Britain launches its largest warship - HMS Queen Elizabeth
76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sector 7;45291875]...This site doesn't even mention nuclear arsenals?[/QUOTE]
irrelevant in a limited conflict
when one nation uses nukes the situation will become extremely volatile and everyone else will most likely begin flailing them around as well
12 months later and we have 4 billion dead and there isn't going to be a new conventional war any time soon
it's a terribly misleading website anyway, sure Russia has 15,500 tanks but how many of those are capable of even fighting in a modern war?
they only field 550 T-90's, ~4500 T-80's and ~5000 T-72's
T-72's are barely relevant anymore without a heavy upgrade package which the majority don't have, same with T-80's
[QUOTE=Sector 7;45291875]...This site doesn't even mention nuclear arsenals?[/QUOTE]
We'd still be on top even if it did. :v:
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;45291896]it's a terribly misleading website anyway, sure Russia has 15,500 tanks but how many of those are capable of even fighting in a modern war?
they only field 550 T-90's, ~4500 T-80's and ~5000 T-72's
T-72's are barely relevant anymore without a heavy upgrade package which the majority don't have, same with T-80's[/QUOTE]
no kidding
"fixed-wing attack aircraft?" Does that include both weaponized crop dusters [i]and[/i] B52s?
Without nukes being taken into consideration I don't know if Russia is even #3 any more
[QUOTE=Sector 7;45292019]no kidding
"fixed-wing attack aircraft?" Does that include both weaponized crop dusters [i]and[/i] B52s?
Without nukes being taken into consideration I don't know if Russia is even #3 any more[/QUOTE]
No that's ridiculous. Because of their massive military industrial complex they can churn out the latest equipment. They are the successor to the Soviet military, and possess all the know-how and tradition.
If you're trying to say INDIA has a better military than Russia you are deluded. China isn't even to par yet. India is essentially running a fleet of downgraded T-90's bought from Russia and then licensed out to India. They're running a formidable lineup of Russian Su-33's, and are starting to build those under license as well. However, poor tactical decision making. Go check out the Indian's at red flag and that will tell you all you need to know.. a U.S. pilot recalls Indian's shooting down friendly aircraft.
I find it amazing that only the US has super carriers, and they have ten of the god damn things. At least the UK will be joining them soon, can't have one country having all the fun.
[QUOTE=shadowboy303;45290662]Why did they shelf the harriers, they are kick ass. :(![/QUOTE]
They're a bit....crashy.
[video=youtube;XZ5iizDm0AQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ5iizDm0AQ[/video]
[video=youtube;NIfa4t028U0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIfa4t028U0[/video]
[QUOTE=laserguided;45292110]No that's ridiculous. Because of their massive military industrial complex they can churn out the latest equipment. They are the successor to the Soviet military, and possess all the know-how and tradition.
If you're trying to say INDIA has a better military than Russia you are deluded. China isn't even to par yet. India is essentially running a fleet of downgraded T-90's bought from Russia and then licensed out to India. They're running a formidable lineup of Russian Su-33's, and are starting to build those under license as well. However, poor tactical decision making. Go check out the Indian's are red flag and that will tell you all you need to know.. a U.S. pilot recalls Indian's shooting down friendly aircraft.[/QUOTE]
I'm not suggesting that India is more powerful than Russia because the validity of the entire list is in question - for instance, I would hesitate to call India more powerful than France or the UK. The site is only crunching numbers without any consideration for actual capabilities.
[QUOTE=Jsm;45292166]I find it amazing that only the US has super carriers, and they have ten of the god damn things. At least the UK will be joining them soon, can't have one country having all the fun.[/QUOTE]
Eh, in the end UK is still USA's bitch, so it doesn't really count.
Aw, what an adorable little carrier.
As far as I'm concerned Britain owes us Canadians one of those carriers for selling us those fucking shitty submarines.
Come on Britain hurry it up or you'll be the ones who are sorry!
Aren't aircraft carriers essentially sitting ducks in a modern conflict, at least according to the war nerd?
[QUOTE=amorax;45292382]Aren't aircraft carriers essentially sitting ducks in a modern conflict, at least according to the war nerd?[/QUOTE]
they're supported by an entire carrier battle group
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;45292436]they're supported by an entire carrier battle group[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/12f77f7a3480e46765ff8662469bafd1bb0fc441.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;45292281]As far as I'm concerned Britain owes us Canadians one of those carriers for selling us those fucking shitty submarines.
Come on Britain hurry it up or you'll be the ones who are sorry![/QUOTE]
Caveat emptor motherfucker!
(Edit: After googling this to learn more it seems that this was also the British governments response..)
Impressive stuff.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45292465][IMG]http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/12f77f7a3480e46765ff8662469bafd1bb0fc441.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
nice claims from the chinese, but has it been tested against the IADS of a carrier battle group? it's pretty difficult to know how well these carrier killer missiles would actually work in action
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;45292508]nice claims from the chinese, but has it been tested against the IADS of a carrier battle group? it's pretty difficult to know how well these carrier killer missiles would actually work in action[/QUOTE]
Or a preemptive strike
[QUOTE=Joazzz;45291040]brazil has an aircraft carrier???[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it's soon to become the world's first floating football stadium.
New Aircraft carrier and no aircraft actually on it.
Just fuck the F-35/JSF whatever it is and build one ourselves.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;45293171]New Aircraft carrier and no aircraft actually on it.
Just fuck the F-35/JSF whatever it is and build one ourselves.[/QUOTE]
We should have gone with either the naval variant of the Eurofighter that never was or the (more sensible IMO) F/A-18E.
I think Canada is thinking the same..
[QUOTE=Jsm;45293202]We should have gone with either the naval variant of the Eurofighter that never was or the (more sensible IMO) F/A-18E.
I think Canada is thinking the same..[/QUOTE]
Naw, we're still pissing up a rope regarding the fucking things ourselves. There is a whole wiki article on our bungling of the whole damn program! The average asshole off the street could do a better job by googling planes on his phone.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement[/url]
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;45292508]nice claims from the chinese, but has it been tested against the IADS of a carrier battle group? it's pretty difficult to know how well these carrier killer missiles would actually work in action[/QUOTE]
It would not be able to stop it once it's moving. It's a metal slug. It's goal isn't to soften up the target, it's to send a massive slug through the carrier and sink it.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45293691]It would not be able to stop it once it's moving. It's a metal slug. It's goal isn't to soften up the target, it's to send a massive slug through the carrier and sink it.[/QUOTE]
The missiles are designed to intercept at an earlier stage.
[QUOTE=Apache249;45293986]The missiles are designed to intercept at an earlier stage.[/QUOTE]
That is the only window of opportunity they have. And if that don't work you have a sunk carrier.
Glorious DF-21.
[QUOTE]A Russian Military Analysis report of the DF-21D has concluded that the only way to successfully counter it would be through electronic countermeasures. Conventional interceptions of high-speed objectives have worked in the past, with the Russian report citing the 2008 interception of a malfunctioning satellite by a U.S. cruiser, but in that situation the warship had extensive knowledge of its location and trajectory. Against an attack from the Mach 10 DF-21D without knowing the missile's launch point, the U.S. Navy's only way to evade it would be through electronic countermeasures.[28][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1423[/url]
[QUOTE=Zambies!;45291009]:smug:
[t]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/528282d2ecad0463559f9e8d-850-1076/carriers-2013.gif[/t]
*crying eagle*[/QUOTE]
I'd pare off a lot of those as while amphibious ships can and do carry aircraft, the only ones the US classes as "aircraft carriers" are Nimitz-class
[QUOTE=laserguided;45294032]That is the only window of opportunity they have. And if that don't work you have a sunk carrier.
Glorious DF-21.
[url]http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1423[/url][/QUOTE]
Although obviously they don't make carriers obsolete otherwise the Chinese wouldn't be bothering to invest so much to develop their own carriers. And if the Chinese have the tech and the money to make that sort of antiship missile, I would imagine the Yanks would as well.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;45294115]Although obviously they don't make carriers obsolete otherwise the Chinese wouldn't be bothering to invest so much to develop their own carriers. And if the Chinese have the tech and the money to make that sort of antiship missile, I would imagine the Yanks would as well.[/QUOTE]
afaik yankee doodle has no DF-21 equivalent. Carriers are good for power projection.
I'd like to congratulate the USA on having a bigger military but still no free medical care or university education.
Jesus christ these kinds of thread always turn into a pissing contest, lets talk about that new aircraft carrier instead.
[QUOTE=shadowboy303;45290662]Why did they shelf the harriers, they are kick ass. :(![/QUOTE]
Fly by wire, the only thing the f35 has over the harrier as well as supersonic flight
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
