Queen Lizzy Class

File: 1455620003765.gif (857KB, 286x204px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 286x204px

Is the ameritard afraid we do things cheaper than they do?

Both those carriers cost less than one Zumwalt. I'd say we did fantastically lads.

>>32272613
>cheap and nasty

Good on ya britbong

>>32272587
They're eventually going to be the second most capable carrier afloat, and the only people who are cooking anything that'll match it are, you guessed it, the USN. Also, is the rest of NATO not an overseas asset?

File: image.jpg (160KB, 851x630px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 851x630px

>>32272613

>>32273043
French is arguably more capable with their catapults but the bongs got F-35Bs so that is very nice.

I feel at this point if anyone wanted ski jump carriers they probably would need to invest in proper STOVL aircraft not trying to shove fixed wing aircraft (*cough* slavs *cough*) and claim its comparable and cheaper.

nuclear power for ships is mostly a meme

Maybe at some future point nuclear will be cheaper than hydrocarbons
but it ain't today

>>32273086
Economies of scale, bro. It helps that the USN is trying to develop fuel manufacturing capability using seawater. Using a reactor on something like a Ford class to make fuel would eliminate the requirement of an oiler for a CSG, making nuclear even more valuable for larger ships.

>>32273086
>suddenly WW3
>oh shit we suddenly need to ration fossil fuels and we're running out of our reserves

Does this scenario really not occur to anyone?

>>32273080
As I understand it the two Hawkeyes on the CdG take up about as much space as a small squadron of helicopters. Depending on what you're doing that's amother tradeoff. Realistically though, two squadrons of F-35Bs probably offsets the advantages Hawkeye offers over rotary-wing early warning.

>>32273086
maybe for a brown water navy. For a navy with force projection, nuclear is fantastic despite the large initial investment

>>32272613
>Is the ameritard afraid we do things cheaper than they do?
You get what you pay for you faggot.

File: Feature_QEC_Infographic_980x447_2.jpg (157KB, 980x447px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 980x447px

Invincible class
>7k nmi range
>22 aircraft carried
>Harriers and Sea Kings
>COGAG propulsion

Queen Elizabeth class
>10k nmi range
>50 aircraft carried
>F-35Bs and Merlins
>IEP propulsion

Looks like a straight upgrade to me.

>>32273168
You got a cucked destroyer that breaks down, crashes into shit, has less missiles than a Burke and doesn't even have ammo for its guns.

loooooooooooooooooooooool

>>32273156
Fixed wing early warning is a must. It makes the CdG much more flexible.

>>32273192
Bongs got 4 brand new destroyers with even less missiles than the Zum and all are in repair.

>>32273150
>oh shit we suddenly need to ration fossil fuels and we're running out of our reserves
funny thing is the US is probably the only country that could sustain itself no problem in this scenario. the US is using up everyone else's oil while barely using their own. and if estimates are correct the US has more oil in the ground still than the Saudis ever did.

Is this the only ship ever to be designed around a plane?

>>32274093
No it was designed on a compromise.

>has a decent carrier
>doesnt have enough surface ships to form a CSG without leaving the nation COMPLETELY defenseless
>too few auxillaries
>what surface ships they do have dont work

Bongs have nice carriers, its the rest of the Royal Navy that is its problem. Otherwise, the Lizzies are gonna be relegated to Kuznetsov status, only not breaking down.

>>32273192
Please get off this board

t. bong

>>32272587
>Outdated "ski jump" design

Why outdated? I'd say catapults are outdated because they're needed to launch aircraft with too weak engines and too heavy airframes. Make an F-18 out of polymers and carbon nano tubes or whatever and put 2 250 kn engines in it and it wil lift off without the need for a maintanance heavy catapult.

>>32275816
I've worked with carbon nano tubes, and not in a million years would that actually work.

>>32275824
Insert random light weight and super stronk material here _____

My point remains.

Thrust
Weight
Wind

Those are the things on which an aircraft lifting off from a carrier depends on, all 3 can be manipulated to some degree to make it easier.

Thrust can be increased by using better engines or rocket assisted take off
Weight can be reduced by having a lighter airframe, lighter bombs, less fuel etc
Wind can be increased by sailing into a hurricane

File: 14054936_1256940204340194_2545645766805893728_n.jpg (34KB, 600x364px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x364px

>>32275848
>Wind can be increased by sailing into a hurricane.

