Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » LOL just LMFAO @ Russia's only 'Aircraft Carrier'....(PICS)
  1. Results 31 to 57 of 57
  2. Page 2 of 2
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2

Thread: LOL just LMFAO @ Russia's only 'Aircraft Carrier'....(PICS)

post 1654900973 01-24-2022, 07:34 AM
-
#31
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 13,120
  6. Rep Power: 134131
Originally Posted By Slaydom⏩
hypersonic drones > jets in 2022




all the UFO's that defy jet movement in military scanners are in fact drones. they are smaller and are much more agile AND faster than a fighter jet. hypersonic meaning it can't be detected by radar. it is also unmanned.


they can be transported by submarines.
Pretty sure that technology's a long way from being ready to be used in actual combat. And even if they can be launched from subs how would you bring them back and land them?
post 1654901233 01-24-2022, 07:41 AM
-
#32
  1. BraneyGumble
  2. Registered User
  1. BraneyGumble
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2013
  4. Age: 41
  5. Posts: 25,426
  6. Rep Power: 248871
Originally Posted By John$Galt⏩
imagine if America and the entire West weren't owned and operated by satanic jews and their good goyim. there would have been no world wars, no wars in the middle east. 100% truth.
Back to your containtment board.
post 1654901303 01-24-2022, 07:43 AM
-
#33
  1. Slaydom
  2. Banned
  1. Slaydom
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2021
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 9,897
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By JoeDelts⏩
Pretty sure that technology's a long way from being ready to be used in actual combat. And even if they can be launched from subs how would you bring them back and land them?
they've already been used on US soil. a lot of military sightings. This is why Trump screamed like a woman about China committing the greatest crime against the USA, stealing the election but couldn't drop a firecracker in China. he didn't think twice about dropping bombs on that iranian general.



they are small on purpose. smaller targets and more nimble.

they don't need a big aircraft carrier to land. they can land on submarine deck.
post 1654901443 01-24-2022, 07:46 AM
-
#34
  1. Kev1972
  2. Registered User
  1. Kev1972
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Location: Big Arm, Montana, United States
  5. Posts: 49,924
  6. Rep Power: 287644
Originally Posted By JoeDelts⏩
Pretty sure that technology's a long way from being ready to be used in actual combat. And even if they can be launched from subs how would you bring them back and land them?
Pretty sure if my $500 drone can land on a dime some military grade one can too. Guess you missed the whole space x rocket booster landings?
Motorcycle crew
Army veteran crew
One Meal a day crew
post 1654901753 01-24-2022, 07:53 AM
-
#35
  1. stayhomeneet
  2. Registered User
  1. stayhomeneet
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 7,136
  6. Rep Power: 24353
Is that thing running on pure crude oil?
post 1654901763 01-24-2022, 07:53 AM
-
#36
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 13,120
  6. Rep Power: 134131
Originally Posted By Slaydom⏩
they've already been used on US soil. a lot of military sightings. This is why Trump screamed like a woman about China committing the greatest crime against the USA, stealing the election but couldn't drop a firecracker in China. he didn't think twice about dropping bombs on that iranian general.



they are small on purpose. smaller targets and more nimble.

