[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



So Brazil has agreed to buy the Royal Navy helicopter carrier HMS Ocean for £85m. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/03/hms_ocean_sold_brazil/

Why did they bother? Ocean was cheaply and quickly built as an experiment to commercial scantlings rather than naval scantlings. She has seen hard use (she is by far the most useful ship in the RN) and is basically clapped out despite refits. Another refit will take place before handover to extend her service life but really what does Brazil need her for?
Ocean is an extemely useful and versatile ship and was cheap to build and run but she is not being replaced. Why? We should have half a dozen like her instead of the shitty ramp-carriers.
>Also MFW when the most useful ship in the navy is sold for less than the price of one F-35.
>>
>>36370163
We don't have plane carriers which is similar to nukes in political shit and if we dont have one we look shit. Carriers are a sign of power and a helicopter carrier is like a 50/50 sign of power. Brasil wants her to look powerful just like India and china are building them as statements of power. We are building 2 queen Elizabeth class carriers as a statement of power over other cunts as we would have more carriers and are "more prestigious" plus we rule the waves. Carriers are like nukes in a sense as those with nukes are fuckin cool kids, and cunts with nukes and carriers are super cool cunts. It is a political statement and a demonstration of power and the ability to project the demonstrated power across the globe.
>>
Engines are clapped, fire suppression system is clapped.

Not sure if they got a good deal. If that's what they want, well good luck to them.

>Why? We should have half a dozen like her instead of the shitty ramp-carriers.
Because they'd suck at providing strike, the price difference between large and small carriers doesn't scale massively, so in terms of bank for buck, small carriers provide poor value for money.
>>
>>36370163
>We should have half a dozen like her instead of the shitty ramp-carriers.
what if you want to do something else than fly choppers?
>>
>>36370290
fuck that spam helicopters and have yourself some crowded airspace so enemy kill streaks wont come in.
>>
>third world shitholes buying retired ships form other third world shitholes

Why cant they just unironically buy Chinese instead of debasingly purchasing the refuse of the royal navy? It won't have the cost of some Ameriburger quintillion dollar ship, but will provide 80% of the capability
>>
>>36370355
You're not entering a hostile theatre without proper aircover, helicopters cannot provide that.
>>
>>36370235
Ocean was dirt cheap to build and run. No ship in the navy provided more bang per buck. Or was more in demand.
>>
>>36370379
Not him but I don't think you got the reference.
>>
>>36370385
Hence why I said strike, I'm not underrating the utility of a flatdeck and dock on the cheap.
>>36370386
No, I got it. Call of Duty.
>>
>>36370231
>plus we rule the waves
you sure about that, pal?
>>
>>36370385
do you have sources? i'd love to read that shit
operating costs of military equipment makes me moist
>>
File: 1504564665843.jpg (165 KB, 948x669)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
Do the britbongs have anything out to launch planes? R A M P still isn't fully operational until at least 2020 no?
Absolute state of britbongs to sell their flagship
>>
>>36370355
Funny how we managed without fixed wing aviation for years after the Harriers were retired and sold for fuck-all to the USMC. Is that like 15 years without naval fixed wing aircraft? Again, a highly useful piece of kit sold for next to nothing. Not sexy enough?
>>
>>36370366
>Why cant they just unironically buy Chinese instead of debasingly purchasing the refuse of the royal navy?
It meets all their needs for a wonderful price. And it's not as if the yanks sell their LHAs to just any nation that asks.

>50 center calls Britain a third world shithole
kek, I won't even start this argument
>>
>>36370427
There aren't any planes to fly anyway.

>>36370431
Thank the tories!
>>
>>36370453
Not to mention that China has no helicopter carriers, but lets not interrupt mr. gutter oil's shill session
>>
>>36370231
>plus we rule the waves

I laughed, thanks.
>>
>>36370453
>>36370485
>the abysmal state of small islanders banter
Britshit please. Your navy is no match for either China nor Russia so do not pretending to be a respectable naval power
>>
>>36370485
They have some under construction, but please lets not talk about the PLANN as this thread is about the RN.
>>
File: 15734982734.png (742 KB, 1055x808)
742 KB
742 KB PNG
>>36370505
>Russian navy
>Chinese anything
you subhumans are beautiful creatures
>>
>>36370505
Ehhhh, that's not how it works. The RN has its role and the PLANN and MMF have theirs.