>>32275848
>a lighter airframe, lighter bombs, less fuel etc
That's called "less performance".
All ramp launched aircraft can be launched at higher GTOW with a catapult, thus increasing capability. Just like ski paunching increases mussion load over vertical takeoff.
With catapults you can launch aircraft like the E-2, S-3, A-5, F-14, and so on.
In fact, some like the F-14 had greater takeoff weights in terms of armament than allowed landing weights- a capability you don't have with a ramp. Fixed wing AWACS is a huge advantage in terms of capability, time on station, loiter range (which is valuable for not giving away the exact location of the carrier), less mainenance than rotary wing, and so forth. Even if future AWACS is unmanned, fixed wing is generally better.
For strike uses, greater takeoff weight is a no-brainer, particularly if you have a tanker aircraft on board- launch with maximum weapons and partial fuel, refuel from tanker, proceed to target.
Ramp based aircraft cannot take off with full A2G load or useful tanker capability.
In fact, the main USN disadvantage in the last 20 years is that they lack aircraft capable of utilizing the full potential of the cats- the A-5, S-3, F-14, A-6 have all been retired and replaced by F-18 of various models- shorter ranged, less capable, but "multipurpose". The Navy would greatly benefit from a FB-22 equivalent, with long range and large weapons capacity, capable of utilizing the full launch capacity of the cats.

>>32275932
>All ramp launched aircraft can be launched at higher GTOW

Aircraft go their own way?

>two towers

Why not also adding a replicate of the Big Ben?

>>32276021
Gross takeoff weight
And MGTOW is maximum gross takeoff weight.
There, enjoy laughing at neckbeard writings.

>>32276030
Because the big ben to always going *bong* BOng¤! too loud on ships for combat lol!haha

How fucking would it be to have a Big Ben replicate on a carrier.

If the choice was between one CATOBAR carrier, or two STOVL ones, two STOVL is the better option simply from financial sense.

Looking forward to having USMC aviation on board those ships. With the shortage of active US carriers to cover all commitments, having the QEs to help cover the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf will be an asset for the USN.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/british-naval-commander-wants-us-marine-aviation-on-aircraft-carrier

File: well.png (20KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x407px

>>32272587
Why are Brits so defensive about these carriers?

>>32276187
Why do other countries not comprehend it is a straight upgrade from what they previously had?

>>32272587
At least it isn't Russian.

>>32273080

The QE class shits so much over the CdG it's not even a competition.

- It carries almost double the aircraft (CdG maxes at 24 Rafales, 2 E-2 and helos, the QE has been confirmed by the Captain to be capable of carrying at least 45+ F-35s in addition to its helos)
- Entire wing is all 5th generation jets as opposed to 4.5th gens (Which can only carry a single ASM per plane that has a 70km range, F-35 can carry numerous better ones).
- It has double the daily sortie rate in surge conditions (200 vs 100)
- Uses automated munitions handling compared to manual
- Has vastly more effective radar systems (AESA and PESA, compared to mechanical)
- Can hit 32 knots as opposed to 27
- Doesn't require enormous 2 year refuelling periods leaving its country without any carrier period (Not a problem for the US with 10-11, but horrendous for the French)
- If it's not on station, its AEW can still operate off any ship with a flight deck, while if France doesn't have the CdG, they don't have any AEW, period.
- CdG's AEW has a >50% availability rate, with only two planes on the carrier at a time that almost guarentees there will be blindspots in rotation, Crowsnest has (due to being a modular system with 14+ Merlins on standby) an effectively 100% rate of availability as an AEW platform. So no, E-2s do not make it more flexible, they only do when you have the mass to ensure constant availability and that you will always have a carrier to launch them from, which France doesn't. It's another case of "It's fine for the US, but harder to do on the small scale."
- Has two on board simulators, as opposed to none on CdG
- The "range advantage" from CdG's catapults is not really a thing, given F-35 has a huge range advantage on combat equipped states anyway over older planes. The only longer ranged maritime plane than when combat equipped is the F-35C.
- Two carriers > One Carrier

>>32276187
There's a lot that needs defending.

They're better than what came before, but they're still not all they could be. Lots of criticism, lots of defending of what they are.

>>32272587
CANNOT WAIT UNTIL BRITISH "CARRIER" DESTROYED BY DF-21D ASBM

>>32276282

There's not a single Brit on the board who (if not baiting) would say that they couldn't have been better. If they had cats, if they'd kept Sampson instead of the (still pretty good) Artisan, if they'd chuck some CAMM on them.

But those things are all modularly still available in future, and even just what they ARE getting is still a significant raising of the bar on everyone that isn't the US. So people are still very positive.

It's a case of "They're great, they could be better, but they're still great.

