>no A1B nuclear reactors, in fact, NO NUCLEAR REACTORS AT ALL
>no angled deck
>no 4 Electromagnetic or even steam catapult system, in fact, NO CATAPULTS AT ALL
>no Advanced Arresting Gear landing system, in fact, NO ARRESTING GEAR AT ALL
>no angled deck
>no X band radar
>no fix winged AWACS aircraft
>no Electronic Warfare aircraft
>no UCLASS drones
>no dedicated long range logistics aircraft
>no V-22 Ospreys
>no roll on/off Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System
This is a 10/10 "super carrier" in britain.
How can we trust anything that comes out of that country if they put what is clearly a substandard vessel directly on par with true super carriers?
It all seems suspicious to me.
>Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of aircraft carrier, typically those displacing over 70,000 tons (64,000 metric tons).
It's not hard
>in the nation of "great" "brit" "ain"'t a helicopter is better than a long range high altitude radar station with advanced sensors
>china will start building real 21st century carriers within 10 years
>british cuckramp carriers aren't even under going trials yet
They are on track to have the capability to build multiple carriers per decade.
Pic related. Their first is under construction right now
>Liaoning 2: Electric Boogaloo
Still not nuclear. Still STOBAR. Still no fixed wing AWACs, EW or cargo aircraft. Still heavily restricted when it comes to the payload of their fighters.
And since Russia has come to a halt when it comes to naval projects, China won't do shit either
>yanks have so much debt they can't even afford a ramp
>can't even afford two towers
Why are you lying?
Germany has a larger % of Muslims than the UK
True. But your carriers are still a joke compared to ours.
Being top dog means we get to flatter ourselves by shitposting on our subordinates.
They are preparing for a plane crash.
>yanks can't even afford two towers
1. Redundancy - if a tower is destroyed or damaged, the remaining tower can do both jobs
2. Less turbulence on the flight deck
3. Optimisation - the forward tower is better suited for navigation, the back tower is ideal for air traffic control
>be American pilot
>need a catapult just to get off the ground
> your carriers are still a joke compared to ours.
Yours are several times more expensive than our carriers, despite the advantages you gain from bigger economies of scale. If you spend a LOT more money on something you expect it to be better, don't you? You guys are so pathetic. It amounts to "haha your defence budget is smaller than ours"
>“We simply cannot afford to pay $12.9 billion for a single ship,” said McCain, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
What does the current millennia have to do with the fact that a clear view of what's ahead is a good thing? There will be plenty of times when the carrier will be near ports and have to navigate around objects. Or what about if there are icebergs nearby?
Okay. My apologies.
They also cite
>"....this carrier will be a tremendous increase in capability compared to the Liaoning..."
You called it the Liaoning 2.
China recently commisioned a J-15 EW variant. They are currently testing a small carrier borne AWACS. What cargo planes land on carriers? Oh, and it is expected that the newly designed catapult system will fix the inability to fully arm the J-15.
Hence the "tremendous increase in capability" quote.
lol. the fact that the piece of shit in the op post can't function as carrier. The ships they call "supercarrier" is "functional carriers", and other ones are just memes. Their maximum usefulness is attack on unarmed sandniggers.
>Originally laid down as the Admiral Kuznetsov class multirole aircraft carrier Riga for the Soviet Navy, she was launched on December 4, 1988, and renamed Varyag in 1990.
Wow nice Soviet technologies
It's not just on /int/, the US media takes pleasure in shitting on us too. And like the American anons here, they lie and exaggerate to make us look bad. The Washington Post, one of the USA's most widely circulated newspapers, reacted to the result of the 2015 UK general election with this:
>Britain resigns as a world power
The author implies the UK will stop meeting its 2% GDP NATO obligations (it didn't happen), he hints that the British army will shrink to 50,000 (not happening), he says it *will* shrink to 80,000 (that's not true). He mocks RAF Tornados with a comment about their age and a comparison to the F-22s, despite the fact that Tornados are much better suited for that bombing role and that the RAF has much newer fighter aircraft (which is never mentioned)
The author also said there were more cuts to come to the BBC World Service, etc. That's another LIE, in fact the government increased its funding.
I'll tell you something for sure though. When the UK committed to increasing the size of its armed forces, and its presence abroad, that didn't get ANYTHING like this level of attention.
There are few things more pathetic in this world than the USA's peculiar complex with Britain. Americans seem so desperate for any chance to talk us down, it's messed up that a huge superpower with many times our resources should feel so insecure about a small island. But there you have it.
>What cargo planes land on carriers
It's literally one of if not the most important aircraft in a battle group.
It's the primary supply line between the fleet and land.
sry to bring it to you mate but in the last view wars the brits and the US had it was always the US convincing the eternal anglo to join the war.
The US even failed to support the brits last major war of foreign aggression
>inb4 los malvinas son argentinos
>those shitty box planes are the fleet's primary supply source
Are you retarded? Tankers & replenishment ships are the primary supply source by a huge margin. Those planes are used to transport senior staff/medical cases and maybe mail.
so you take an old oil tanker split the white tower bit and move it to the side, put a freight elevator in,slap some tarmac on the deck and you have yourself a fancy new aircraft carrier?