Direct comparisons don't work like that, as their force structures don't work that way.
1. PLANN at present doesn't plan of fighting outside of the SCS.
2. Russia and the UK both expect NATO to be involved in any engagement between each other.
>>
>>36370231
Why do you repeat yourself so much
>>
>>36370564
So in other words, small island navy is small and useless weak entity that is mainly dependent on Amerishit assistance in any serious war?
>>
>>36370606
If it makes you sleep at night, sure.
>>
>>36370564
>UK expects NATO to be involved
>only other countries in NATO with acceptable navies would be the americans and the french
>america is the backbone regardless
>imply you don't need american assistance
the absolute state of the queen's subjects, gentlemen.
>>
>>36370163
>We should have half a dozen like her instead of the shitty ramp-carriers.
and put what on them, genius

All the AH-64Es we own?
F-35Bs reduced to unassisted STOVL so their performance gets fucked in the ass?
>>
>>36370453
>It meets all their needs for a wonderful price.

The maintenance bill is going to be fucking awful. The 2012 refit only extended her life for a few more years. The Brazilians are going to pay out the anus every few years to keep her afloat. That or lay down the cash for a major rebuild (not refit or overhaul).
>>
File: kuznetsovliaoning.jpg (385 KB, 1200x1350)
385 KB
385 KB JPG
>>36370530

I would rather buy Chinese than Russian DESU
>>
>>36370649
>F-35Bs reduced to unassisted STOVL so their performance gets fucked in the ass?

Isn't that what the USMC does?
>>
>>36370682
Yes, from ships whose primary tasking is amphibious assault
>>
File: 1512926822872.jpg (90 KB, 528x1199)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>36370675
You cant afford either britshit
>>
>>36370665
She'll probably be a harbour queen status-symbol. having a flat-top, even a smallish helo-carrier, is seen as desirable. Brazil doesn't have world-wide commitments like the UK.
>>
>>36370163
Oh God please no, we are getting killed with the debt and welfare state, this fucking puppet of the British fabian society is tossing money out of the window to appease the military.
>>
File: freemarkettours.jpg (91 KB, 1143x1200)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>36370163
So for about 100mil use we could get a big ass boat and roam the high seas?

>>36370379
You don't use helicopters for air superiority
>>
>>36370427
Cant really ramp helicopters since the planes are still waiting at the job centre. actual State of britain.
>>
>>36370419
I fuckin am. We have more enemy ships at the bottom of the sea than anyone else, unless you count refugee rafts then we must hand our title to the Mediterranean.
>>
>>36370163
>Why?

hue here and what our navy say:

First and formost: price
Second: The ship passed for an update and reform in 2014. Soo shes a modern ship.
Third: She's a versatile warship. From antisub to amphibius assault

USS BUNDA we make brazil great again!!!
>>
>>36370427
>>36370477

HMS QE is in service alreadu, so yes, they do have something. 14 F-35B are already in service too and are ramp and 'at sea' certified as of last year.

Once QE finishes her helo integration testing and finishes up the last sea trials, she'll be heading over to pick them up. It's all ready but for the literal act itself thats being taken easy because there's no rush in the short term.
>>
>>36370636
>UK expects NATO to be involved
Yes, like every NATO country does.
>>only other countries in NATO with acceptable navies would be the americans and the french
All navies are able to provide capability to support the three high level navies.
>imply you don't need american assistance
Never said such a thing. But America operates on the premise of other NATO nations being able to support it.
>>36370742
Yes, that's why I said helicopters cannot provide it.
>>
>>36370806
>>36370814
>Be brazilian
>Get robbed and raped by politicians
>Vice President of said co-conspirator on robberies buy overpriced shit from the UK instead of the burgers high quality shit
>Still brags and thinks that this didn't cost at least 3 times the number they are reporting and that it all went to politicians pockets
>??????
>?????
>>
>>36370829
So what do they call autism is bongistan?
>>
>>36370701
Says the slav who's navy is literally in the gutter
>>
>>36370887
Or just answering the point.
>>
File: 1505012971820.png (1.9 MB, 1213x998)
1.9 MB
1.9 MB PNG
>>36370856
>overpriced

u look like a smart guy. lets make a deal...
>>
what a waste of resources. brazil embarrasses itself.
>>
>>36370902
>Let's make a deal
With what money?
They raped our country oil industry, raped even your investors by selling information ahead of the time before giving the information to the public, and by the time people figured it out, it was gone.
Just check Operation Lava-Jato, Pasadena deals, Lula's waste of money on rig that was supposed to be used on oil extraction, all money that was stolen, and now they want to take it back my stealing from the elderly, most States are bankrupt and they will come stealing from the productive States far from the coast.
>>
>>36370902
I think Vanderlei Silva is a cop now.
>>
File: nato.int.pic.jpg (30 KB, 200x114)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>36370829
Thats not a point.

Brazil isn't going to get involved in anything outside of South America. Their ambitions are local.
>>
>>36370943
Wanderlei*
>>
>>36370948
>Brazil isn't going to get involved in anything outside of South America. Their ambitions are local.
Nice joke, the country always end up being called to help somewhere, even if it's minimal.
>>
File: 321.png (386 KB, 600x372)
386 KB
386 KB PNG
>>36370932
are you done with the edgy kid atitude?
>>
>>36370948
Right... and? My point is entire unrelated to yours.
>>
>>36370967
>Telling the truth is edgy kid attitude
You voted for them, didn't you?
>>
>>36370986
only in 2002.

because I was young and naive...
>>
>>36371013
I always voted null, since 06`, I had read about the scissor strategy and all the candidates were the same.
>>
>>36370163
I thought Turkey was gonna buy it, was it a good idea of them not to?
>>
>>36370505
This "small island" has an economy that dwarfs that of the largest country in the world. Russia isnt even in the top 10 while we're number 5.

We have a higher standard of living as measured by every conceivable metric.

Our people are smarter, healthier, and whiter.

oh yes mr Ivan mahmoddavich, you have more Muslims than us both as a percentage of population and by total number - YOU'VE EVEN LOST WARS TO THEM KEK.

Plus have you seen those disgusting "native's" that make up much of your eastern population?

Your military is joke that is such a non threat almost every NATO nation is cutting funding as the worst you can do is shoot down civilian airliners.

you should learn your place, you're pathetic. i'm going to bed now, enjoy typing an outraged response that isn't worth my time to read. Untermensch.

oh, and enjoy the sanctions we helped to impose on you. guess things will be tough for Ivan until the Chinese decide to annex Siberia.
>>
>>36370932

You're a fucking children if you ever think that they don't have money. There's a difference between having the cash itself to be willing to to spend the cash.
>>
File: HULK.jpg (634 KB, 1000x667)
634 KB
634 KB JPG
>>36371027
yes. from 94 to 2014 it was all the same shit.

maybe we have a chance this year.
>>
>>36371095
>you ever think that they don't have money
No, but they will have it, once they raise the taxes somewhere, or the gasoline price, or whatever else.
There's also a short queue of other ships that will be delivered in a few years, 4 by Norway, some others built by France and Brazil.
>>
>>36371068
Why would they? The Black Sea belongs to Russia, and with the rest of Europe pissed off at them for being essentially just a slightly quieter group of the same people currently raping the continent, I can't see Turkey having much chance to push naval power out into the Mediterranean. This just leaves the Bosporus, which A) doesn't require a real naval force to defend since it's so narrow, and B) would likely become a flattened, nuclear wasteland in the event that anyone worth fighting wanted to get their hands on it.
>>
>>36371146

>There's also a short queue of other ships that will be delivered in a few years, 4 by Norway, some others built by France and Brazil.