But you have to always bear in mind /k/'s "If it's not literally the best at everything in its field then that means it must be complete shit" mentality.

>>32276260
-it's irrelevant what it CAN fit, because it doesn't HAVE any planes. It's currently the world's largest helicopter carrier
-entire wing is all numbers on a piece of paper, the UK doesn't own a single F35
-it has no planes to sortie with
-it has no planes to put munitions on

>post Brexit
>having the economy of supporting two carriers

File: F-35s enter UK airspace in escort (side).jpg (88KB, 2048x1199px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 2048x1199px

>>32276316

>-it's irrelevant what it CAN fit, because it doesn't HAVE any planes

They already have 4-6 planes. Flights start from the carrier in 2018. By the time it's on its first deployment in 2023, it'll have 24 of them on board that are British. (Plus some cool guys from the USMC hanging out with their own ones because ANGLOSTRONG)

All this is public knowledge and has been for years by this point, aside from the 24 number, which emerged from the SDSR2015.

>-entire wing is all numbers on a piece of paper, the UK doesn't own a single F35

Someone better tell the Brits that we've accidentally stolen some then.

File: 1480511918795.jpg (31KB, 228x250px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 228x250px

>>32276187
>People say retarded shit
>It gets corrected
>Bro why are you so defensive

File: RAF Tornado F-35.jpg (1MB, 3000x1762px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1762px

>>32276316
>the UK doesn't own a single F35

I think this is the main reason people don't understand these carriers, because they're fucking retards themselves

>>32276260
>- Two carriers > One Carrier
This really is the central point, all the rest could be achieved in a new build nuclear carrier. But getting 2 for the cost of 1, when you can't afford 2 nukes, is the real advantage.

>>32276260
>only two planes on the carrier at a time
Wikipedia says it can launch a plane every 30 seconds.

>F-35 has a huge range advantage on combat equipped states
Wikipedia says: F35c = 1138 km, Rafale = 1056 to 1759 km (depending on the type of armament)

File: qbXU358.jpg (557KB, 4000x1809px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 4000x1809px

>>32272587

>Designed around a plane that isn't in service yet and may not be for another 5-10 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7dywuqY63o

>The US Marines declared the aircraft had met initial operational capability on 31 July 2015.

What planet do you live on?

>>32276522
>The US Marines declared the aircraft had met initial operational capability on 31 July 2015, despite shortcomings in night operations, communications, software and weapons carriage capabilities.[453] However, J. Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, criticized the operational trials as not valid.

Way to cherry pick, cunt.

>>32276520

>Wikipedia says it can launch a plane every 30 seconds.

Yes, and?

>Wikipedia says: F35c = 1138 km, Rafale = 1056 to 1759 km (depending on the type of armament)

Your bracketed section is the bit that is important. Once Rafale loads anything more than just very small MICA missiles, its range starts dropping off sharply. Also if it's carrying a targeting pod which takes up space too, F-35 doesn't need to carry one as it's integrated. There's also the element of "max range" vs "effective max range". Your plane isn't much good for a lot of missions if your flight dynamics get fucked because you're loading too much to fly properly past an aggressive defensive line on a coast. End of the day, both F-35B and F-35C will be able to strike much further out due to increased flight parameters while carrying the same amount, and less drag for altitude and speed.

Also remember that all wikipedia articles haven't yet factored in drop tanks for the F-35, which are coming. Thats internal only.

>>32276596

You do realize that department's literal purpose is to criticse everything as far as possible, right?

F-35 is already here. There's more of them in existance than Rafales, and it's only gaining more capability as it goes.

>>32276596

Duh, thats why its called INITIAL operational capability.

Compare it to when they introduced the Eurofighter.
The first tranche 1 aircraft didnt have half the capabilities that newer Eurofighters have.

>>32276624
>Furthermore, the test 'did not—and could not—demonstrate' that the version of the F-35 that was evaluated 'is ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured.'

Keep trying bro, the plane is in no way operational.

>>32276643
>INITIAL operational capability.
Semantics. Add as many words as you like. It's still not ready yet, faggot.

>>32276657
>>32276646

>Get thoroughly BTFO by what IOC means
>Keeps quoting things that don't actually support his arguement in the slightest to anyone with common knowledge of what OTE actually is
>T-THATS JUST WORDS

>>32276666
You've proven nothing.

You linked a video of the shit-heap plane taking off on a carrier with a cherry-picked quote.

Stay wrong, faggot.

F-35 is a terrible plane.

>>32276686

Thank god people like you dont do defence acquisition.
Otherwise we would be flying F15s into the 22nd century.

>>32276522
>initial operational capability
Does not mean "in service".

>>32276716
So, what's your point bro?

The 'tarded aircraft isn't in service, no matter how many times you misquote INITIAL OPERATING CAPABILITAR

>>32276316
>the UK doesn't own a single F35
The UK has already paid for them, it's not their fault that America can't finish planes on time.

>>32276624
>Yes, and?
And obviously there is more than 2 planes on the deck to reach this rate.

>if your flight dynamics get fucked because you're loading too much to fly properly
I assume it's taken in account in these figures, hence the 700 km margin.

>>32276731

>There are currently more than 50 F-35As flying at Luke, representing just a portion of the eventual complete squadron of 144 jets...

IOC means the aircraft is flying with air force squadrons.
Even if it isnt ready for high intensity warfare yet doesnt mean its not in service.
Or is an aircraft only really in service once it has participated in war?
By that definition the F22 wasnt in service until 2014.

>>32276316
>being this badly informed

>>32276770

>And obviously there is more than 2 planes on the deck to reach this rate.

If you re-read the post you're quoting, then you'll see thats in reference to the E-2's. CdG carries maximum 2 at a time. The ability to launch one every 30 seconds doesn't mean mean squat to the fact that the plane itself only has sub 50% availability. Not to mention with only two, the moment one is shot down or for any reason can't fly, then AEW is absolutely crippled.

Meanwhile, with Crowsnest they just mount it on the next helo and keep flying 4-5 at a time.

E-2 only works at the level people refer to if it's from a nation that can actually support enough of them to ensure there's always one available, it's similar to the carriers themselves in that respect. Look at 2017 and 2018, France is going to be without ANY maritime AEW for two whole years, because while CdG is in port, they can't launch AEW at all from any other ship. In effect, the French navy is blind for two years, or in any scenario when the carrier isn't present, or in any time when it is but one E-2 can't fly while the other one is in maintenance.

There's a very good reason why most smaller nations than the US go for helo based AEW, and that is precisely why.

>I assume it's taken in account in these figures, hence the 700 km margin.

A plane with 5 drop tanks and only a couple of small A2A missiles can fly a little further than one running only internal fuel, four A2A missiles, 2 A2G munitions, and has inbuilt targeting pod. Who knew? Given an F-35B all its drop tanks and only two SRAAMs internally, and then it'll show you what "long range" is.

That plane flying further is fucking useless for anything at that range, because no plane ever flies into combat with just 2 SRAAMS. Load that thing with 2 MICA, 2 Meteor, a Damocles targeting pod, 2 large bombs but use internal fuel only and then talk to me about how it can "go further and better" than an F-35. Because it won't.

>>32273192

but not a single poverty ramp

>>32276829
>E-2 only works at the level people refer to if it's from a nation that can actually support enough of them to ensure there's always one available
During the first Lebanon war, the Israelis had 4 E-2s. They managed to keep 2 of them on station at all times, with F-15 figher escort. They were instrumental to the IAF's total and textbook destruction of Syria's air power and SAMs.
While they were operated from land which makes things simpler, they nonetheless managed to get more than half the fleet airborne at all times.
The real problem with only having 2 E-2 is the capability gap which would result from losing one (either to enemy action or accident).

>>32276924

The Israeli's aren't the budget strapped French navy, and they aren't restricted to a carrier.

It's a straight fact that it has a below 50% availability rate in the French Navy, they've had it quoted specifically. In fact in going finding the numbers, it's even lower as of last month.

"The French Navy’s three-strong fleet of Hawkeye E-2C spy planes increased its 2015 operational availability to 32.3 percent from 24.7 percent in the previous year, and last year's maintenance bill for the aircraft was €30 million (US $33 million), according to the French Ministry of Defense."

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/french-naval-aircrafts-operational-availability-revealed-in-letter-to-mp

They only carry two on the carrier at a time. So yes, there is going to be massive gaps in their defense with no AEW cover at all.

"Losing one" doesn't even have to be as extreme as being shot down or crashing. It could be as simple as a critical part breaks and the plane can't perform its role until a replacement is found.

Either way, CdG really doesn't have a particularly great AEW capability at the moment, simply due to low numbers/low availability.

>>32276775
>IOC means the aircraft is flying with air force squadrons.

And what the fuck does that have to do with the British Navy?

>>32276956
Huh, the situation is worse than I knew.
>spy plane
Lels
Why is the frnch navy so short on funds? And why are both the CdG and the QE2 less capable as aircraft carriers (in terms of capacity) than the Midway class?
I'm not American but it seems like everyone else isn't even trying.

>>32277014
>Why is the frnch navy so short on funds?

That money is needed to feed "refugees"

>>32273150
>>32273245
On a somewhat related note, I recently came up with the theory that WWIII is going to start when some kind of alternative energy takes hold, oil becomes worthless, and the middle east goes full chimpout because their cash cow dried up.

>>32272587
>no overseas assets
literally what is Canada?

File: 12957463282.jpg (36KB, 306x423px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 306x423px

>>32277049
>and the middle east goes full chimpout

Haven't they been going "full chimpout" since like 500 AD?

>>32275824
>ive worked with carbon nano tubes
putting your jewpenis into your boyfriends tobacco cancer filled throat doesnt count

>>32276829
>thats in reference to the E-2's
Oh my bad, I misread the post.
Well if France owns only 2 awacs it sounds pretty weak... They don't have anything else to monitor the sky?

>>32277062
*tips fedora*

You can only be moral if ur religious.

>>32277100

They have 3 E-2 Hawkeyes.

Routine is one deploys on the carrier, one is in training and one is in deep maintenance.

On combat deployment they surge a second one onto the carrier from training. So there's 2 max available, with CdG's limited space they can't fit more without eating into Rafale numbers anyway. CdG as a ship was designed for much smaller aircraft like the Super Etendard after all, hence why it can't reach its original "40 aircraft" limit anymore.

Outside of that, they have nothing else to do AEW at sea, unless there's a land base within reach for E-3's.

>>32277014

>Why is the frnch navy so short on funds?

Inefficient procurement and large manufacturing costs in a 1st world country.

>And why are both the CdG and the QE2 less capable as aircraft carriers (in terms of capacity) than the Midway class?

They are both significantly better than a Midway. "Aircraft carried" is not a single number, it's how many of WHAT that you can carry, and what the sortie rates you can manage with those more complex aircraft that take more space rely on.

File: 1307861749899.jpg (127KB, 950x679px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 950x679px

>>32273086
Not requiring an extra fuel tanker is a plus though. It's one more liability the battle group has to look after (since we know carriers don;t travel alone).

A carrier can only hold so much internal fuel and it's a long way from Norfolk or Annapolis to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, or South China Sea.

Plus, I imagine a 110 thousand ton carrier fully loaded out for war consumes a hell of a lot more fuel per mile than even a mixture of Ticos and Burkes.

But on the counterpoint, does the once-per-20-years fuel rod replacement cost more than the potentially millions of barrels of oil it would consume in that time frame? And the US has (for a long time really) a whole lot of oil it can access domestically in times of war.

I never really thought about the pros-cons of nuclear fuel in surface ships.

File: 2013_scarcity_graph_2.png (57KB, 800x404px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x404px

>>32277049

Before then, we're going to see water shortages in some of the most populous and poor regions of the world. Ground water is being used at an unsustainable rate in these areas, there are disputes on who gets the water (both within and between countries), and then add in rainfall pattern changes with potential climate change.

All this is ingredients for instability in places that area already known for conflict.

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml

File: 22162458.jpg (74KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x640px

>>32277388
The QE didn't get nuclear because it would've cost a lot more to build the necessary infrastructure and it would've meant it couldn't visit Australia and new Zealand.

>>32277191
>They are both significantly better than a Midway.
I know that the limiting factor is hangar space, and that sortie generation relies on facilities to service aircraft onboard, but the Midways had E-1,S-2, A-3, A-4, F-8 and F-4 squadrons on board... more and larger aircraft than either of the more modern designs seem to be capable of handling. All round they seem to have had larger hangars and better launching capabilities.

File: 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>32272613
A FUCKING RAMP.

>>32273192
The British type 45s still haven't gotten their missiles yet and they can't go into warm waters because their engines will break.

File: broken down piece of crap.jpg (182KB, 1200x808px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1200x808px

>>32276260
>Can hit 32 knots as opposed to 27
I really doubt that. All the sources I've seen say QE has a lower top speed than an Invincible.

File: HMS-Duncan-Celebrates-4th-B-Day-with-a-Bang.jpg (138KB, 1262x845px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1262x845px

>>32277532
>still haven't gotten their missiles yet
Cool story bro.

>>32272587
>Designed around a plane that isn't in service yet and may not be for another 5-10 years
Do you people actually believe this nonsense or do you think /k/ is retarded?

>>32276228
At least they have planes on them.

>>32278041
The sole reason it has a ski-jump is the F-35.

Stay mad.

>>32277532
>and they can't go into warm waters because their engines will break.

And the Zumwalt class can't even sail because it will break anywhere, regardless.

