Aircraft carriers for everyone!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Russia builds a lot of carriers, which freaks China out.
So China builds a lot of carriers, which freaks India out.
So India builds a lot of carriers, which freaks Pakistan out.
So Pakistan builds a lot of carriers, which freaks Iran out.
So Iran builds a lot of carriers, which freaks Sunni Arab states out.
So the Sunnis start building a lot of carriers, which freaks Israel out

Indian carrier-building/acquisition is ahead of China's, so if anything, they should be teh ones freaking out.

Pakistan and Iran don't know how to build carriers, and don't have teh money to buy them

[BeBMan]

We can reach most of our...eh....regions of interest by land

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Indian carrier-building/acquisition is ahead of China's, so if anything, they should be teh ones freaking out.

Pakistan and Iran don't know how to build carriers, and don't have teh money to buy them

I don't know if anyone really has the money for carriers. The US pays for theirs with credit.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by BeBro
We can reach most of our...eh....regions of interest by land

That's probably the safest too - your ships has a tendency to sink in large numbers

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know if anyone really has the money for carriers. The US pays for theirs with credit.

China does. Who do you think is bankrolling the US?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That's probably the safest too - your ships has a tendency to sink in large numbers

Easily fixed - just don't sail them into any large numbers

[Lancer]

So, with Russia churning out a half dozen or so, and I recall now a thread about the Brits building 2, might Germany finally carry their weight in the Baltic? Also the French and Italians, time to start thinking empiricly again? Or are the French too traumatizzzed by DeGaulle to do anything carrier constructive?

This reminds me of the whole dreadnaught thing a hundred odd years ago.

Also, we need some wierd announcement from someone like Brazil building a carrier fueled by cow manure and sugar to complete the picture.

Then, we need a war of course.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That's probably the safest too - your ships has a tendency to sink in large numbers

Only under enemy fire

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Easily fixed - just don't sail them into any large numbers

Only problem is that german large number detectors are pretty lousy

[Lancer]

I have a remote cousin that is (or maybe was) serving on a German destroyer.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Only problem is that german large number detectors are pretty lousy

[Patroklos]

Has it shown that our military is really very weak

What?

Also, we need some wierd announcement from someone like Brazil building a carrier fueled by cow manure and sugar to complete the picture.

Brazil has a carrier.

Oh China, the shame...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lancer
I have a remote cousin that is (or maybe was) serving on a German destroyer.

BeBro had better not go near him, then

[Lancer]

They both serve the same Kiaser,why not...

[CerberusIV]

The problem isn't really affording a carrier, even a nuclear powered one. Where it gets expensive is all the escorts you need to keep the carrier afloat against submarine and missile attacks. That trebles the cost, even if you have the anti-missile and ASW technology to start with.

Then you need at least 2 carriers in case you lose one (this is the point the French are stuck at) and the second carrier needs its own escort group and that doubles again the already high cost.

It's also more expensive to learn from scratch and, apart from the Russians and their Yak-36 target drones, since 1945 everybody else has been relying on what the USN and RN have been prepared to sell or explain about operating carriers.