Seriously the no nuclear reactor thing is retarded,you can incapacitate the ship just by attacking its numerous oil tenders and then you have to protect your fuel supply by diverting your support ships to them or forming a convoy, sounds like a nightmare desu
You can still have the "we are the best" attitude and not stoop to the levels that they do. Guess how the Wall Street Journal (the USA's highest circulating newspaper) reacted to the result of Labour's leadership election? That's right, it's
>"another milepost in Britain’s long decline"
Despite the fact that Corbyn's win has *nothing* to do with the views of the wider British public and *everything* to do with how Ed Miliband changed the Labour Party's voting rules.
But "left-leaning Labour members have much more influence over their party" doesn't appeal to Americans like "another milepost in Britain's long decline". It's especially ironic because the consequence of this Labour leadership election will be to keep the lefties out of power for a long time, improving Britain's prospects
>Those planes are used to transport senior staff/medical cases and maybe mail.
Yeah who needs to transport those things.
And why would a carrier ever need the abiltiy to haul up to 5 tons to land and back.
>Seriously the no nuclear reactor thing is retarded,you can incapacitate the ship just by attacking its numerous oil tenders
You're a fucking idiot. Do you think all the escort ships that must protect the nuclear-powered carrier are also nuclear-powered?
If you can destroy all the axillary supply ships then you've already destroyed the navy.
can bareley lift a wiesel2 calls itself a "carrier"
lel. An US carrier battle group has a multi-layered air defense system. SM-3, SM-6, SM-2, ESSM, CIWS. And of course the carrier air wing with AA and EW capabilities.
This thread is the reason why there is no american meet up from /int/ in real life
Someone would start a heated discussion in a bar with everyone half pissed, he'd get mad and start shooting up the place
>Their maximum usefulness is attack on unarmed sandniggers.
We don't need ANY aircraft carriers to bomb the middle-east
even with all that, they still find holes in their defenses
such as the swedish submarine that found a way to sink an american carrier
they aren't invincible and it is a lot of sailors on one single boat
>what if you want to use more than 20 aircraft
RAF Akrotiri is a large airbase. In the 1960s we kept four squadrons of Canberras (pic related) stationed there. We also have RAF Al Udeid in Qatar, where we currently keep logistics and intelligence aircraft but it has housed fighters in the past.
The reason why we have few fighters operating from Cyprus today is not to do with capacity, it's because we have a long-term low-intensity operation.
Now try that again with modern maritime patrol aircraft, ASW helicopters and ASW destroyers/frigates on full alert. Carriers are faster than most subs too, so intercepting one in an actual battle (and not some laid out exercise) is much harder, and it needs to get really close since torpedos have a shit range. Also a sub would have fire a lot of fucking torpedos to actually sink a carrier, while the sub would sink in a heartbeat once it has been detected. Oh and torpedo countermeasures exist too, like acoustic decoys and also anti-torpedo torpedos
there's the fact that someone cums in the brownie batter for /k/ meetups
>the year 2016
it's all fun and games until chang or patel uses one of those drill torpedoes like in that bond film to put a big hole in the side of your reactor and you irradiate half of the pacific ocean and your crew all grow a third arm. meanwhile we will be fine in such a scenario.
why would we do that? then we have to secure everything so it doesn't roll into the sea, one day you're going to regret your silly designs
catapults are medieval age tech lad, and radar was used to defeat the germans LMAO are you SERIOUSLY telling me you haven't advanced in the past 70 years?
>not shooting gear
now you're just baiting, since when has an american peacekeeper ever bothered to arrest anyone or anything?
In the Falklands War the first thing the Americans did was try and transfer sovereignty of the islands to Argentina. Like idiots the Argies refused the diplomatic route so the Americans got fed up and helped us instead
Your share of World GDP has dropped harder than ours.
Just to demonstrate how stupid you are, pic related is GDP (PPP) - as in your table - in 1870 which was the height of British power
As you can see, by this measure we were never the biggest economy due to our small population, the Chinese and Indian economies were both larger and Britain still defeated both of them in war despite this.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, defeating India and China is something the USA hasn't accomplished and probably never will. Oh well at least you have your irrelevant tables of statistics you don't even understand.
India will have a better carrier than the brits within 15 years...
>aircraft carriers with vulnerable decks
>aircraft with human pilots
Floating burger palaces are only good for oppressing pleb countries. In an actual war, against a competent foe, they will be crushed. And anything that gets off the deck will get out maneuvered by Drones pulling 20 G turns.
I can't believe we are wasting our money on this shit.
You know, I like UK and admire their naval power and all but that thing really does look ugly. Like a repurposed freighter or something. That rust-colored deck is not helping either.
I'm asking that question because the only full scale naval war between modern navies since WW2, the Falklands War, featured a navy with a flat carrier with catapults against one with a ramp carrier
I assume the ramp carrier guys lost, right? Catapults won the day for sure
What do you want nuclear reactors for?
No, the Royal Navy is being reformed to provide a Maritime Task Group at all times. The centrepiece of the Maritime Task Group is the aircraft carrier - one carrier will be always available.
The Maritime Task Group will be between 10 - 25 ships, depending on the intensity of the operation. Pic related. At the extreme minimum it will include frigates, a destroyer, submarine and supply ships.
Source of pic: