[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47387337]I know it's unlikely you'll invade, but it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.[/QUOTE]
So you are letting the gov get away with a smoke screen and wasting money in something NOT needed?
If you tell me, yeah, Brazil or Chile might invade the islands, I would cut you some more slack than saying yeah well Argentina might invade the islands. It's far more likely for the first to invade them than Argentina...
[QUOTE=Sableye;47386153]I always find it a bit weird that only the US navy builds proper aircraft carriers, everyone else has those STOL configurations and they run on gas turbines
[editline]24th March 2015[/editline]
Well the Nimitz class carriers will be replaced as the ford class takes over their roles so we will have some spares lying around but whoever rents them has to pay for the fuel...and by that I mean the uranium[/QUOTE]
I think it's just due to the combination of the huge defence budget and the US being so focused on power projection and the Navy. Many of the top military powers like China, Russia and India haven't had much experience with CATOBAR carriers, so now that they're building them it's easier to just use STOBAR/STOVL carriers. Then for others it's just a cheaper option.
Most don't use nuclear because unless you have a whole lot of carriers it doesn't make much sense, the US can spread the R&D of proper reactors for them over multiple ships. When you do eventually have to go through the lengthy process of refuelling, there's plenty more carriers to take over. France has a nuclear powered carrier, but it goes through around 15 months of maintenance every 7 years, so it's not ideal (They were originally going to build a CATOBAR variant of the new Queen Elizabeth class, but they've now decided to just stick with one).
[QUOTE=draugur;47386110]I'm sure if you ask real nice the US would give you one. We have like, what? At least 7.
This is what the US should be doing with our horribly large military complex, selling our selves out as defensive contractors.[/QUOTE]
We kinda already do. The primary reason that the US army is as large as it is is because we're propping up basically all of our allies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