they don't need a big aircraft carrier to land. they can land on submarine deck.
They can't land them anywhere right now much less onto a sub. The engines only work at hypersonic speeds. They can't be slowed down or shut off or they'll just fall from the sky. Like I said they're a long way off from being combat ready.
post 1654901783 01-24-2022, 07:54 AM
-
#37
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 13,120
  6. Rep Power: 134131
Originally Posted By Kev1972⏩
Pretty sure if my $500 drone can land on a dime some military grade one can too. Guess you missed the whole space x rocket booster landings?
$500 drones don't go mach 5+
post 1654901813 01-24-2022, 07:54 AM
-
#38
  1. BlackJack619
  2. Registered User
  1. BlackJack619
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 17,066
  6. Rep Power: 143443
Reminds me of the ****tty kittty.
As
post 1654901913 01-24-2022, 07:55 AM
-
#39
  1. RhysWirral
  2. Registered User
  1. RhysWirral
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 3,597
  6. Rep Power: 7067
Maybe I'm missing something but why does Russia need an aircraft carrier when all her interests are pretty much on their border?
post 1654902093 01-24-2022, 07:58 AM
-
#40
  1. Slaydom
  2. Banned
  1. Slaydom
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2021
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 9,897
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By JoeDelts⏩
They can't land them anywhere right now much less onto a sub. The engines only work at hypersonic speeds. They can't be slowed down or shut off or they'll just fall from the sky. Like I said they're a long way off from being combat ready.
low IQ
post 1654902203 01-24-2022, 07:59 AM
-
#41
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 13,120
  6. Rep Power: 134131
Originally Posted By Slaydom⏩
low IQ
So explain to me how they work then since you seem to have a higher iq than me + secret insider information.
post 1654902513 01-24-2022, 08:05 AM
-
#42
  1. Destor
  2. Registered User
  1. Destor
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2012
  4. Location: Alberta, Canada
  5. Age: 41
  6. Posts: 43,481
  7. Rep Power: 254906
Originally Posted By RhysWirral⏩
Maybe I'm missing something but why does Russia need an aircraft carrier when all her interests are pretty much on their border?
Lazy fukn aircraft should learn to carry their own weight tbh, not be yachting across the ocean
post 1654902603 01-24-2022, 08:07 AM
-
#43
  1. BustaCapp
  2. Delivering Negs
  1. BustaCapp
  2. Delivering Negs
  3. Join Date: Dec 2002
  4. Location: Merseyside, The North, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 27,158
  6. Rep Power: 346296
Originally Posted By stayhomeneet⏩
Is that thing running on pure crude oil?
fist yourself
post 1654902903 01-24-2022, 08:12 AM
-
#44
  1. BraneyGumble
  2. Registered User
  1. BraneyGumble
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2013
  4. Age: 41
  5. Posts: 25,426
  6. Rep Power: 248871
Originally Posted By RhysWirral⏩
Maybe I'm missing something but why does Russia need an aircraft carrier when all her interests are pretty much on their border?
Well that's pretty much the reason why they only built a single one - a second one was in the works but then the SU collapsed and eventually the Chinese bought and finished it -, focus was on their land forces and subs, (naval) aviation took the back bench. They also simply did/do not have experience with building vessels of such size and complexity.

They have come to an agreement with France who were supposed to manufacture and supply them two smaller Mistral warships - carrying troops and helicopters - but then the 2014 Crimea thing happened and it was cancelled.

The Kuznetsov is a total chitshow, running on heating oil and constantly requiring tug boats because it would break down all the time. It could run for 6 months at best at a time and spent more time in docks than on the open sea. 2 years ago the dry dock they were using for its repairs sunk and the Russians don't have another one that could be used.
post 1654903143 01-24-2022, 08:16 AM
-
#45
  1. RealAesthetic
  2. 6’2 225 lean
  1. RealAesthetic
  2. 6’2 225 lean
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 20,380
  6. Rep Power: 259389
Originally Posted By Kev1972⏩
Operational expenses don't add up. Too easy to kill. One nuclear armed sub would take out an entire carrier fleet with one missile. China and Russia have nothing to fear from our carriers.
Don’t carriers run in a fleet with anti submarine ships ? And other submarines, and insane amounts of anti air / anti missile
***Canadian Crew***
S 365 D 585 B 315
misc resident sky tradie
post 1654903223 01-24-2022, 08:16 AM
-
#46
  1. Immichaelski
  2. Registered User
  1. Immichaelski
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2004
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 15,902
  6. Rep Power: 37692
Tbh I don’t think Ukraine needs the usa. Ukraine and Poland are stacked. The USA wants them to die is the problem though just like in w w2.
post 1654903633 01-24-2022, 08:23 AM
-
#47
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 13,120
  6. Rep Power: 134131
Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩
Don’t carriers run in a fleet with anti submarine ships ? And other submarines, and insane amounts of anti air / anti missile
I think their biggest vulnerability would be if you just overwhelmed them with numbers of small missiles from land. Like say you fired 50-100 of them at once they wouldn't be able to take them all out.
post 1654903893 01-24-2022, 08:28 AM
-
#48
  1. Shortfuze
  2. "Your one f*ck fantasy"
  1. Shortfuze
  2. "Your one f*ck fantasy"
  3. Join Date: Feb 2004
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 31,897
  6. Rep Power: 179945
I think aircraft carriers will face the same fate as battleships and fade out. So many advancements have been made on "carrier-killer" missiles that it would be difficult to protect carriers and justify the continued costs to maintain them.
*Simplicity is the key to life*

Thanks ZBlacktt for the mod rep!
Thanks ForumSentinel for the admin rep!
Thanks Gxp23 for the mod rep!
Thanks 400LB Gorilla for the mod rep!
Thanks CountryMike for admin rep!
Thanks Nics1246 for mod rep!

I got married on August 24, 2013!!
ლ(╹◡╹ლ)
post 1654903903 01-24-2022, 08:28 AM
-
#49
  1. Soonerjohn
  2. Registered User
  1. Soonerjohn
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Posts: 8,725
  5. Rep Power: 27852


Pic of latest UK carrier
post 1654904073 01-24-2022, 08:31 AM
-
#50
  1. Procta
  1. Procta
  3. Join Date: Feb 2006
  4. Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 132,695
  6. Subscribers: 8
  7. Rep Power: 1749541
Originally Posted By Soonerjohn⏩


Pic of latest UK carrier
fukn A

lmao
Subscribe for extra premium content (no noodz sorry guys)
post 1654905813 01-24-2022, 08:57 AM
-
#51
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  1. JoeDelts
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 13,120
  6. Rep Power: 134131
Originally Posted By QuickShotSteve⏩
I remember when TWA Flight 800 went down in 1996, there were reports of the USN testing new AEGIS laser counter ballistic weapons systems that some believed (conspiracy?) took out the plane. But that was 26 years ago now, that the USN was playing with laser mounted anti missle weapon systems. I have to imagine that is much much so integrated into the fleet and can hit targets much faster and more accurately that documented publicly.
Yeah I've heard about the laser defenses as well. I just have to think at a certain point it would be too much. Like maybe those lasers need some amount of time to recharge or something similar. What I'm trying to say is if 100 missiles isn't enough what 200 at once?

I think the main deterrent to trying that has been the U.S.'s response to losing an aircraft carrier but in an all out war against a serious adversary that would probably go out the window.
post 1654906063 01-24-2022, 09:01 AM
-
#52
  1. TheBrentmeister
  2. ⚔️
  1. TheBrentmeister
  2. ⚔️
  3. Join Date: Aug 2012
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 11,370
  6. Rep Power: 104780
Originally Posted By soonerjohn⏩


pic of latest uk carrier
lmfao
💷 ☆☆☆ - υк cяєω - ☆☆☆ 💷
post 1654906643 01-24-2022, 09:12 AM
-
#53
  1. Jms89
  2. Oh, i like that
  1. Jms89
  2. Oh, i like that
  3. Join Date: May 2012
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 13,070
  7. Rep Power: 42129
Alpha AF honestly. I bet putin would drive a 2nd gen cummins pickup with smoke stacks if he lived in the good ole US of A.
This fool's running a Honda 2000
O|||||||O Misc Jeep Crew O|||||||O
30 Year Old Boomer Crew
Just lol at officels *Tradie Crew*
Grumpy Old Married Guy Crew
post 1654909673 01-24-2022, 10:01 AM
-
#54
  1. Kev1972
  2. Registered User
  1. Kev1972
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Location: Big Arm, Montana, United States
  5. Posts: 49,924
  6. Rep Power: 287644
Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩
Don’t carriers run in a fleet with anti submarine ships ? And other submarines, and insane amounts of anti air / anti missile
Sure they do. Doesn't mean they won't get murked from a tactical nuke fired from a submarine sitting quietly somewhere in the area. Nukes don't have to get anywhere near the carrier to destroy it, and with hypersonic missiles already in existence it's not like the battle group could defend against it.

The question is how would the US retaliate vs a low yield tactical nuke fired over the ocean? World wide annihilation?
Motorcycle crew
Army veteran crew
One Meal a day crew
post 1654957213 01-25-2022, 01:01 AM
-
#55
  1. Redfish225
  2. Hunter/Fisherbreh
  1. Redfish225
  2. Hunter/Fisherbreh
  3. Join Date: Aug 2012
  4. Posts: 69,167
  5. Rep Power: 903956
Originally Posted By Hutrapper⏩
why aircraft carrier when its all about the nukes
It’ll probably malfunction when trying to launch one.

I loe e.
post 1654957263 01-25-2022, 01:04 AM
-
#56
  1. MajorTendonitis
  1. MajorTendonitis
  3. Join Date: Jan 2016
  4. Location: East Kootenays BC
  5. Age: 65
  6. Height: 5'8"
  7. Weight: 241 lbs
  8. Posts: 41,983
  9. Subscribers: 8
  10. Rep Power: 715365
I dunno mane , watching this movie with war ships and aliens, and the old warship was the only one that survived the turmoil .
Always bet on smoke
Back with my Fam
post 1654957563 01-25-2022, 01:25 AM
-
#57
  1. Azrairc
  2. TwinkMAXXing
  1. Azrairc
  2. TwinkMAXXing
  3. Join Date: Apr 2011
  4. Posts: 18,933
  5. Rep Power: 64988
Originally Posted By Kev1972⏩
Imagine if America didn't care about being world poleece and just let 3rd world fckers fend for themselves.
You'd quickly lose everything and join them. Advisories would move in quickly to halt supply chains which would literally destroy life as we know it today. Having a giant military isn't just for chits and giggles.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts