there are several dangerous countries. They illegally occupy the territory of Japan. They are trying to occupy a Japanese island.

To reinforce island defenses

Most for humanitarian reasons, since Japan is getting destroyed every 6 months.

Attached: Elizabeth.png (599x449, 430K)