Which from France? All i know is that they approved the building of the Tamandaré class and they're now picking a shipyard to build it. (Prolly BAE)
>>
>>36371083
brutal, ivan on suicide watch. i also didn't know Russia was so full of Muslims.
>>
>>36371211
Riachuelo (S40), Humaitá (S41), Tonelero (S42), Angostura (S43), Álvaro Alberto (SN10), subs and a nuke sub, some Corvettes by 2024 as well.
>>
>>36371211
Corvettes will be hue-made.
>>
>>36371271

These subs are being made in Rio with cooperation with Naval Group (former DCNS). I think you meant French project. The corvettes are Navy's project.
>>
>>36371324
It's good that they have them with jobs here.
>>
>>36371260
>we dont have muslims that attack stadiums and drive lorry into crowds every week unlike your pakistani shithole

Russia has had more fatalities to islamic terrorism than the UK. you lost like 200 people in a plane bombing in 2016. I'm fairly sure that incident alone had more fatalities than the UK has had in the last decade. The UK has like 50 in the tube bombings, then like single digit numbers in the two or three last year, plus another 20 in that concert bombing?


Plus your security forces are so inept that we (USA) had to do their job for you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/world/europe/putin-trump-cia-terrorism.html
>>
>>36371083
>>36371379
REKT

This is the first time in my seven years in this shithole that I've agreed with a Britposter.
>>
>>36371260
>we dont have muslims that attack stadiums and drive lorry into crowds every week unlike your pakistani shithole

That's because you paid the Chechens protection money to stop bullying you.
>>
Just report any off-topic /pol/ posting, we're here to talk about Brazil and ships.
>>
File: KYS.jpg (27 KB, 515x181)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>36371410
I remember you.

How about you address the points made instead of trying to change the subject?
>>
>>36371335

Too bad is in Rio.

The base in Itaguaí is fucking awesome tho.
>>
>>36371412
We needed AAs and a government that had the balls to put down drug planes.
>>
File: Stop talking about it.gif (58 KB, 480x360)
58 KB
58 KB GIF
>>36371410
>call UK Muslim infested
>somebody correctly points out that Russia has both more Muslims and more violent Muslims than the UK
>cry

Is this the power of Russian media?
>>
>>36370431
stupid slow, inefficient, and typically Royal Navy troops have been supported by either RAF fighters, or USN and USAF.

Only reason for the Harrier is expeditionary forces without other friendly forces capable of traditional fixed wing aircraft being in range.

UK has been good about avoiding that issue.
>>
>>36370163
Brazilian here, our Navy is headed by incompetent lunatics with a penchant for "white elephant" projects and flushing money down the toilet.
>>
>>36370505
Nigga please, Russia can't even make it to Syria without crashing two SU-33s in the Mediterranean. Do you expect anyone to take them seriously?
>>
>>36371582
>stupid slow, inefficient, and typically Royal Navy troops have been supported by either RAF fighters, or USN and USAF.
Sorry, what expeditionary op has been launched by coalition forces since Iraq or Afghanistan? That's right, none.
>>
>>36371467
aw, you hit him so hard he went away. what will we play with now?
>>
>>36371852
Not him, but you're still talking about him almost 35 minutes after his last post.
>>
>>36371609
Agree, but we need to start somewhere if we mean to get a those shades alongside Poland and the United States of America.
>>
>>36371943
What shades?
>>
>>36372169
From the polandball politics.
>>
>>36371895
Because I take great satisfaction in ridiculing posters like him who contribute nothing to this board. Gotta fight fire with fire.

I've seen him posting plenty of times and it's allways salty garbage.
>>
>>36370163
Why can't you fucking faggots fund any goddamn shit? I would rather have a special relationship with France than Britain at this point.

>can't keep submarines afloat
>tries to perform a VLS submarine launch, missile goes the wrong way and is intercepted over the US
>can't afford to equip its submarines with more than a quarter of their missile capacity
>removing cruise missile armament from surface ships because it can't afford them any more
>reducing the British Army by another 12,500 soldiers
>builds 2 queen elizabeth class carriers, won't fund full F-35 complements for either, going to rely on the USMC to provide each carrier a full F-35 squadron
>now it sells off its fucking flagship for less than 1 F-35

Holy shit your country is so fucking cucked and pathetic.
>>
>>36372483

Congratulations, you're wrong on literally every single point.

>can't keep submarines afloat
Except not, given they're on ops.

>tries to perform a VLS submarine launch, missile goes the wrong way and is intercepted over the US
Now you're believing the Sunday Times, which pretty much kills all your credibility on the spot.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/serious-trident-missile-test-failure/

>can't afford to equip its submarines with more than a quarter of their missile capacity
It's nothing to do with affording, the deterrent budget is a contained section of the defence budget that has been exempt from such cuts. They don't load the full amount due to current deterrent levels. Not due to funding. The UK bases the payload levels of its SSBNs on the level of deterrence they feel is suitable to the current climate. As there is no immediate or perceived nuclear threat to the UK, they are running with lower amounts.

>removing cruise missile armament from surface ships because it can't afford them any more
You're thinking of anti-ship missiles, a decision that was cancelled months ago.

>reducing the British Army by another 12,500 soldiers
Except they haven't.

>builds 2 queen elizabeth class carriers, won't fund full F-35 complements for either, going to rely on the USMC to provide each carrier a full F-35 squadron
Except they are not at all. USMC deployments are purely for familiarity training (as has happened on every allied carrier forever. There's Rafales on Nimitzs right now, does that mean the US can't afford it either?) as the squadrons step up.

>now it sells off its fucking flagship for less than 1 F-35
Ocean was on its last legs. No sane country would buy it for any more. The RN got it for (inflated) £288m brand new, it wasn't some billions ship. Now at the end of its lifespan they get £89m back on that, a full third of its cost returned, plus ongoing parts support and training to bring that higher again.
>>
>>36372675
>Ocean was on its last legs. No sane country would buy it for any more. The RN got it for (inflated) £288m brand new, it wasn't some billions ship. Now at the end of its lifespan they get £89m back on that, a full third of its cost returned, plus ongoing parts support and training to bring that higher again.
I hate this government so much.
>>
>>36372483
You're forgetting the best parts

>Launch 6 new destroyers
>None of them have functioning engines right now.
>Doesn't matter anyway because they're retiring all their surface-surface missiles in 2018 anyway, making them utterly irrelevant as surface combatants.
>>
>>36371083
Do Britbongs have trauma of Russia or something? Russian military could tear the UK in half and hang the queen if papa USA wasn't behind you protecting you.
>>
>>36372675
You are embarrassingly stupid Part 1

>Except not, given they're on ops.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4210160/Britain-currently-NO-working-attack-submarines.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-navy-submarine-fleet-world-class-claims-out-of-action-order-maintenance-attack-subs-trafalgar-a7572746.html
https://www.rt.com/uk/376926-navy-submarine-fleet-action/

>Now you're believing the Sunday Times, which pretty much kills all your credibility on the spot.
>allegation is false because I don't like the source

Gizmodo believes The Sunday Times claim is accurate

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/01/the-british-accidentally-fired-a-ballistic-missile-at-the-u-s-and-its-fine-everythings-fine/

>The UK bases the payload levels of its SSBNs on the level of deterrence they feel is suitable to the current climate

In other words, what they can afford. And what they can afford is a quarter capacity.

>You're thinking of

Sorry, I couldn't remember the specifics given how much shit the UK is cutting.

>cancelled months ago.

Half truth. The decision to remove them from your frigates was cancelled, they are still being removed from your destroyers.

The original decision was made because of budgetary concerns and it took them a year to defer retiring them from your frigates.

http://www.janes.com/article/74044/dsei-2017-uk-defers-harpoon-retirement
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-royal-navy-faces-frightening-future-without-anti-ship-22399

>Except they haven't.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9368608/At-least-six-talented-generals-quit-Army-over-defence-cuts.html

"Many in the Army are becoming increasingly bitter that the MoD opted to sack a further 12,000 soldiers in order to keep a major defence programme, in particular the two new aircraft carriers."
>>
>>36372675
You are embarrassingly stupid Part 2

>Except they are not at all. USMC deployments are purely for familiarity training (as has happened on every allied carrier forever.

"Familiarity Training"

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/12/16/us-marine-f-35b-fighter-jet-deployment-onboard-british-warship-made-official/

>Ocean was on its last legs.

>"You are literally wrong on every single point"
>admits this is correct

The absolute state of British education.
>>
>>36371260
>If you spend half as much time studying economics as you do running from acid throwers you will know what GDP PPP is.

I'm someone else, but I have a degree in economics and I've never understood the usefulness, or even validity, of PPP as a tool for assessing national economies. I think this is best illustrated by the wild adjustments IMF, WB, etc. frequently make to their PPP GDP estimates.
>>
>>36372740
1. If none have functioning engines, explain how they've travelled over the planet
2. Flight All+ Burkes do not have dedicated Ashm either, does that make them irrelevant?
>>36373339
If you bothered to actually read the articles, you'll know that it was CLAIMED by a single source who famously reported that the RN was buying a literal 6'inch gun.
>Gizmodo believes The Sunday Times claim is accurate
And? Gizmodo is not a defence site.
>In other words, what they can afford. And what they can afford is a quarter capacity.
No, they pay for what is believed as necessary.
>The original decision was made because of budgetary concerns and it took them a year to defer retiring them from your frigates.
How can you misread retirement for cut? Harpoons had always been planned for 2020.
>"Familiarity Training"
This still doesn't prove your point though, literally nobody is denying that the UNSC will deploy on the QEs from time to time. Crossdecking happens all the time.

I'm a different dude btw
>>
>>36373339

>Quotes RT, Daily Fail and the Independant unironically

Sorry, you want to be taken seriously how? You realise the submarines are currently deployed already, right?

>Gizmodo
>Believing it over a specific defence dedicated site that gives the exact reason in depth

Fucking really?

>In other words, what they can afford. And what they can afford is a quarter capacity.

Re-read my post.

>Sorry, I couldn't remember the specifics given how much shit the UK is cutting.

So now you're admitting you don't even know the difference between an anti-ship missile and a cruise missile. You're a bastion of defence knowledge you are, mate.

>Half truth. The decision to remove them from your frigates was cancelled, they are still being removed from your destroyers.

No, the missile's OSD was postponed until future decisions. There was no announcement they were being removed from Type 45.

>That telegraph link
>2012

Now you're just desperate.

>>36373353

>Defencenews link

Is incorrect. The plan was ALWAYS for the initial wing to be only up to 24 on the ship, because the other 24 will be handling landbased training of the others. The USMC are for familiarity training for them, and also enabling the ship to have a larger amount to train handling 36+. The UK will have 48 jets by then. They're killing two birds with one stone, rather than delaying shit.

>>36375671

>How can you misread retirement for cut? Harpoons had always been planned for 2020.

The DECISION has been postponed until 2020. Not the strict removal.
>>
>>36370379
You could fly drones off of it and get strike capability and air cover.
>>
>>36376233
How does an aircraft being a drone suddenly make it viable where a manned aircraft wouldn't be, when the problem is taking off / landing restrictions

you dummy
>>
>>36370505
China ~ maybe in a few years
Russia ~ maybe a few decades ago

The RN is second only to the USN.
Maybe the frogs too.
>>
>>36370163
The HMS Ocean wasn’t built by Brazilians.
Also,
>by far the most useful ship in the RN
>cheap to build and run
You just answered your own question.

>>36370366
>why can’t they buy Chinese?
Because that wouldn’t tweak Argentina nearly as much.
>>
>>36376245
...so you’re a distant third, then.
>>
File: Oh.png (126 KB, 800x769)
126 KB
126 KB PNG
>>36376301
>Because that wouldn’t tweak Argentina nearly as much.
>>
>>36370530
How's it feel not being relevant for the last 70 years?
>>
File: 1503070224555.gif (483 KB, 243x270)
483 KB
483 KB GIF
>>36376409
I wouldn't know, I'm not Chinese or Russian.
>>
>>36373339
>>36373353
>using blogs as sources
que
>>
>>36373007
Papa moat more like, Russia has no credible blue water navy and certainly no amphibious invasion capability.

Sure the British Army would get steamrolled 1 vs. 1 in western Europe, but it's been built around cooperation with the rest of Europe & NATO so that's not going to happen.
>>
Why do nogunz britbong inbred subhumans come here to argue with chinks and vatniks about their joke of a navy? Fuck off already you autistic faggots.
>>
>>36377210
>vatnik comes into thread about brazil buying a sjip from the UK

>tries to spew rubbish

>gets rekt and put in his place

>hurr brits come here to argue
>>
>>36370505
>Russian “””””Navy”””””
>>
>>36378543
>"Rusting" Navy




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.