Why is the only country which focuses on having a big navy the US? Wouldn't it make sense for more countries to focus most of their military spending on ships since ships can move everywhere in the world, unimpeded?
America's domination of the seas is so absolute that nobody even considers it possible to challenge it. Communist China is the first contender since the end of WWII and even they're pussyfooting around.
>>62647608Most countries don't need to move everywhere in the world unimpeded. Navies are for empires. There's a reason why the naval arms race was so important ~1870-1910 but is irrelevant today.
>>62647626But what about countries like Australia, the UK, and Canada, where there's zero point of having a standing army?
>>62647608Its expensive, other countries can't match it.They try but can't manage it, which is why you get their propaganda flipping between>"Look at our new Carrier we are the dominant nation!"/and/>"Carriers are worthless our powerful new missile will sink every such ship instantly!"
>>62647608Because no other power needs to have a presence in every ocean, China's getting there but it'll take time for the balance of power to properly favor them
This is just another bait thread isn't it, just with a more subtle starting post before it gets going.
>>62647608Because navies are fucking expensive, and the only other countries that ever had the money and the desire to come close to the US in terms of naval power either started falling apart (Britain) or got the shit kicked out of them (Japan).
Houthi victory over America proved what everyone already suspected, hypersonics made ships obsolete
>>62647608because the US has friendly land neighbors and has the first and second largest oceans on either side of it while it's economy is based upon maritime trade
>>62647626haven't the soviets tried to pick up the glove?
>>62648532the soviet navy is the biggest laughingstock of history; and that's while still acknowledging the Emu wars.
>>62647608Ensuring global trade is key to maintaining American dominance both militarily and economically
>>62648532the soviet navy didn't bother trying to contend with the US navy directly. soviet planners were well aware it was just going to die which is why they had all those missile launchers - they'd just launch a shitload of them, hope they sunk shit, and then the ships would probably be lost.
>>62647608Naval warfare isn't like land warfare where a smaller navy can beat a larger navy with repeated tactical genius. Assuming technology and training are similar, you need an equally large or bigger Navy to effectively challenge a foe in the long term. No country can afford to challenge the US on the seas, so they usually focus their navies on coastal defense or limited power projection if they're a larger power. With that said, small navies can win isolated battles but they usually can't win an prolonged campaign because ships are so expensive and time consuming to build. When a navy can't afford losses they usually are too risk averse to commit enough forces to win a battle, and if they do commit they usually aren't willing or able to capitalize on the success. You saw it in WW1 and WW2 with the central and axis powers. They Germany, Italy, and Japan all had multiple major naval victories during the wars, but often didn't commit hard enough to follow on actions because they couldn't afford too many. America and Britain on the other hans were willing to commit vast numbers of ships in chasing actions because they had ships to spare. >inb4 Jutland
>>62648532Sort of this: >>62648582The Soviets understood they couldn't challenge the US Navy. Their naval strategy was essentially a modernized Jeune Ecole, using submarines, shore-based bombers, and smaller surface combatants armed with anti-ship cruise missiles to disrupt American naval operations.
>>62648489Did any of these hypersonics hit U.S. Navy ships? As far as I know U.S. ships are still operating in the Red Sea and Golf of Aden.
>>62648693They hit exactly what they aimed at. No US Navy ships were harmed because the Houthis never intended to harm US Navy ships. Those were just warnings to deescalate the situation.
>>62648700I can't tell if you're trolling or not.
>>62648700>houthis trying to deescalateplease try harder
>>62647608It's kind of retarded. Imagine having a huge non stealth plane what carries a shit ton of smaller planes.In what world would it not be an onvious easy target in a real war?It's a not ww2 anymore you can't surprise the enemy with a surprise attack over the horizon.
>>62648532No and they knew it, the entire point of the Soviet navy was to die gloriously by distracting the real Naval powers and forcing them to make hard decisions. What do you "waste" against a Kirov surface raider + support armed with Nuclear weapons?
>>62647608Because the USN has largely taken over the duties their navies would have held. The primary purpose, to protect trade, has been guaranteed by the USN now for 60 years. The secondary one to aid force projection and people's views on that have largely changed since the age of empires. There's also the cost. Navies are several orders of magnitude more expensive then any other portion of a military and most countries are happy paying a small fee to the US instead of maintaining a navy
>62647608>reversed imageOP is a disingenuous fuktardno (You) for you
>>62647639Closely allied with the US so there's little point in having a navy either.
>>62648678>Naval warfare isn't like land warfare where a smaller navy can beat a larger navy with repeated tactical genius. Assuming technology and training are similar, you need an equally large or bigger Navy to effectively challenge a foe in the long term.I've read that the truism about "the defense is stronger than the offense" is also reversed in naval warfare. The offense is stronger.
>>62648489>hypersonics made ships obsoletehypersonics made rusty old freighters obsolete
>>62648700Yeah they were totally trying to deescalate when they were hooting about sinking a USN carrier.
>>62648489translation from ESL to English: fuck, even our hypersonics don't work.
>>62648539>the soviet navy is the biggest laughingstock of historyYour navy doesn't have a fire-breathing dragon.
>>62647608Because the US is a huge fucking country, with a huge population and a massive economy that's able to support it. The US also has two massive coastlines, with one facing the Atlantic, and the other facing the Pacific. That's why.Well, that's only half the truth. China seems to be trying to make their own massive navy, but their lack of experience, and general corruption and incompetence, likely means that, pound for pound, they'll be vastly inferior to the US in the foreseeable future.It's kinda funny though. As a European from a country that's known for its connection to the sea, and as someone who's grown up with both sailboats and motorboats, it's funny that the US is considered a naval power. The same goes for the UK. I mean, maybe your military engineers know what they're doing, but the fuckers who build your recreational naval vessels are utterly fucking incompetent. Both US and UK boats are terrible, whether it's construction quality, seaworthiness or the quality of their engines. They're just big and plow through the sea, and can't handle waves. They also leak like an infected cunt, and the engines are ridiculously loud and prone to breaking down, with the exception of older Evinrude outboard engines. Then again, you can always slap a Volvo Penta in one, and it'll become far more reliable.I've never owned a UK boat, because they're absurdly expensive, despite how awful they are, but I've owned some US boats, because they tend to be cheap. But goddamn, never again. Even the Polacks make better recreational boats.
>>62647608>>62647626>>62647631>>62647639>>62647640>>62647678>>62647689Most countries don't have to navigate through two huge ass oceans to reach any other part of the world
>>62649878We used to be good at making recreational and commerical vessels and then scumsucking execs and investment firms sold everything up the river and let everything else decay until they had to scrap it due to sheer obsolescence.
>>62649980Well, I can't speak for the olden days, but I've owned both a Sea Ray and a Bayliner, both from the 90s, and both with Mercury inboard motors, and both were pretty bad. In general, they've always had a poor reputation in my country, but I live in a part of the world where the weather's always bad and where you'll die if you try to cross certain straits in a poorly constructed boat, so maybe they're "good enough" for certain parts of the US, where people only use them when there's sunny weather or when you simply want to get drunk at the local yacht club.
>>62647608>Wouldn't it make sense for more countries to focus most of their military spending on ships since ships can move everywhere in the world, unimpeded?Why when you can just give the US trade deals and have them police your waters
>>62648532Truthfully no, they used their navy as an excuse for embezzlement and never really surpassed the Royal Navy, let alone the USN.
>>62647608>Why is the only country which focuses on having a big navy the US?ask chatgpt
>>62648693>Golf of Aden>Golf
>>62650481SYNTAX ERROR
>>62647639What's the point of a navy if the homefront isn't under threat?The only use is in going across an ocean to bomb thirdies. But bombing people is expensive so you have to consider whether there's a positive return on investment. If you can't exert enough influence to change their government to one that trades on more profitable terms, it's just a cost with no benefit.There's no fundamental value in bombing thirdies over having them die to disease and starvation. Jesus doesn't give you bonus points for murder.
>>62647608The US has a big EVERYTHING. The Navy is pretty proportional in size compared to the rest of the branches.
>>62647639If you want to get technical Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all the "Royal Navy".
>>62650615Canadian here, we have 151,600 miles of coastline and 4 submarines. We do this because America will look after everything, we choose to spend our money on dudeweed and tranny surgeries. If we fall, America falls, so everything works out just fine for everyone.