File: HMS Duncan in Portsmouth 2015-smaller res.png (4MB, 1890x1285px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1890x1285px

>>32277630

The Assembly Director himself confirmed 32 knots while standing on the flight deck.

>>32277532

>The British type 45s still haven't gotten their missiles yet

Despite the fact that they fired them years ago, and if you mean the Harpoons, yes they do have them now. Pic related.

>and they can't go into warm waters because their engines will break.

Confirmed for not understanding shit.

The "break" happens only if they're in peacetime economy mode, only have one engine operating to support that AND are in specific conditions. In any operational instance, they will have both engines active, so it's a complete non issue, and that small issue is being corrected with additional diesels anyway.

It's literally F-35 tier of over-reported.

>>32278559
>The "break" happens only if they're in peacetime economy mode, only have one engine operating to support that AND are in specific conditions. In any operational instance, they will have both engines active, so it's a complete non issue, and that small issue is being corrected with additional diesels anyway.

prove it

>>32278777

The issue resides with the Northrop Grumman Marine Systems intercooler-recuperator that recovers heat from the exhaust and recycles it into the engine. Each of the GTs has one of these. If the intercooler fails, the GT will stop and the diesels trip as the load is too great for the current ones without the GT. This happens, it is believed, due to excess heat in the intercooler, rather ironically.

However, Type 45's can easily run on one GT. They often do for economy transit. So if one of them fails, the other one (if active) can easily account for it because the ship is designed to do that. Running only one GT isn't some special thing, tons of ships do it. Thats why if it's in dual engine mode, as they always do when under combat operations, the issue quite literally cannot happen, as there's a backup.

The solution is putting in extra diesels that if a single one goes down for a moment while only one is active, the diesels kick in and keep it active, removing the issue via a safeguard.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/putting-the-type-45-propulsion-problems-in-perspective/

The class has never missed a deployment, never had to return before the end of a deployment and has had excellent availability. This entire problem is in the same tier as saying "The F-35 catches fire a lot."

It's a small problem with a brand new and very innovative propulsion method via IEP, which is being sorted.

File: 1473819638787.jpg (69KB, 640x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x795px

>>32276306
The Bong carriers are great. I get heartily sick of /k/ shitting on them when they're the only NATO power or US ally outside of France who actually spends and develops serious carrier assets and seriously commits to being able to assist the USN.

The Astutes, the Type 45s, the QEs? No, they're not perfect. Nothing in service anywhere is without fault. However, they're a damn fine set of systems and represent excellent support for the USN, both from a joint ops standpoint and from the standpoint that they'll actually be able to defend themselves and the USN won't have to babysit their assets.

/k/ needs to grow the fuck up. Since WWII, nothing is better for the USN from a foreign ally perspective than a strong and modernizing RN.

-t. USN SUW O3

>>32279605

Thanks, that's good to hear.

We're really looking at an entire new era of interoperability. If and when CEC gets added to the RN, that's a whole new level of networking with the already networked F-35.

>>32278559
>The Assembly Director himself confirmed 32 knots while standing on the flight deck.
Prehaps he should spend less time on the flight deck and more time updating wikipedia.

>>32273150
It only occurs to people who watch the news at least once a week.

File: 22914347.jpg (2MB, 3000x1829px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1829px

How long until we get pictures of the 3 big Western carriers working together?

>>32280227

Not for a fair while.

QE will have her Gulf deployments and whatever they've allotted for the RN's 'World Grand Tour' into the pacific. Likely we'll get shots of QE and a Nimitz, but not sure about the time scale for CdG. She's got a refit and refuel coming up shortly.

>>32278028
The RN will be without a Ship-to-ship missile from 2018 when the Harpoon retires to when the Sea Venom is brought into service in 2020

>>32280373

This is incorrect.

Both CAMM and LLM will be in service in the Royal Navy.

>>32280373
Just because a capability gap theoretically exists in two years time doesn't mean it will actually happen. What's most likely is a decision will be made in 12-18 months about what to use to fill the gap when various competing off the shelf systems have matured.

This happens the whole time in defence procurement and its a non issue.

>>32273176
Damn rights it is.

Please build a third, and sell it to the RCN as a "humanitarian disaster supply & support ship" so the lefties here will agree to it.

File: baldeaglelaugh.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>32272587
C U C K R A M P
U
C
K
R
A
M
P

File: 1474640327514.jpg (723KB, 916x2463px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 916x2463px

>>32277062
>Haven't they been going "full chimpout" since like 500 AD?
More like 622AD, to be correct about it

>>32280010

Amusing story, I've visited the carrier and spoken to several PR guys associated with the ACA. They once sat watching an edit war on the QE wiki page over whether it carried S1850M or Artisan radar, with two guys arguing over which it used.

