Missiles are more cheaper than carriers

Let that sink in for a moment

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your mudda is even cheaper!

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This, your right OP. Carriers are obsolete relics of WW2
    Even a drone can take down a carrier easily

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That video is just fascinating to me bc it's supposed to make china look good, but the cinematography is telling the opposite story. The chink drone is presented as this inhumane threat while the carrier and its crew are the valiant defenders. They show individuals like when they cut to the pilot. That's what you do if you want your audience to root for the good guys. Same reason we get a close up of porkins when he's blown up in star wars but no similar shot of a tie fighter pilot getting incinerate. This could be a trailer for some vidya where you're supposed to save the world from whoever is controlling the evil drone. Why does their propaganda make them seem like they're the baddies? Is that some kind of subversive act by the director of that clip?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous.

        This.
        Then again, chinks generally don't grasp that because of the low cultural value of the individual, so the fact of presenting a population group as empathetic through being able to see individuals from them might genuinely be lost to them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        From your perspective, sure. But their internal audience looks at American carriers like they are mobile oppression palaces.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seems more like the carrier fucked up even letting that thing get that close without planes in the air. It's like 5 miles away tops.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've seen this exact thread before, bot posting detected.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        makes me wonder what the Ruskies just lost

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >makes me wonder what the Ruskies just lost
          Yeah, ruskies...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Source: My ass

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wow such advanced warfare, china stronk!!!!

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    how many carriers were sunk by how many missiles?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I really need to compile a list of shit takes by people throughout history just to post in threads like these.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do it so I can add them all to my filter list.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >are more cheaper
    Come on man, at least try.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    China is still rushing to make as many as they can. Let that sink in for moment.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    YOU JUST DID THIS SAME THREAD WITH THE SAME OP FUCK YOU

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The AP shell that kills a Tiger tank was cheaper than the Tiger

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Missiles are more cheaper than carriers
    So are ukrainians and taiwanese.
    Your point ?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We need the "missiles never sank anything Torpedos only sink stuff etc" autist in here.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    boolets are more cheaper than soldiers
    Let that sink in for a moment

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depressing to see my fellow bongs fail to notice yet another crucial maxim of procurement: don't build something too big to lose. Already lost one for the foreseeable future. I'm sure china is absolutely quaking in its cute little feet.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >for the foreseeable future

      For a few weeks until the shitty American made shaft bearing is replaced.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's what you get for putting it on a shitty excuse for a carrier.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Woah, the British lost a carrier!?
      How was it sunk?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not literally "lost", as in Moskva cigarette malfunction which can happen in any navy really it's no reflection on fine traditions of stronk Russian navy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Build 2 carriers
      >Lose one
      >Other one steps in
      Thats literally the reason you have two, if Frances carrier went down (which lol it does..alot) they would be left with none. How can one be so retarded?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >more cheaper

    Ivan is more smarter.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Missiles need to be launched from somewhere. Missiles can't project power.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous.

    Ahh yes soldier. But don't you know? Launching a missile means pushing a button.
    No go on. Demonstrate for me.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have unironically never seen the british carriers until now and they look weird

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the HMS Queen Elizabeth was crafted by his majesty (Johnson) and is an impenetrable force to all foreign meddling, like the UK pound

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    And lasers are cheaper than Missiles. You loose CHI COMS!

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can just post pictures of classified vehicles anon
    What if the Russians see what is at the right corner of the first ship?

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ocean is cheaper than land, let that sink in

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Carriers carry missiles and things to fire missiles

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sigh, this thread again.

    You were wrong before, you are wrong again, and you will be wrong in the future.

    Just give it a rest, and remember that China and Russia will never be great military powers without some major reforms.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I swear I’ve seen this exact thread before

    Still just as retarded now as it was then

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Missiles are more cheaper than carriers

    Carriers carry jets with missiles which gives them a greater range to project power and dominate the battlespace.

    Let that sink in.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I always thought picrel was a odd design (ever for sci fi) to have to tower-bridges, one for fighters and one for command of the ship. But here it is IRL.
    Is that the reason UK carriers have two bridges? If not, what's the purpose?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Is that the reason UK carriers have two bridges? If not, what's the purpose

      Ease of operations, one bridge is for day to day ship operations and the other for air control.

      Also it divides the ventilation system from 1 stack to 2, it helps with heat dissipation I believe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is there a disadvantage to this, in their being physically separated, i.e. slower to get from one to the other? I know zero about carriers or ships.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Butter knives are cheaper than rifles. Better equip your army with butter knives than.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *