We've finally got our new chief negotiator for the Brexit talks

>diesel engines

File: FX170232088-620x415[1].jpg (35KB, 620x415px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 620x415px

>>78413512
The main engines are Rolls Royce gas turbines

A few diesel engines for when it only needs to move slowly + back up for emergencies

File: 1494262680817.png (169KB, 318x308px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 318x308px

>>78413630
>gas turbines

RULE

File: 1457592224269.png (244KB, 594x720px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 594x720px

>>78413493

File: uNAFyCz.jpg (166KB, 1280x869px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1280x869px

>>78413654
JAPANIA

>it isnt nuclearly propelled

>a fucking ramp

File: 1452615257244.jpg (131KB, 333x322px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 333x322px

>>78413493
>ramp

File: 1496106797652.jpg (15KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x400px

>>78413702

You will have to fire a nuclear warning shot at Brussels.

File: 1502411779126.jpg (236KB, 580x563px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 580x563px

>>78413758
sounds like fun

File: zumwalt[1].jpg (122KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 780x520px

>>78413651
Hell yeah.

You Americans liked our gas turbines so much that you bought British engines for your new class of $7.5 billion super destroyers. Pic related it has the same engines as our carriers.

a fucking ramp

File: 1490129424014.jpg (15KB, 243x216px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 243x216px

>A FUCKING KEKRAMP

File: p2mNQ.jpg (63KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x270px

>>78413493
Real aircraft carriers have curves

File: 640x0.jpg (30KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x426px

I guess you can use it as collateral for a *part* of the money you will owe.

>>78414072
>bradleyposting

File: 1500010248121.jpg (126KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 533x800px

>>78414247
>bulgaria

File: GettyImages-651196066-714x473.jpg (42KB, 714x473px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 714x473px

>>78414394
I am Greek

File: BuebvVF.png (504KB, 630x739px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 630x739px

>>78413512
>>78413651
americans can't even land on their carriers lmao

>>78413779
There is a Japanese term for the tongue sticking out of a corner of the mouth. How is it called again?

>>78413493
Nice. Missile """test""" launches over Europe when?

>>78413493
Is that a ramp?

File: 1707199_-_main[1].jpg (65KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 752x423px

>>78414595
Soon

http://www.janes.com/article/73080/uk-launches-externally-loaded-f-35b-from-ski-jump-for-first-time

File: wew.jpg (113KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1280x853px

>>78414648
Yes sweetie

File: carabiniere doubt.jpg (110KB, 618x586px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 618x586px

>70k tonnes
>not nuclear
>no catapult

The Virgin Catapult vs The Chad Ramp

File: dolmio day.png (253KB, 1000x1113px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x1113px

>>78414914
t. Repubblica "be gentle daddy I'm only 30k tonnes" Italiana

Repubblica italiana

Btw the QE Class at full load is 76k tonnes

>>78414914
>>78415051
Middle line should have been this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour

File: maxlandisredditfault.jpg (95KB, 1353x761px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1353x761px

>>78414660
>all the maintenance costs to keep those extra moving parts in working order on a Lockmart meme plane
>on a Brexit budget

File: htmschakri-naruebet[1].jpg (38KB, 470x260px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 470x260px

>>78415091
>Other than disaster relief, the carrier's few other departures from port are for a single training day per month, and transportation of the Royal Family of Thailand, leading to claims by some naval commentators that the ship is merely an oversized royal yacht.[1][5]

File: 1498644808462.jpg (2MB, 1773x1856px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1773x1856px

>>78415158
>that deflecting

>>78413702
JAPANIA RULES THE WAVES

NIPPONS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES

File: dont-talk-to-my-son-meme-far-dog_0[2].jpg (36KB, 500x418px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x418px

>>78415236
>b-but the plane has moving parts, surely Based Britain will never be able to handle machines that having lots of moving parts

Give it a rest ladyboy

File: 1490095380554.jpg (57KB, 606x592px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 606x592px

>>78415051
You built a supercarrier with the constraints of a light carrier.

File: 1377932361512.jpg (543KB, 1352x1460px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1352x1460px

>>78415331
>someone points out your overpriced and obsolete missile magnet will bankrupt your fragile economy
>"B-BUT AT LEAST WE DON'T HAVE A SMALLER AND CHEAPER CARRIER THAT WON'T BANKRUPT OUR FRAGILE ECONOMY"

holy kek

>>78415334
>>78415356
Really want to continue but I have to go sorry

>supercarrier with the constraints of a light carrier
This one made me kek tho

It's probably a fairer description of the Charles de Gaulle. Idk about you but I'd rather have the extra planes, range and at-sea time.

>>78415356
>constraining your military with budget concerns
I don't know this feel tbqh

>>78413493
Fuck off ugly looking mongrel Anglocuck

>>78413493
the whole computing system runs on windows XP

>>78415525
>Idk about you but I'd rather have the extra planes
The air wing was the same when it was supposed to have a catapult, and i'm pretty sure it still FFBNW so the space isn't used as hangar space.
>range
Are you drunk?

>>78415743
This is the third time I've seen you use the word "mongrel", are you trying to be the next Ikibey?

>>78416095
why? because i sincerely despise anglo people?

>>78416307
And here you are on an English-language board, pull your head in mate.

File: 1502263445814.png (363KB, 615x703px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 615x703px

> Tfw I will never serve in Her Majesty's royal navy

>>78413493
Are you offering it as collateral?

>>78416307
Success breeds obsession

>>78416021
>Are you drunk?
Range of the carrier you mong

France has a nuclear powered carrier and it's CATOBAR.

>>78420652

Indeed, but you'd be hard pressed to argue having two carriers vs one without getting into the specifics of capability.

>>78416745
you can transfer from the NZ navy to the royal navy I think

>>78420772

Doesn't Spain and Italy has some as well?

>>78420823

Indeed they do.

Italy is currently in the process of designing their new carrier.

File: Drawing-showing-British-impressment-of-sailors1.jpg (193KB, 600x243px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x243px

>>78416745
>tfw I woke up one day in 1812 on Her Majesty's Royal Navy
>but I didn't want to be there, so my country started a war over it
>instead of rescuing me, my country invaded Canada and said "we'll get you later"

>>78420915

Cool.

But then still, not enough for "pressure" on talks.

>>78421099

I'm not the OP, but carriers do provide some level of diplomatic leverage.

File: hms queen elizabeth enters portsmouth.jpg (248KB, 2047x1124px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 2047x1124px

>>78413493
BIG

>>78421346
just park it next to hamburg while the talks are going on. we'll get a decent deal

>>78420652
Spends most of its time in dry dock servicing its nuclear plant, and during that time they don't have another one to replace it. Meanwhile the UK will have two very large carriers, meaning one will continuously be at sea while costing less to operate and maintain.

File: hms queen elizabeth enters portsmouth5.jpg (871KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 2000x1333px

Some nice shots tbqh.

>>78413512
>>78413651
>>78413630
Good read on why they decided not to go for nuclear power.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/

File: 1452135812.png (99KB, 723x608px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 723x608px

>>78413493
What's the point of this ship?

File: portsmouth ships.jpg (389KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 2048x1152px

>>78421725

File: 1502064969291.png (452KB, 687x855px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 687x855px

>>78422203
really wish we had somewhere nice to put our ships. portsmouth is a shithole
t. lives near portsmouth

File: hms queen elizabeth enters portsmouth2.jpg (664KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 2048x1365px

>>78422175
Banter.

File: Royal_Navy_Destroyer_HMS_Defender_(D36).jpg (2MB, 2722x1798px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2722x1798px

order more pls
[spoiler]yes I know why militarily we don't need any more D class and the new GCS are supposed to be bought instead but there's literally no guarentee given that we'll get the contract because of you jewish fucks[/spoiler]

>>78424638

I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.

File: HMS_Defender_Returning_to_Portsmouth_MOD_45158248.jpg (590KB, 3000x1920px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 3000x1920px

>>78425716
BUY THE FUCKING SHIPS YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO BUY
I know you're fucking buying some type 26 GCS' but not as many as you said you were
and that's on top of cancelling the type 45's
fucking give me the jobs

>>78424638
you work in shipyards m8?

Those are pretty sexy ships desu

>>78425887

Not the government m8

If was in charge the RN would have 32 warships as defined in SDSR98. Besides, you can thank Iraq and Afgan for fucking the budgets.

File: alien wheat meme.jpg (166KB, 1500x1291px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1500x1291px

>>78421551
>>78421725
Gorgeous

>>78422175
>What's the point of this ship?

>have fighter jets in place A
>need them in place B for a
>surface of Earth is mostly covered in water
>require a device to CARRY the AIRCRAFT from A to B
Hmmm... really makes you think...

>>78426603
>need them in place B for a
..while

File: RN_Flotilla_45154692.jpg (2MB, 3000x1912px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1912px

>>78426121
No, just an enthusiast. I care about our navy and the few skilled engineering jobs we have left.

>>78413493
>two towers
this isnt lord of the rings you twats
>A
>FOOKIN
>RAMP

File: hm.jpg (29KB, 422x750px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 422x750px

>>78420652
>out of service for 18 months when it needs refuelling (which it does despite being nuclear)
>carries fewer aircraft, launches them more slowly
>aircraft it does carry are not even 5th gen
>costs so much money that they can't afford to build a replacement
>only one carrier, so if it gets damaged or if it's being refuelled/serviced, they have nothing to project air power

Yeah, no, I'll take the 2 big carriers with the ramps and the 19,000km range which can be refuelled at sea anyway, pls

File: 0_1186be_645687c1_orig.jpg (284KB, 1000x798px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1000x798px

>brits think they will rule the waves
hah no

>>78429469
You should have used the "um, no, sweetie" meme rather than just "hah no".

>>78429469

I do hope you know that won't be built. There's not a chance that Project 23000E and the Lider-class will happen under the current budgets.

The sub fleet will continue to get the lion share of the navy budget.

Why don't more aircraft carriers have ramps?

Seems to me like it's a good design with no real downsides to it.

>>78413493
Tfw grandpa buys a new car and thinks he's a young man again. You ran away from that nice german nursing home can you atleast have the decency to die?

>>78429685
why are totalitarian countries always so obsessed with submarines?

Are submarines the tacticool of navy warfare?

>>78429940
They're cost effective.

>>78422175
Germans make me fucking sick.

>>78429940
Shaped like big cocks.

>>78429769

Having a ramp is generally for non-CATOBAR carriers.

>>78429940

They provide good bang-for-buck. Even the shittiest Nork mini-submarine can provide a threat to a CBG.

File: STOVL and CATOBAR.jpg (80KB, 960x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x568px

>>78429769
>Why don't more aircraft carriers have ramps?
Almost all of them do outside the US

>Seems to me like it's a good design with no real downsides to it.
Only downside is increased cost + fewer different types of aircraft can be launched. Since the USA builds lots of aircraft carriers they get economies of scale, and have a much larger budget anyway. If you have the budget you'd go for catapults

The British aircraft carriers are actually designed to have catapults installed if we have the budget in the future. There is space underneath the deck for an EMALS system and BAE have a British-specific design on the backburner.

>>78429940
Submarines are what you use to sink enemy ships and launch nuclear missiles. In terms of controlling the seas, or at minimum defending your own coast, they're more important than all the other boats.

>>78429853
You're just memeing but lots of people have this view of Britain that we should just stop trying to do stuff, including lots of British people. Really rustles my jimmies, as they say.

File: hms queen elizabeth portsmouth-66.jpg (324KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1920x1080px

>>78426603
>Gorgeous

I thought so too.

File: operation saxon warrior-76.jpg (533KB, 2048x1003px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 2048x1003px

>>78413651
Allies are not for bullying.

>>78427013
It has two towers because of the engine layout and creates better airflow compared to one giant tower. It also means the navigation tower is better at navigating, and the flight control tower is better at controlling the planes from where it is too.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/

>>78422175
Merchant shipping throughout Europe still heavily depends on the Royal Navy since you refuse to pay for (or even just use) your own.

>>78426121
We definitely need more than the 6 (six) we've currently got.

>>78432143

The fleet is going to shrink further. We could actually be looking at losing another one or two Type 23s post mini-SDSR.

File: European sustainment fleet RFA5.jpg (30KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x463px

>>78432339
In the long run the frigate fleet won't drastically be reduced with the 8 Type 26 and 6 Type 31.13 frigates isn't enough regardless. We won't be short of auxiliary fleet tonnage at least.

>>78425887
If you're talking about the Scottish shipyard that will be building them, they'll be getting 6 Type 31's on top of the 8 Type 26 so there isn't a reduction in work.

>>78432534

Only if the build schedule for the Type 31 is built concurrently with the Type 26 or the Type 26 gets accelerated.

