Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.
If you’re going for a “decent navy” plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.
Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.
Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.
If you’re going for a “decent navy” plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.
Carriers are the naval past, subs continue on into the future, but you can’t conquer shit with a sub.
We are not talking about any conquering here though. And btw you can’t conquer anything with a carrier either, it’s pure racket weapon.
Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.
Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.
you cant conquer things with weapons, that’s not how you occupy/hold land. the only thing that works is boots.
Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.