busydude
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2010
- 8,793
- 5
- 76
it is so easy to spot a pakistani...
I'm surprised your prophet hasn't declared internet forums to be un-islamic yet..
Why so much butt-hurt?
it is so easy to spot a pakistani...
I'm surprised your prophet hasn't declared internet forums to be un-islamic yet..
it is so easy to spot a pakistani...
I'm surprised your prophet hasn't declared internet forums to be un-islamic yet..
Though they probably exist, I haven't seen funny-looking sloped decks like that on even the oldest US carriers....
It's an adaptation intended for use with VSTOL {Vertical & Short Take Off & Landing} aircraft. I.e. Harriers today. F35 maybe someday. The ramp makes a reasonable increase in the payload they're able to get airborne with, and a reasonable decrease in the amount of fuel required to do so.
The US Navy doesn't fly Harriers. The US Marines do, though the role intended is a little different. The Royal Navy do have some small carriers with ramps.
can they land and take off , or just to carry ?
Doubt it. I'm not Pakistani or Muslim or anti-India and, yet, I agree with him: It looks stupid.
Though they probably exist, I haven't seen funny-looking sloped decks like that on even the oldest US carriers and it's clear that it's not a modern development or new advanced design.
Either redevelop the 70-year old catapult tech and obtain appropriate aircraft or look funny trying to do it without either.
Take your nationalistic crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Or do the world a favor and just blow each other up, cause I'm pretty the entire planet would be glad to hear you guys stop bitching. Religion is about the stupidest thing going, and you guys both do it in spades.
what does desi mean?
That does not mean you can accuse anyone you don't like to be a Pakistani.
http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.fr/2008/09/russian-carrier-doctrine-in-21st.html
An interesting article on why the soviets did not opt to build a bazillion super carriers as heart of their fleet, but instead views them as support forces.
Whether fleets adopting their hardware need to adopt this doctrine, and whether that's possible is another discussion.
Generally it's pretty obvious that for the power-projection task a heavy super carrier with a strike package focus (as opposed to an aerial superiority/anti-sub focus) is more suited. Modern multirole fighters can bridge that gap slightly, but CATOBAR'd F18s/F35s are still on another level to STOBAR'd MIG29Ks and SU33s, when it comes to anything but light strike capability.
Why so much butt-hurt?
My friend you won't believe how entitled some people in this place (India) think themselves to be. And especially the uneducated folks.
lol.. indians (dot, not feather)
Dot or feather?
we should just annex the US so they become *our* carriers.
seriously.. whats up with everyone getting confused between south asians and native americans..? Some people take that stupidity to totally new heights.. like this guy-