U.S. Navy's new $13B aircraft carrier can't fight

fuck off libcuck, america uber alles, we can cuck your girlfriend anytime we want and you'll like it. all other countries don't have a right to live.

No shit.

It isn't even commissioned yet.

File: wetlock.jpg (219KB, 1263x1280px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1263x1280px

>>30776041
Cutting edge military technology has delays and requires extra funding, SHOCKING NEWS!

>>30776041
>makes a thread about the ship not working, even though that's the reason for trials and shakedowns
In all seriousness, yes it has issues, but so did literally every other first ship in her class. The Enterprise had the same teething issues.

>>30776041

At least did not lose the propeller in the maiden voyage like ohters.

>>30776176
13 billion dollars though.

>tfw you're old enough to remember the media saying the same shit about Nimitz class carriers

>>30776222

Your point?

>>30776071
>cuck your girlfriend

So you'll fuck HIM? Iean, this is /k/, not sure what I expected...

>>30776071
>we can cuck your girlfriend anytime we want

That would mean you were having sex with the man, assuming a hetero relationship.

>Americans in charge of having good English

>>30776237
>UK in charge of having a proper carrier

>>30776259
Swing and a miss, burgerbro

File: boom.gif (1MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x197px

>>30776222
Yes you should have given it all to single mothers and niggers instead, far more productive.

>>30776265
>Some filthy, muslim infested Eurocuck in charge of having a proper military?

>>30776232
>tfw only old enough to remember them saying the same shit about the F-16 and F-18

>>30776237
Nah m8 we just know how faggy you foreigners are and being the nice guys we are, we want you to get some enjoyment out of the process as well.

It's up to 13 billion now?

We could buy 4 QEs for that.

>>30776317
Brojob! Brojob! Brojob!

>>30776297
Well shit anon, you've used up your guesses on the only two places you know geographically exist and you're still off.

Shame.

File: highlander.jpg (69KB, 520x768px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 520x768px

>>30776343
QEs are garbage.

>>30776233
That money could have gone to the educational system...
>>30776278
Well no but I think there are better uses of tax dollars were already the most advanced military in the world.

>>30776394
>Tripshitter
>this shit tier bait

confirmed canadian

>not scheduled to have its first launch/landing until later this year
>can't fight yet

No shit Sherlock.

>>30776129

Serious question I only understand the difference between warlocks and sorcerers thanks to WoW, but in actual english language how do you know if he's a warlock, a magician, a sorcerer, or a fucking shaman?

And how does one get such a title? Not by being the creme de la creme it seems. poor fucktard.

>>30776516
Warlocks deal in dark magics, think male witch. Magician is the broad term that encompasses pretty much any magic user including the real "magic" such as card tricks, stagecraft, etc. A sorcerer is a really fucking powerful magician. Shaman are tribal, kinda sorta similar to druids, dealing with nature and animal spirits, rain gods, stuff of that business.

>>30776394

Enjoy your shitposting career trippshitter while it lasts, you kind never last for any amount of time.

>>30776343

You could get six actually, if you take away the contract renegotiation.

>>30776394
>13 billion for something that will be in constant use for 50 years

>>30776278
What if they just left the $13 billion dollars with whichever citizens it came from? More ammo for us.

>>30776558
(You) sure seem to crave attention

>>30776561
Engineering scholarships
Engineers design a better battleship

Yeah maybe.

>>30776549

So it's implied that this fucktard is gifted with dark powers? And he used those to predict that Trump won't pass?

I don't give shit about the results, but if they're all this fucktarded on the other side of the Rio Grande you shouldn't build a wall but a giantmeat grinder and use the meat to feed more usefull animals.

IMHO

Thanks for the answer anyway

>>30776589

No, I'm pointing that shitposters have come before you and they will continue to come long after you've stopped posting.

>>30776041
>"Said the most expensive warship in history continues to struggle launching and recovering aircraft, moving onboard munitions, conducting air traffic control and with ship self-defense"

God damn, why they just stay with the Nimitz-class?

Now they created a ship that cant launch planes and load ammo or suplies.

Obama Administration sure is the worst in the world

File: f35carrierlanding.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>30776570
Because you need replacement carriers.

>>30776589
oh no, you're the battleship guy huh? At least you're not the Karambit guy who likes Starship troopers. Answer me this: How will this battleship engage an destroy a carrier from over 350 miles away?

>>30776623

It looks so easy. But as a GTA 5 Hydra pilot (virtual but realistic copy of the Harrier) let me tell you, it isn't.
Years of training right here.

>>30776747
I miss PT boat guy, his perseverance was endearing.
Karambit guy is just an edgy fuck

>something new doesnt instantly work without problems
STOP THE PRESSES!

>>30777051

Usually if something doesn't work you can just buy a new one.

You can't just buy a new aircraft carrier.

>>30776606you
So?
>>30776747
Diplomacy?

>>30776278
I'll say it
Fuck you for that gif.
Fuck you.

>>30776041
oy vey

>>30776041
You did this same thread like a week ago Mr. Russian. Sorry if the USN's tonnage is 10x greater than yours.

File: 143147p4vy6lhszqs9vuas.jpg (252KB, 1417x902px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1417x902px

Nice, China could build 10 Type 001A class Carriers for that price.

File: Dessert Eagle.jpg (440KB, 750x1096px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 750x1096px

>>30777777
Sexts checked.

>>30776041
Gave billions to the navy when the army and Marines are the ones fighting the current war

>>30777777

Your quads cannot hide the Type 001A terrible soviet design.

>>30777777
With what aircraft to put on it? Serious question

They gambled that the problems with the launch and recovery systems would be software related.

They're not.

>>30778021

Nothing wrong with the launch system, sir memer.

>>30776071

your tardrage made me laugh. thank you sir

File: [Rice intensifies].jpg (836KB, 3104x2160px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 3104x2160px

>>30777777
>777777
CHINA STRONK CONFIRMED
AMERICLAPS LITERALLY ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>30777777
Using a soviet era design, pot metal, and with what aircraft?

>>30776041
It's OK. Motherships can have troubles. They have a lot of innovative stuff there.
>>30778169
This design works. J-15s are in serial production. Type 001 class is enough to provide China long hand in their seas in Asia\Pacific region.

>>30778282
>This design works.

A flat top cargo ship "works".

The issue is whats the best bang for your tonnage bucks.

>>30778282
>This design works.

Yeah, I hope they got the Tug schematics in the bundle deal

>>30778395
>A flat top cargo ship "works".
Yep, they called it "Queen Elizabeth", added ramp and now are waiting for planes. Carrier as a general idea is a very simple. Ford, in other hand, use really advanced tech to improve overall efficiency. US can spend so much money for little improvement, other countries can not. In other hand, US need to be in every ocean and they need to be as good as they can. US need to be best in the world. China needs to protect its own seas and sea routes. China does not need to be best in the world, China needs to be better than China's Asian neighbours.

>>30778536
Pretty shitty bait.

>>30778013
>>30778169
>MUH AMERICAN SUPREMACY

Im not even Chinese but stop being so dense motherfucker.

>If it's not murrican it's trash logic

Day time /k/ is hard sometimes.

>>30778645
>If it's not murrican it's trash logic

Its a design so old it literally existed in the SOVIET Navy, and even then it was mediocre.

Fuck off. Nothing to do with nationalism, its just a shitty carrier.

>>30778666
Nice trips

Also why it's shit?

Like the new American Carrier?
A Carrier that can even load ammo properly?


Like i said early in the thread, why they just dont build more Nimitz?

>>30778666
>shitty carrier.
It was shitty, because it had misslies. It was fixed. it is not nuclear, that's worst thing about it, but again - Chinese do not have troubles with that, because they are gonna operate near their own bases. And Engines can be changed, so this thing can be fixed too. Now, only UK, China and US build new carriers. India and Russia are on stage of R&D and do not counts. Obviously, that UK and China can not be better than US in carrier building, so it's about CH vs UK. And, honestly, UK has shittiest possible project.

>>30778753
You can't just swap out a deisel engine for a nuclear one. Reactors are not even close to moduluar, and the ship needs to be built around them.

>>30778536
>Yep, they called it "Queen Elizabeth", added ramp and now are waiting for planes.

*clap clap clap*

>>30776041
Sure it is, Pierre Sprey

>>30776394
The US spends vastly more money than most developed countries per student to virtually no effect

>>30778695
>Also why it's shit?

Because it was never actually designed to be a dedicated carrier in the first place. It was a missile cruiser that just happened to carry planes so its basic design is not optimized for flight ops at all.

>Like i said early in the thread, why they just dont build more Nimitz?

Why don't we just build more Shermans or P-51s?

So the ameritards' brand new carrier isn't fit for purpose, and so what do they do? Why, they just start slagging off every other country's naval projects hoping to deflect from the fact there overpriced POS is nothing more than a floating hunk of metal, and a broken floating hunk of metal at that..

>>30779378
>Construction 98% complete.
>Testing 88% complete.

Somebody is just buttmad they don't have any carriers.

>>30776352
>Well shit anon, you've used up your guesses on the only two places you know geographically exist and you're still off.
>Shame.
You wouldn't ask an ant its' life story before stepping on it

File: f_c2RlbGFub3VuYXMucnUvdXBsb2Fkcy84LzUvODUwMTQ2NzA1NDI4Nl9vcmlnLmpwZWc_X19pZD03OTYwMA==[1].jpg (88KB, 507x774px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 507x774px

>>30779278
>You can't just swap out a deisel engine for a nuclear one
That's what Russians intend to do in future with their Kuznetsov. And I really don't know, what engine is planned for new Chinese carrier, maybe they did change project for nuclear.
Actually, new Russian reactor RITM-200 is close to "modular" as possible. Everything is inside - generators, pumps, e.t.c.

>>30779278
>Diesel

Wew lad

>>30776041
Project management was shit.
The Navy failed to follow the guidelines for procurement in order to get numbers - low budget numbers and fast delivery times - that looked good on paper years ago. Turns out that those guidelines exist for a reason and not following them creates cost overruns and delays, of course when a project goes on for more then 15 years it is hard to hold people accountable as they have already retired or moved to different positions.

>>30777007
>PT Boat Guy
There is a good story in here, I can tell!

For anyone actually interested in what the 'issue' with the Ford is, the trap system had to be redesigned several years ago which pushed back the overall schedule.

File: 1458002517650.jpg (351KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1200x900px

>>30779278
>You can't just swap out a deisel engine for a nuclear one

Almost the same way with swapping out one diesel engine to another diesel engine.

>Reactors are not even close to moduluar

Neither are diesel engines, except for their auxiliary systems, which are also modular on reactors.

>and the ship needs to be built around them.

Guess what, ships are so close in terms of machine systems to those on nuclear power plants that navy engineers are competent enough in the area to work on both diesel ships and on power plants when they graduate from school.

The only thing a regular ship lacks for installing a nuclear reactor (apart from the adequate space needed for it and safety related equipment etc) is radioactive shielding. It is complicated and has a lot of details but at the end of the day it is as simple as dry docking a ship, open her hull up, remake the designated interior area to accommodate all the shit that is needed, put in reactor and its auxilliary systems etc, patch it up and sail out. And also, if the propulsion is diesel mechanic it will get a bit more busy since ideally you would want to use the nuclear power for propulsion which means you would have to replace the old main engines with electric motors wired up to the nuclear power plant.

>>30778695

>Like i said early in the thread, why they just dont build more Nimitz?

Operational costs. The Ford is basically a Nimitz redesigned to have better power output, faster launch and recovery, and a smaller crew.

Plus, the $13B it cost to make includes the design costs, which will be amortized across all ships of the class that are eventually built.

File: 1399706502740.jpg (50KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1280x720px

>>30781222
I have no fucking idea what I am talking about the post.

>>30781693
actually I am the one operating said nuclear power plants

>>30781222

> it is as simple as dry docking a ship, open her hull up, remake the designated interior area to accommodate all the shit that is needed, put in reactor and its auxilliary systems etc, patch it up and sail out. And also, if the propulsion is diesel mechanic it will get a bit more busy since ideally you would want to use the nuclear power for propulsion which means you would have to replace the old main engines with electric motors wired up to the nuclear power plant

> as simple as

> simple

so not simple at all then?

>>30776129
Is this post supposed to make the 3 year delay better?

>>30778013
>terrible Soviet design

In what way is it terrible?

>>30778014
The ones they are putting on it.

>>30778044
Nice bait

EMALs is clearly listed in the "too many critical failures" column in the article.

>>30778169
The Nimitz is from a 1966 design.

>>30778451
Liaoning just sailed east of Taiwan without any tugs.

>>30778666
The design of the 001 is not the same as the Soviet design.
Also, it is a 1980's design. The Nimitz is from 1966 designs.

>>30783526
>In what way is it terrible?

Notorious for breaking down at sea.

>EMALs is clearly listed in the "too many critical failures" column in the article.

https://youtu.be/twBYXUQLZKk?t=15m57s

>The Nimitz is from a 1966 design.

And yet is still better than what is in Chinese shipyards right now, really makes you think.

>>30777993
>Gave billions to the navy when the army and Marines are the ones fighting the current war

The current war doesn't need much money to fight. Perfect time to give the Navy the billions it needs to stay one step ahead of the next war.

Serious question--why does it seem like so many of these big budget projects end up over budget and/or behind schedule?

I understand that in many cases the problem has something to do with new and experimental technologies encountering unforeseen difficulties in being developed to a standard appropriate for military use, which is forgivable as long as the final product gets good results (the Osprey comes to mind here). But is there anything more to it than that?

Are the suits pitching this stuff to the Pentagon misrepresenting/outright lying about their bids + what they can do with them? Are the consequences for failure or underperforming not as strictly enforced as they are in most corporate settings when it comes to defense contractors due to them being in bed with the government? Is there a great deal of blatant fraud/waste/corruption going on? Are there other factors I haven't considered?

>>30783963
Because they had unrealistic schedules to begin with. The Ford's schedule was based on the last Nimitz construction timeline, how fucking idiotic is that?

>>30776394
As anyone who has actually graduated from a public high school in the United States can tell you, the problems with the educational system in the United States don't have to do with money.

In fact, there have been a number of high profile cases where impoverished and underperforming school districts suddenly started receiving tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in grants every year, with the expectation that this would produce better test scores, GPAs, rate of graduation, etc. Every single one of these cases was a failure, and some were particularly massive failures. This one comes to mind:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

The real source of the problem is at least twofold. On the on hand, the majority of students in America have no interest in learning and do not appreciate the opportunities they have been given.

On the other hand, the curriculum lacks rigor because schools are afraid of the consequences of failing students, even the ones who deserve it. Making things too easy, as is currently the case, just results in no one actually learning anything even if he/she wants to and nearly everyone produced by such a system being mediocre or outright terrible due to never having been seriously challenged or tested in the first place. One of the other threads that's up right now about Ranger School is very relevant to this.

>>30783963
>why does it seem like so many of these big budget projects end up over budget and/or behind schedule?

Because it isn't realistic to expect an accurate estimate at the start of decade long projects, but the estimates still have to be made.

>>30781289
>>Plus, the $13B it cost to make includes the design costs
Except it doesn't.


>Research and development cost: $5,059,100,000
>Program unit cost: $12,182,648,000
>Total quantities: 3

>Lead ship procurement costs grew by almost 23 percent from $10.5 billion to $12.9 billion–the limit of the current legislated cost cap. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 reduced the CVN 79 cost cap to $11.4 billion.

>The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Congressional Budget Office expect CVN 79 to surpass the earlier statutory cost cap of $11.5 billion by at least $235 million. The Navy asserts it will meet CVN 79's cost cap, but
assumes unprecedented efficiency gains in construction


At the best the next two ships come in at the projected $11.5 billion each and give a final unit cost of $12 billion.

>>30783540
>Liaoning just sailed east of Taiwan without any tugs.

The fucking madmen

>>30776041
see, when you copy tech, you can bypass all the growing pains.
when you develop new stuff, there's going to be problems and issues to iron out.

Something China doesn't really have much knowledge in.

>>30778451
>>30783803
>M-muh tug meme...
So when exactly did this happen except for that one time in 2012, four years ago?

>>30785480
Russian designed carriers have problems and for large stretches of time where not allowed to leave port without a tug.

>>30785261
Actual teacher here

No and the other guy has a better idea of the issue. I wrote my thesis on the cultural deficit that the country is going through and how it impacts education and a whole bunch of other factors. Also, regarding the issue of federal spending on education, it's a double edged sword because while schools and education programs are indeed grossly underfunded, it also puts too much federal influence into the mix which threatens state rights to self determine education. Throw in some bullshit educational doctrine and this is why the country isn't doing that great

>>30785678
>M-muh tug meme...
So when exactly did this happen except for that one time in 2012, four years ago?

File: mistral.png (179KB, 750x1830px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 750x1830px

>>30776222
Its going to be able to make jet fuel from seawater.

>>30785817
Did russia end up loseing the minstrel?

File: ka52.jpg (38KB, 620x395px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x395px

>>30785845
Yeah, they were both sold to Egypt instead.

>>30785863
Brutal.

>>30785817
No shit. Link? I browsed the wiki, didnt see meantion of it.

>>30785906
They got their money back and now are building Ka-52K helicopters for Egypt.

>>30786107
so the russians spared their money on those useless ships and now can make money to make the helicopters?

Good for them

>>30786107
They got their money back, but lost the actual ship. All that time, gone.

Now, they have to sell the helis they WERE going to put on it to the Egyptians.

Brutal, as, fuck.

>>30786146
>All that time, gone.
Technology transfer.

>>30786163
The tech did not actually transfer because the russians just built the hull.

>>30786194
That's where the technology transfer occurred.

>>30786201
Are you saying russians needed french help to build an empty hull?

>>30786146
>ll that time, gone
So standard operating procedure for a Russian ship yard. At least it had an end result.

File: 2014 fleet summary.jpg (701KB, 619x2048px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 619x2048px

>>30786204
No, I am saying that they got a better technology.
>>30786217
Cool story, lad.

>>30785926
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/?no-ist

>>30786146
>All that time, gone.
Yep.
> they WERE going to put on it
Navy version was required anyway. This R&D spends are not worthless.
>>30786201
Actually, now. Russians wanted French command and control systems along with some radar tech. Mistral build in standards, not allowed in Russian military. Survivability e.t.c. Now few design bureaus making their own projects for MOD contract.

>>30786256
>Actually, not.

>>30786240
>Cool story, lad.
How many of those ships and boats in the picture are on track? How many should of been commissioned by not? Let alone last decade.

>>30776041
>What Went Wrong?

No ramp.

>>30778753
>UK has shittiest possible project.
QE class BTFOs chinkshit carriers. The Chinese still rely on 4th generation aircraft for their naval aviation, QE is getting the F-35. Add to that the almost-certainly superior radar on the QE, the Type-45s as escort and the fact that the QE is close to completion whereas the Chinese are still in the midst of construction - the """threat""" from a carrier fielding what are effectively Su-33/Su-30s and a few indigenous 4.5th gen aircraft is pretty much null

>>30786273
>QE is getting the F-35.
1 - getting is not got.
2 - shittiest F-35 of all.
>superior radar
Radar on carrier, lol. What AWACS plane will EQ get?

>>30786256
>Actually, no
Must be the reason Russia specifically requested the hulls to be at least partially constructed in Russia while also specifically pointing out the ships will be fully equipped with Russian systems.
>>30786263
Blue cross is for commissioned, green is for launched, yellow is for laid down, gray is for frozen.

>>30786291
What AWACs plane will the Liaoning clones yet?

>Its not ready yet!

Neither are theirs? Kind of an asinine point regardless

File: wrong.jpg (42KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x400px

>>30786273
Can the T45 actually operate without breaking down now?

Saying the threat is "null" is hilarious, Carrier radar? You have no idea what you're talking about.

File: 1348562933_23698.jpg (75KB, 900x599px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 900x599px

>>30786273
kek.

The Liaoning with its four Type 346 Dragon Eye AESA radars already features better radars than the two rotating vintage radars of the QE.

And the F-35 is trash. Everyone knows it.

A J-15 will always beat a F-35, that is just as unstealthy on the IR spectrum. And IR-wise, the Chinese aircraft FLIR could detect a B-2 bomber at 150km.

>>30786240
All they got was a design for an empty hull. All the outfitting was done in France.

They didnt even get the empty hull for fucks sake.

File: e-2c & yak-44e & an-71.jpg (84KB, 945x820px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 945x820px

>>30786296
>What AWACs plane will the Liaoning clones yet?
Probably some shitty copycat of Yak-44 or E-2.

>>30776041
>What Went Wrong?

It's a trend. It would have been surprising if it didn't go wrong.

>>30786291
>1 - getting is not got.
>2 - shittiest F-35 of all.
>implying

The shittiest F-35 is still miles better than anything else.

>Radar on carrier, lol. What AWACS plane will EQ get?

10 or so, each one of them can be placed on an escort for picket duty.

>>30786303

Sure.

All it requires is run both engines, which it would always do under a combat scenario.

File: 202454h581w42kxujvzj4b.jpg (2MB, 3000x2066px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2066px

>>30786273
How many planes can the QE launch with its single ramp in quick succession? Just one, because the ramp only allows for one plane to be launched at time.

How many can the Liaoning? Three. Two forward positions and one additional position at the aft with more runway length for heavier payload.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac18wj5GbNw

The Liaoning is the perfect ramp-carrier. The only advantage of the ski-jump design is that it allows for planes to be launched faster and without any delay due to the falling stream pressure of the boilers for a steam-catapult, or the capacitators of a EM-catapult. So, it makes sense for a ski-jump carrier to have as many launch-positions as possible, allowing for as many planes to take off one after another as possible.

It literally has only one job, and the QE fucked that up as well
Bravo, Britcucks!

File: Y-7AEW JZY-01.jpg (278KB, 1735x678px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1735x678px

>>30786324
Some Y-7 based E-2 lookalike.

>>30786345

This whole post is irrelevant without the actual sortie rate, what's the sortie rate (not surge) for Liaoning?

QE is 110/200.

>>30776237
That was the point you fucking retard.

>>30786311
>The Liaoning with its four Type 346 Dragon Eye AESA radars already features better radars than the two rotating vintage radars of the QE.

Proofs.

>>30786294
>Must be the reason Russia specifically requested the hulls to be at least partially constructed in Russia while also specifically pointing out the ships will be fully equipped with Russian systems.
Job places and investments. As for Russian only systems -SENIT-9 in export variant were installed. Along with SIC-21 and Vampir NG systems.
>>30786345
>The only advantage of the ski-jump design is that it allows for planes to be launched faster
One engineer told me that catapult fixes planes angle of attack due take off and that's why ramp is better in a matter of payload.

>>30786345
QE has 2 stacked runways you crazy chicom, one for a longer takeoff (just like the lingaling)

>>30786351
>E-2 lookalike

Fancy way to say clone.

>>30786374
>and that's why ramp is better in a matter of payload.

Airspeed>AOA for short takeoff with load.

Thats how you stall, friend.

>>30786381
It is clone of Soviet An-24/26.

>>30786383
Welp, I'm gonna ask about more detailed explanation about that on next expo.

File: 113302avdwxxe62676vkc8.jpg (527KB, 1600x2142px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1600x2142px

>>30786369
Sortie rate has something to do with both the launch positions and the 'free' deck space that is needed to ready the fighters, while the number of munitions lifts limit the rate at which the planes can be armed. But keep in mind that only those planes that are in the launching-positions can be armed, since they can only fully extend their wings there - not in the parking space that makes up the 'free deck', where their wings are folded.

In the latter, the QE is slightly better because it sacrifices launch-positions for deck space where the F-35s can be parked with wings folded, while in the latter, the Kutz/Liaoning is better. The Kutznesov's three launching positions would allow the three planes in those positions to be armed with weapons (it has six munitions elevators - four between the two forward positions, and two near the parking space and the island).

In the end, the sortie rate should be similiar, as the QE would have the F-35s with wing extended lining up behind the single launch position, allowing all of them to be armed simultaniously, but having to wait for the launch position to be cleared. while the Kutz/Liaoning can arm three simultaniously, launch them, and have another three to undergo the same procedure of arresting them into the launch positions, arm them etc.

>>30786402

Whilst I thank you for your analysis, I want an actual number that I can verify.

File: iwt1s1.jpg (283KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x800px

>>30786383
Lift >>> Airspeed.

Holy hell, airspeed is for lift in the first place.

And the Ski-Jump carriers can generate a lot of lift by sailing fast and having wind over deck.

At already 20 knots wind over deck, the payload of a J-15/Su-33 can already approach the 32 tons MTOW of these planes.

Chinese have already tested it. By sailing 25knots, they could take off with 30 tons of payload and fuel, which is basically 90% of the J-15's MTOW.

File: wind over deck and payload at 110m forward launch position.jpg (171KB, 1100x752px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1100x752px

>>30786416
Oops, wrong chart.

This one is it.

For the 110m position (two forward launch points) and the headwind in knots with max tonnage of payload.

As one can see, it is even possible to launch a J-15 with a payload of 32.8tons (MTOW) with 18 knots of wind over deck already, but it would drop down and approach the dangerous altitude line and maybe hit by waves and shit, before it can generate enough lift to take off again.

>>30779398
Sickest of burns.

>>30786345
How long would it take for the dingaling to launch more than an understrength CAP? Considering it has no deck space to park ready craft for successive launches and only one elevator to move aircraft from the hanger to the deck, it would take quite a while to get a full squadron up.

>>30786447
a Nimitz goes +30 knots

>>30786484
???

>>30786474
>only one elevator

It has two elevators, three positions to arm the jets and up to 18 'parking lots' to fuel and ready the planes.

In CMANO, which actually has a realistic simulation of Air-Ops including deck-space, elevators, launching points and ready time, a CAP flight of six planes planes takes 30 seconds, assuming that they have been armed before. Taking another six pre-armed fighters out from the parking lot on deck and ready them takes another 2 minutes.

A flight of 12 J-15s in less than 3 minutes is pretty good, as it is already the half of the Liaoning's airwing.

>>30786484
Sure, but it doesnt need to go that fast, as the catapult is already doing the job of generating lift for the planes.

File: 11435_foto_2013_02[1].jpg (473KB, 1417x1000px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 1417x1000px

>>30786474
>Considering it has no deck space to park ready craft for successive launches
It's deck square are not smaller than QE and QE has strange launch positions. We will be able to see Kuznetsov performance with it's new MiGs in Syria in a few month.

File: 1464052828089.png (30KB, 1494x781px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1494x781px

>>30786511
>In CMANO

AND THERE IT IS PEOPLE~

THE SCENARIO STANDS~

>>30786525
>are not much smaller

File: QWmfimw.jpg (404KB, 2200x1464px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 2200x1464px

>>30786402
>Sortie rate has something to do with both the launch positions and the 'free' deck space that is needed to ready the fighters, while the number of munitions lifts limit the rate at which the planes can be armed. But keep in mind that only those planes that are in the launching-positions can be armed, since they can only fully extend their wings there - not in the parking space that makes up the 'free deck', where their wings are folded.

Chinese are already pre-arming their fighters in the hangar and bringing them on deck with the loaded wings folded. These absolute madmen.

In the end, the only limitation to their sortie rate is the rate at which the three launching positions can be cleared and three new fighter jets can be arrested there.

>>30786539
Wew lad.

They gunna learn why you dont do this. Matter of time.

File: 1372852306_13192.jpg (83KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x576px

>>30786539
With six or so of the airwing parked on deck, there is enough space in the hangar to have at least two J-15s to extend their wings while standing on the "turntable" infront of each elevator. There, they can be armed and readied, with the pilot already inside.

All that's left to do is to fold the wings, turn the plane around, drag it on the elevator and lift it up.

>>30786552

And why don't you do this?

>>30786411
>chicom
>actually backing up baseless claims

>>30786311
>>30786345
>>30786525
Sorry, China. Even our cheapo ramp carriers with all their budget constraints and shitty contract management are better than what you can come up with. Maybe you can try this carrier lark again once you can design an escalator that doesn't eat people.

File: YSfYm4E.jpg (740KB, 1200x770px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 1200x770px

>>30786557
And with fewer planes on deck, arming on the "parking lot" is also possible. There are two munitions lifts near the parking space for a reason.

>>30786559
How many carrier based airstrikes has China launched in the past decade?

>>30786557

How do you even acquire this information? I mean seriously, are some sort of intel puke or actually chitcom? Because I'm believing the latter.

File: 093924w6e6oy3a3eqheihv.jpg (87KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x683px

>>30786574
In the end, the question of arming the planes is pretty stupid, as it is assumed that the first six planes of a CAP-flight that are on Highest Alert always are pre-armed and either on or near their launching points.

>>30786324
Off of a ramp?

>>30786581
No language barrier for you opens up the big big world of open source informations.

Secrecy only is for people who cant into languages.

File: matrix_archtect.gif (47KB, 408x410px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 408x410px

>>30776041

>>30786596

No, I think this goes a little beyond just knowing the language. I do appreciate you bring information across though.

>>30786558
Pylon failure/human error means a missle/bomb is going to experiance a 20 foot drop, which expontionally increases everyones chance of having a very bad time.

>>30786666
l-lewd.

>>30786552
Why its stupid?

File: 1461368311718.jpg (205KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 640x425px

>>30776844
A. GTAs flight model is total and absolute dogshit.
B. Most non-simulation flight models are total and absolute dogshit
C. One of the most accurate civilian flight model comes from DCS world, and I've been playing it for about 4 years
D. Carrier landings are easy as fuck, you hit that wire and you're solid, most of it is computer controlled and guided. You've got 4 fucking wires, how could you miss.

fuck off with your boooshit.

>>30786416
>airspeed is for lift in the first place.

Yes, and you get much more of that off of a cat than a ramp. Ramp gives you AOA and a little height so you can try to build up speed, but you wont be able to get the same amount of weight off under the same conditions.

>b...but with wind over the deck...

1) That assumes nature is playing along. Prevailing winds can fuck that right up, and in a storm (or hell, just high sea state and windy conditions) this will be even worse. In a perfect world you can get a J-15 to approach what a F-18 to can do no matter what the weather conditions are(and not in payload, in MTOW, the super bug will carry more)

2) Yes, at full AB a .83 T/W fighter might be able to make it work in perfect conditions. The point of cats is to get other airframes in the air.

You wont get a prop awacs with .19~ hp to pound to do it.

>>30786778
OK, so what is usual payload of F-16 or F-18 with catapult take off?

>>30786836
F-16 isn't carrier capable

>>30786882
OK, F-18 then

>>30786836
Well, for one the F-16 is a land fighter.

The Super hornet can take off at MTOW with 0 wind over the deck (+/- 5 knots)

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3489&context=utk_gradthes

>>30786926
>MTOW
Problem, that his MTOW is not all weapon, as far as I know, this plane does not take off from carrier without external fuel tanks. And this situation creates misunderstandings, so that's why question is about payload options - missiles, fuel tanks, e.t.c.

>>30786939

The Super Bug can carry 2 tons more in weapons than the J-15/Su-33, so that point is also moot.

File: F-18E version 01.png (2MB, 2400x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1200px

>>30786952
>The Super Bug can carry 2 tons more in weapons than the J-15/Su-33, so that point is also moot.
As I see in >>30786926
document, max. take off weight is made by adding 3 EFT. There was only 2.8 tones of weapon. I think, that if we count mission payloads like missiles, and fuel tanks e.t.c., then Su-33/J-15 can be somewhere better.

>>30787256
>document, max. take off weight is made by adding 3 EFT.

And? You can put 2k more tons of payload on the pylons of the F-18 than the Su-33/J-15.

Its pretty simple anon.

File: kl220x8ZbBs.jpg (36KB, 552x662px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 552x662px

>>30787356
Welp, pure numbers can not help, when 3-5 out of your 11 pylons are under EFT and sensors when Russians/Chinese has all 12 missiles under wings. Weight of 12 missiles will be only 3.2t which is half of maximum mass they can carry on wings.

Chinks are building carriers made for fleet defense only. Why are they so proud of this?

>>30785449
>Something China doesn't really have much knowledge in.

Okay?

First of all, why remake the wheel?
Second, I disagree.

>>30787724
>Welp, pure numbers can not help, when 3-5 out of your 11 pylons are under EFT and sensors when Russians/Chinese has all 12 missiles under wings.

Sweet assumptions.

Do you want a picture of a F-18 going off the deck without drop tanks or will you accept that as a complete strawman?

File: image.jpg (188KB, 1920x779px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1920x779px

>>30786273
>the """threat""" from a carrier fielding what are effectively Su-33/Su-30s and a few indigenous 4.5th gen aircraft is pretty much null

>>30786939
The J-15/Su-33 does not carry external fuel pods.
It's internal fuel is already quite large.

>>30786402

>In the latter, the QE is slightly better because it sacrifices launch-positions for deck space where the F-35s can be parked with wings folded

Except the F-35B doesn't fold its wings, they can be armed as needs be and queued, thats what the Harriers did.

>The Kutznesov's three launching positions would allow the three planes in those positions to be armed with weapons (it has six munitions elevators - four between the two forward positions, and two near the parking space and the island).

Except its run on an ancient system. The QE has a fully robotic and automated munitions delivery system bringing the right thing to the right place without needing humans to run trolleys through decks or to elevators, only in the very last run to the planes themselves.

>In the end, the sortie rate should be similiar

You honestly believe the Kuz/Lia can manage 200 sorties a day?

You're arguing over how many each can launch in a single minute or something then trying to pass that off as the only thing that matters. It's not how many planes you can sprint off in a couple seconds, it's how many you can SUSTAIN over the course of a full day. And in that regard, the QE wipes the floor with everything that isn't a US big carrier. Even the CdG, which already slamjobs the Kuznetsov design, can only do around 100 per day.

>>30786474
Lots of misinformation in this post.

File: 2015_F35ABC_70_Wings_1267828237_1110.jpg (215KB, 1200x545px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1200x545px

>>30788225
>The QE has a fully robotic and automated munitions delivery system bringing the right thing to the right place without needing humans to run trolleys through decks or to elevators, only in the very last run to the planes themselves.

You dont have ANY evidence that the Chinese did not integrate that in their refurbishment of the Varyag.
They have removed the entire Granit VLS complex and extended the munitions hangar. And by their own words, automatization is the selling point of the Liaoning-class carriers and their successors over the original Russian design.

>Except the F-35B doesn't fold its wings, they can be armed as needs be and queued, thats what the Harriers did.

It is exactly the B variant which has folding wings - due to its bigger wing-surface.

>>30786578
How many astronauts have America, Britain, France, or Germany put in space indigenously the last 5 years?

Your question is stupid. It's idiotic to imply that somehow the Chinese are backwards because they haven't invaded and bombed countries recently via carrier.

>>30788225
>The QE has a fully robotic and automated munitions delivery system bringing the right thing to the right place without needing humans to run trolleys through decks or to elevators, only in the very last run to the planes themselves.

Proofs?

>>30788271
>It is exactly the B variant which has folding wings - due to its bigger wing-surface.

C variant is carrier with folding wings and more range.

B variant is cuckramp+small carriers with stub wings and less range.

>>30776394
>That money could have gone to the educational system
That money was already budgeted, the military gets X amount of money each fiscal year. So no, that money couldn't have gone to the educational system because it was never available to go anywhere else. Also problems with educational funding have more to do with corruption and mismanagement on the State level, since they are the ones who decide what schools get what.

>>30786778
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac18wj5GbNw

At 02:22 you see that they take off two J-15s under rough sea conditions.

>>30788271
>You dont have ANY evidence that the Chinese did not integrate that in their refurbishment of the Varyag.

You don't have any evidence that they did. You have to prove something before you can dismiss it.

>>30788329

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier#Systems

>>30788445
>At 02:22 you see that they take off two J-15s under rough sea conditions.

Yes, they are also clean as fuck.

>>30788271
bro, you dumb, look at the pic you posted. The B model is far right. No folds. The middle is the C model. Folded wings.

>>30788297
Since when is putting people in LEO a hard or major scientific achievement?

>>30788271

>You dont have ANY evidence that the Chinese did not integrate that in their refurbishment of the Varyag.

Onus is on them to prove they have such a revolutionary system.

>It is exactly the B variant which has folding wings - due to its bigger wing-surface.

You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>30788297
You didn't answer the question. None of the other things you said have to do with the topic.

It's a simple question. How many carrier sorties have they flown? If you don't like it then posting here won't help. Why don't you get a job working on the ship and actually contribute something?

>>30788906
>>It is exactly the B variant which has folding wings - due to its bigger wing-surface.
>You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Funny how a single, yet massive fuckup will forever taint whatever the anon says :p
Reminds me of the anon who was really passionate about the F-35 and Canada's future fighter selection, yet did not know that the F-35 comes in three versions.

>>30785785

Every time it gets deployed.

>>30790457
Which is like 2-3 times a decade.