You can only post in this thread if your country has a proper

>>67506155
>Our carriers don't have ramps
>therefor ramps are bad.

That is why you never made friends on the playground.

>A RAMP

A
FUCKING
RAMP

>>67506155

Luv the feel to rock either way here.

munki b great

THICCCC DECK

>>67506155
Look at those curves

>>67508796
Real carriers have cuves, OP needs to stop rampshaming

>>67506155
>>67507677
>>67507860

Ramps are sexy and practical faggots.
AWACS can be launced by ramps, so dont even mention that, the Russians intended to launch them from ramps.

File: 1430265525794.png (1MB, 912x905px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 912x905px

>be brit
>get RAMP'D
ABSOLUTELY BTFO

Hello yes

File: 298375892735.jpg (147KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1024x768px

>>67506155
We had one (HMCS Bonaventure) until le weedman's dad scrapped it

>>67509406
Looks tiny anyway.

What's the deal with ramps? Is it an aircraft issue or a carrier issue?

File: queen elizabeth aircraft carrier2.jpg (1MB, 4000x1618px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4000x1618px

>>67506155
Fuck off m8 we're getting two of these sexy ramp bastards

>>67508830
ramps are neither sexy nor practical, but you probably think 400 pound somali girls are sexy and practical too

>>67509497
>56m

carrierlets, when will they learn?

File: 1470793092804.jpg (131KB, 1710x840px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1710x840px

>yfw trump wants a 350 ship Navy

What do we need all those ships for

>>67509512
Why not?

>>67509512

>not having a ramp for sweet jumps into the ocean

Why even have a military?

>>67509577
>the rest of NATO needs to spend atleast 2% so that we dont need to defend them
>We should not go around the globe beeing world police
>I want more ships

I really don see the logic here

>>67509589
because the roar of a steam catapult is much sexier and much more practical since you can lanuch all sorts of shit easily without having to rely on poorfag ramps

>>67509497
wow i never knew there was an INSIDE plane storage in carriers

File: 1468330789992.jpg (149KB, 1256x1600px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1256x1600px

>>67508830
>AWACS can be launced by ramps

The United States is the only western nation that produces navalized carrier based AWACS fix winged aircraft.

We don't build them ramp capable

>>67509627
Our military is for enforcing our will and destroying small countries, not for saving shitty yuropoors

we only have two combat ships lmao

>>67509632
Instead you have to rely on steam.

>>67509787
Yeah because we're not poorfags

Soon it will be magnets

>>67509644
>western

That doesnt matter all nations powerfull enough to have a carrier can buy from whoever they want.

>>67509799
Steam (or magnets for that matter) isnt practical on non-nuclear carriers, and for the price of a single nimitz or ford you can probably get two or more rampcarriers

>>67509807

>The UK will purchase Chinese carrier AWACS

Yes this will happen

>>67509830
>not having nuclear carriers

why would anyone do this

File: smugkenzie.png (55KB, 254x256px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 254x256px

>>67509891
>have nuclear-powered ships
>can't even bring them into new zealand ports

>>67509931
>be new zealand
>ports get destroyed by earthquake

>>67509952
>STILL off limits to the united states """"navy""""

File: Golden Lel.jpg (117KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x900px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Icd3MFmWc

>not fucking about and launching cars with these bad boys

kek

>>67509497
>two bridges

reddit tier vessel 2bh

File: A9D7E602-C716-4606-AE37-5AE38A12194A-6460-0000093717DD0DB4_tmp.jpg (15KB, 538x274px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 538x274px

>>67509497
Three flight decks

>>67509931
>be new zealand
>cuck yourselves out of be able to use the future of power

File: Roy Litchenstein 1.jpg (376KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1024x757px

Fun fact, some traitorous fuck tried to sell some of the blueprints of these bad boys to muslims and got abso-fucking-lutely kekk'd by the law. That lady is probably still being tortured in Guantanamo lel

I'd find the source but I'm too scared to google search for it.

File: 50d74088977efb85201d89fcf6f6f12d[1].jpg (79KB, 873x583px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 873x583px

>>67510072
That sure is a nice ship

It would be a shame if it was forced to be scuttled

>>67509627
It all makes sense once you realize Putin and Trump are jacking each other off behind closed doors in the Kremlin
>US pulls out of NATO
>Yurop has no army left
>partitioningofgermany.png
>except applied to the entire continent
you can do nothing about it

File: lel goy r u srs.jpg (156KB, 360x433px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 360x433px

>>67510073
>The nuclear-free zone Act does not prohibit nuclear power plants, nuclear research facilities, the use of radioactive isotopes, or other land-based nuclear activities.[5]

File: HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Masthead.jpg (368KB, 1500x1090px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1500x1090px

>>67510047
Stay jelly of our ramp and numerous bridges.