>>78432697
Yeah, that's great, except we were promised thirteen(13) type 26's to be built
except now we only have the contracts for three(3) and NO GUARANTEE PAST THE WORD OF THE MAN WHO HAS ALREADY CUT EVERY OTHER CONTRACT that we will even get to build the rest of them
they're not going to fucking even start negotiations on the contract for the next five(5) until 2020
which as you may have noticed, doesn't bring us to the thirteen ship figure we were promised
It's not only possible, it's LIKELY that we'll either get paid less for the next five, or we won't build all of it, or we won't built it at all, if they can get it cheaper elsewhere
fuck off you utter cuntwagon
http://archive.is/H170M
show me where I can find any concrete proof past the word of a known liar that we'll even be allowed to toil over those ships

>>78432873
>contract for 3

That's normal, they usually contract and build ships in batches of 3. I wouldn't worry about it, the 8 and 6 will be built because the carriers need escorts.

>>78432873
>except now we only have the contracts for three(3)

You do know that these are contract in batches, right?

>>78432873
Not the anon you're replying to, but if it makes you feel better this is how it's always done for modern military purchases. Not just here, but other countries like the USA. You have a total order number but you buy one batch at a time.

File: Dolphins_escort_HMS_Ocean_MOD_45143502.jpg (2MB, 4000x2676px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2676px

>>78432938
>>78432981
>>78433018
I beg your pardon. I got rather caught up in my autistic rage that I forgot I wasn't argueing about politics, but rather just military shit. You are, of course, right, and we're probably going to see the rest of the contracts, unless shipyards outside the EU really lower their prices for some stupid reason.

I think I might have gotten a little to far onto the political side of the order
Whoosps
have the flagship as a peace offering

File: hms st albans london 2.jpg (650KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 2048x1365px

>>78433202
Of course it's also right to be angry at the current situation of the fleet. We're just in a period where politicians are thinking mostly in the short term and now most of the government's attention will be on getting Brexit done. However, there are three important points for the optimist to bear in mind.

1) Brexit means the military is more important to the government than it was, as military power is one of the areas where Britain is superior compared to other European countries. Plus Brexit heavily implies we will be more active outside of Europe, which again makes the navy more important from the UK gov's POV.

2) Defence spending at 2% GDP is roughly around 5-6% of total British government spending. This is quite a small portion of the budget. It means that in an emergency, the British government has rather a lot of money to throw at the military should it become necessary. Compare this with the Russians, who dedicate a big chunk of their peacetime government spending to the military just to modernise their stuff and tread water.

3) We're continuing to establish new overseas military bases, even East of Suez, which means that strategically the UK government means to maintain a force sufficiently strong to operate globally.

The above is not to excuse the sorry state of affairs we're in today. It's nothing short of criminal to allow numbers to fall this low. But we're not out of it yet, in my opinion.

>>78433202

Pardon given.

>>78433623

Good post and I'd echo my own opinion with yours.

There's lots to be excited for, however there's those that need to be addressed. The very well respected blogger Sir Humphrey, puts it quite rightly. Spam filter is not letting me post the link reeee.

>>78433623
>>78434085

Tried to link it again - wouldn't have any of it. Just google search 'Thin Pinstriped Line'.

File: USS TR.jpg (2MB, 999x9495px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 999x9495px

>>78431682
Damn that looks aesthetic desu

>>78413493
When will we get to see father and son buttblasting mudslimes and lefties with airstrikes together?

Has anyone ever been on the Intrepid? I might go there in 3 weeks.

File: operation saxon warrior-3.jpg (722KB, 2047x1248px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 2047x1248px

>>78434239
The recent Operation Saxon Warrior looked like fun tbqh.

>>78434394

I have!

It's worth making sure you go when it is off peak hours so you don't have to deal with all the fucking normieshitters.

>>78434456
Alright, I only have the weekend left, so Saturday morning it is, then.

>>78434615

Take a walk on the High Line yet?

>>78434817
It's on the schedule.

File: 1502537444346.jpg (652KB, 2048x1556px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 2048x1556px

Why doesn't Bong shipyards just sell older design if they lack orders?
French, German, S. Korean and Chinese shipyard seems to be doing just fine.

>>78413493
>nominal

;^)

>>78435206
Damn, Chinese really are catching up fast.

tfw no Iron Duke

>>78431772
norway stronk

File: HMS Victory5.jpg (2MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2048px

>>78422203
Based Victory.

>>78418511
>Success breeds obsession
Tell me about it.

>>78436723
Yep, in 30 years they'll have mastered late 2000s technology.