>>67510127
how about you build yourselves a nuclear plant then

>>67510138
nuclear power is for nerds

>>67510134
What are you too stupid to understand electromagnetics? C'mon fuccboi

>tfw I'm taking Emag II in the spring

>>67510134
A british carrier with two con towers is like having two dicks except neither of them work properly

>>67510153
I believe one is for navigating the ship, the other for the planes and flight control.

>>67510134
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOTpIVxji8
the english navy in action, this carrier was due to intense front line combat. The only surviving record is an audio recording from a nearby german coast guard

>>67510176
If you need two con towers to do that then your crew might be retarded

>>67510189
Better views for both their respected purposes.

>brit's can't have Anti-Ship missiles

WTF is going on m8s?

>>67510215
you are literally arguing with an american about the relative merits of different aircraft carriers

what exactly are you hoping to accomplish?

>>67510138
>tfw

>>67510215
Except the front view of the flight control tower is obstructed by the driving tower and the rear view of the driving tower is obstructed by the flight control tower

>>67511347
post carrier not hotel

>>67510436
You're a thicko.

>>67509452

Does this ship... run on Diesel? Look at that fucking smoke. They really still make non-nuclear ships of this size?

>tfw sold ours to argentina

File: porte-avions-charles-de-gaulle-1_5217989.jpg (163KB, 1520x855px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1520x855px

Whatever, ramp or not ramp... The real point is to have a nuclear aircraft carrier.

Our entire 'army' cant afford a ramp, not even with 6 year of saving.
No ramp masterrace reporting in

>>67506155
At least he's made it way through to destination point.

You blew them all up lol

File: 1458531321895.jpg (49KB, 313x450px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 313x450px

>>67515068
>submarine reactors that have to be overhauled every 10 minutes

File: sao-paulo-ml-18-11-11-9-copy.jpg (245KB, 1600x1191px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1600x1191px

>>67506155
>Diesel powered.
>Spends most of it's time being fixed.

Still, we're part of the club.

>>67518224
Pity the only planes it can launch are archaic.

>>67506155
What's wrong with the ramps?

P.S. I take it as my right to post in this thread because we are larping carrier action by performing cable landings at road bases.

>>67520462

For now. Sea Gripens are likely in the way.

But hey, Brazil has no enemies so we can use the money on our politicians instead.

Sigh.

>>67520760

Carrier with ramps cannot launch fully fueled, fully loaded aircraft. They are just too heavy to take off, so it's a compromise of range/fire power.

Those with catapults don't have this problem.

>>67512036
Don't tease Ivans. The smoke is intented to provide cover, like smoke grenades.

>>67518224

>joined Navy
>studying to be aviator
>carrier to be ready in 2019 according to them

Pls got at least once let me fly off it.

>>67520817
And only yanks can afford catapults?

>>67520760
>we are larping carrier action by performing cable landings at road bases
I wonder which country has enough carriers to go around that even finns could get a chance to land on one :^)

>>67520817
But they can you just need ok engines

File: 30281.jpg (172KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 640x480px

B-but I poop from there senpai

americucks carriers are terrible

>>67520911
Apparently since ryssä and brits can only afford ramps

What about à catapult + à ramp ?

File: 7.jpg (217KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x495px

>>67521258
u wot

>>67521258
Flag?

>>67520911

The French use it as well.

Our carrier was bough from france, so it has it too! :^)

Does a helipad at sea count as an aircraft carrier?

>>67521334
No, I mean, why can't ramps have catapults built under them ? That way it's double efficient

>>67521412

A amphibious assault ship?

I think it depends, we have one but i don't think it counts since it can only land 4 helis on it.

>>67521434
You'd send your plane into orbit, and no one wants that.

>>67521531
Why, isnt the goal of aircarriers to launch planes very fast ?

>>67521258
Juncker, go to sleep please.

>>67521566
ich ficke deine mutter hurhensohn

File: imrs.jpg (42KB, 480x366px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x366px

>>67509452
>Russians Rolling Coal

>>67509461
If you don't have ramps you need to instal a catapult

>>67522151
We can run our gasoturbines with ok fuel but for what purpose? It will be just more expensive.

>>67509830
>Steam (or magnets for that matter) isnt practical on non-nuclear carriers
Hmmm that must be why conventional U.S.N carriers used steam catapults then.

>>67522469
The Ford class will have electromagnetic catapults.

>>67522499
>>67522469 <--Point

We don't have a navy.
We don't have a military.
We don't have a state.
I heard we have a CV on most of our female population so fine.

>>67521682
Nicht, wenn du vorher hängst :^)

>>67510189
>Your engineers might not be retarded
Thing that matters most.

>>67510144
>Fission is for nerds
Fusion is for?

>>67521126
Fun launching yourself into full circle.

>>67521412
Technically yes. If it can carry aircraft that can fly and land on it.

>>67507427
But pooty poo and Trumpalufugus are going to be besties.

Pass the vodka vlad we family now

File: karel-doorman-1960s-greenock.jpg (330KB, 1528x983px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1528x983px

RIP you magnificent rampless beast

File: Kitty_Hawk_Sydney_02.jpg (628KB, 2592x1537px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 2592x1537px

>>67522499
So? Doesn't have anything to do with it.

Conventional carriers are perfectly capable of using catapults.

What is the purpose of carriers nowadays anyway? The most expensive and pompous way to bully 3rd world nations?

>>67522749

By that definition every corvette and frigate are aircraft carriers.

>>67522903
>The most expensive and pompous way to bully 3rd world nations?
Look who started the thread.

>>67522903
Force projection. You don't need to have access to a neighboring countries airfields if you want to have airsupport for ground troops (which will be with the fleet) and airstrike moving targets (cruise missiles take a while to hit).

>>67523030
Again I said technically. It's like following the letter of the law with a complete disregard to the intent.

>>67512036

I believe it runs on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazut

>>67509497
>Special phone app developed by scientists
They ran out of cool things to put on their info graph didn't they?

>Ramptards (pic related) need not apply
That's like saying "you can only post if your country has proper car engines, turbos need not apply". It makes the thing better, but you're angry at it because you cling onto outdated technology.

>>67510134
And I even heard that thing has its own special phone app developed by scientists.

>>67512036

On corpses of murdered syrian children.

>>67509497

That graph is a fucking mess regarding aircraft numbers. Mixing dated figures, total capacity and typical air wings.

>>67512036
>still

We don't make ships of this size anymore at all. That one was built 30 years ago. We had three proposed projects of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, even started building one in 1988, but it has never been finished.

File: LHD Juan Carlos I.jpg (709KB, 1024x1365px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1024x1365px

Is this considered an aircraft carrier?

>>67526087
Only supports STOVL aircraft, so no, not really.
The least you should expect from a traditional aircraft carrier is being able to launch and land traditional aircraft.

File: Harrier.jpg (430KB, 1600x1212px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1600x1212px

>>67529724
Harriers are real aircraft though.

>>67529724

When it comes to military matters, the Finnish are the second worse kind of poster behind yanks.

Ya'll think because you've pissed about in the woods you've got a creditable opinion.

>>67529724
>STOVL aircraft
>aircraft carrier

>>67521334
You're missing the big ass cloud of smoke.

>>67529724
>Only supports STOVL aircraft, so no, not really.
Guess we should scrap our new ones then as apparently according to Finland, and the knowledge and expertise that comes with their centuries of being at the frontline of aircraft carrier technology, research and development, it's not an aircraft carrier.

>The least you should expect from a traditional aircraft carrier is being able to launch and land traditional aircraft.
It's almost like aircraft used on a carrier are specifically designed to be launched and landed on a carrier. But obviously Finland knows best, and you should compromise on other aspects of your carrier's design so that you can land a Dreamliner on it if need be.

And as we all know, just because it was designed for STOVL aircraft, that means that there's absolutely no way for other aircraft to land on it, because it's not like the engineers designing it didn't include large safety factors for the worst possible STOVL landing and then some, and there's no way that a carrier crew and pilot could prepare for a known landing in time to reduce the distance required to land an aircraft such as bypassing obstacle clearance regulations or reducing flare time.

Now stop bullying aircraft carriers that can only take STOVL, they are real carriers. Except if Finland gets one - then we can discuss how shitty yours is.

>>67533339
You are taking this retard too seriously.

P.S. We will never have carriers due to our defense strategy.

>>67534398
>You are taking this retard too seriously.
I don't mind, I was going to say most of this shit defending our new carriers anyway.

>P.S. We will never have carriers due to our defense strategy.
Force projection hasn't really been on Finland's radar ever since the Korean hyperwar, makes sense.

>>67534546

You catched me from telling excuses.
The real reason: the cost of an aircraft carrier is 50% of our GDP.