Of course, they are sitting there knowing it has both.

The ACA are funny guys. Assembly Director is an old school shipbuilder too, he was very fun.

>>32280373

The ASM for between 2018 and 2030 just hasn't been announced yet, but if you take note that they're buying Poseideon (Which has Harpoon Block II+ ER intended as its ASM) and are still remounting new Harpoon rails on ships in expectation of something, the future purchase of Harpoon Block II+ ER is all but certain. Just unannounced as of this time.

>>32280770

Just send us the contract, HMCS CURRENT YEAR can be a thing.

File: CtqgDVrWIAEa367.jpg (157KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1200x799px

>>32276260
>It carries almost double the aircraft
The CdG can carry around 30 raffies. Only 12 F-35B are scheduled to be bought by the Royal navy with an option for 24 others for the second QE
>Entire wing is all 5th gen
muh 5gen meme from LM with keypoints changed over time
> It has double the daily sortie rate
Number coming from your ass.
recent "achievements" of the F-35 during bold quest were only 1.5 sorties per aircraft per day with 30 aircrafts
>Uses automated munitions handling compared to manual
CdG has automatic munition handling too
What, you think there are no armorers aboard the QE ? Sure buddy, sure... Automatic stands for the little elevator taking stuff on the deck. Well CdG has it
>Has vastly more effective radar systems (AESA and PESA, compared to mechanical)
at the beggining of the next IPER the CdG receives a SMART-S Aesa radar. Its current Arabel guides ASTER15 missiles just fine
http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/node/136373
Also funny to hear mechanical argument here when bongs bash the RBE2 pesa
>Can hit 32 knots as opposed to 27
max and sustained speed are two different things.
>Doesn't require enormous 2 year refuelling periods
18 months IPERS aren't only about fuel. The CdG already went through 3 massive overhauls which enhanced its capabilities everytime. The next one is about getting rid of the SEM onboard maintenance tools, thus allowing for 28 rafale to get onboard + smart S + other stuff
>If it's not on station, its AEW can still operate off any ship with a flight deck, while if France doesn't have the CdG, they don't have any AEW, period.
And what exactly would stops France to have these kind of choppers ? the game developpers ?
>CdG's AEW has a >50% availability rate
no source
>Has two on board simulators, as opposed to none on CdG
The CdG don't have a cricket course either
>F-35 has a huge range advantage
no
>Two carriers > One Carrier
UK has 0 carrier right now

>>32277447
And western Canada, because BC is full of Draft Dodgers

>>32273080
The CdG is a meme carrier.
I'm afraid nuclear power for carriers is incredibly stupid and if you can get away without using it you should.
For every nuclear carrier you have active 24/7 you need another 4 in the fleet, this is why US Naval doctine had a written law saying they must always have 11 nuclear carriers, when Enterprise was due to decommisioning they had to get congress to waver that law.

Right now there are carrier gaps happening amost every year where there is a few weeks to a few months where the US only have one active carrier. Right now there is only one in the pacific and the 5th fleet wont have one until February! But the US Navy needs nuclear power, they have the funds and the support of their congress to build them and use them effectively and I of course strongly believe it's right for the US.

What does this mean for CdG? She's an expensive toy, a flashy show piece that they get to pretend is an integral part of their navy, it's not. They get to parade her around every now and then in between huge maintenance cycles and her inefficient nuclear engines means she needs to be refuelled every 7 years instead of 25 like the Americans, but it still takes about 18 months to do this.

The British Carriers are made for war fighting, they are part of the naval doctrine of the Royal Navy and by using conventional power and having two of them they will be able to maintain one at sea around the clock.

>>32272587
As for OP's post
The F-35b is already flying from American Carriers and will see use in the new America class based group in the pacific sometime in 2017 when there is another Nuclear Carrier gap.[citation needed!]

Outdated skiramp
I'm pretty sure this is trolling, if you don't know the advantage of a skiramp you don't belong here and I'm not going to spam out several paragraphs proving you're wrong on this one for the 100th time this year.

Britain has almost no overseas territories
Wrong, she has 15 across the globe.

>>32280946

>The CdG can carry around 30 raffies. Only 12 F-35B are scheduled to be bought by the Royal navy

CdG maxes out around 24, it has never once demonstrated it can carry more. And the hell are you talking about with only 12? They have 138 on the way, read SDSR2015.

>muh 5gen meme from LM with keypoints changed over time

Maximum butthurt about no 5th gen program

>Number coming from your ass.

When you have almost double the aircraft with automated munitions handling, thats what you get. Sorry you don't like it.

>CdG has automatic munition handling too

Citation desperately fucking needed, given the QE is the first carrier in the world to have it.

>at the beggining of the next IPER the CdG receives a SMART-S Aesa radar. Also funny to hear mechanical argument here when bongs bash the RBE2 pesa

It's almost like you're trying to compare vastly different platforms and strawmanning massively. SMART-S on its own still isn't up to Artisan, and it'll forever lack that second volume radar.

>max and sustained speed are two different things.

Then please show the breakdown. Oh wait, you can't.

>thus allowing for 28 rafale to get onboard

Citation needed

>And what exactly would stops France to have these kind of choppers ? the game developpers ?

The fact that they don't have any?

>The CdG don't have a cricket course either

Congrats on totally ignoring the point to try and pass off advantageous system as nothing just because you don't have it

>no (to range)

Nice arguement bro.

>UK has 0 carrier right now

You're seriously reduced to thus?

Truly pathetic attempt. Must try harder.

>>32280946

>m-muh 5th gen is just a m-meme Rafale stronk!
>Claiming CdG has shit it quantifiably doesn't
>Complete lack of research on British leading to hilarious misinformation
>Thinks just any helo can do AEW without a radar
>Tries to deny big things that matter as nothing because France doesn't have the,
>Mass non-factual statements to try and cover for being outclassed

You can smell the French butthurt off this post so much

>CdG's AEW has a >50% availability rate
>no source

It was posted earlier in the thread you fucking moron. >>32276956

>>32280946
>The CdG can carry around 30 raffies

Is that with Hawkeyes and helos?

>Only 12 F-35B are scheduled to be bought by the Royal navy with an option for 24 others for the second QE

Wrong. 148 F-35Bs are scheduled to be bought.

>muh 5gen meme from LM with keypoints changed over time

Epic. Truly epic.

Start a thread on Rafales vs F-22/F-35, I dare you.

>recent "achievements" of the F-35 during bold quest were only 1.5 sorties per aircraft per day with 30 aircrafts

The sortie generation rate for the Queen Elizabeth class is 110 per flying day with an estimated surge sortie rate in high intensity operations at around 190-200 per flying day.

If you can find a source that states that CdG is high than this, please do.

>CdG has automatic munition handling too
>What, you think there are no armorers aboard the QE ? Sure buddy, sure... Automatic stands for the little elevator taking stuff on the deck. Well CdG has it

No, you don't quite understand the level of automatic munition handling.

See:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/29931241/#29935572
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/29931241/#29936186

>max and sustained speed are two different things

So what's CdG max speed then?

>18 months IPERS aren't only about fuel. The CdG already went through 3 massive overhauls which enhanced its capabilities everytime. The next one is about getting rid of the SEM onboard maintenance tools, thus allowing for 28 rafale to get onboard + smart S + other stuff

Wasn't the point. For those 18 months, France has no available carrier.

>And what exactly would stops France to have these kind of choppers ? the game developpers ?

That there's no plans for this.

>no source

You're retarded. If there's only two Hawkeyes deployed and one of them is being mantained. There's only one available. Thus 50% of the deployed airframes are available.

>The CdG don't have a cricket course either

Childish comment.

zero/10

>>32281086
>For every nuclear carrier you have active 24/7 you need another 4 in the fleet
This is ridiculous. 10 active carriers get the USN 5-6 active and deployable at any given time, with the capability to surge 6-7.

>>32280227
Imagine all 3 CGB's sailing together, it will be beyond splendid

>>32280875
>HMCS CURRENT YEAR

Please, no bully.
It's not my fault everyone didn't see the stupidity of voting in a second Trudeau.
I wanted Marc Garneau to win the Liberal Party leadership, and he was in a solid lead to do so.. BUT THEN the Little Potato just had to throw his name in.. fuck.
And it would be called: HMCS Charles Windsor

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/dbase/Query/Biolist3.php?&name=Windsor%2C%20Charles&id=32089&Page=3&input=1

File: Allies Anglosphere.jpg (309KB, 2000x1241px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 2000x1241px

>>32281909

You know us, Canada. Forever banter.

>>32277441
this has FAR more to do with mismanagement, and non-whites being generally incompetent
Than some intrinsic water shortage, or god forbid, climate change.

If north america or europe was populated by blacks, there would be water shortages there too.

>>32277441
Love that perfect example of haiti though, a literal stoneage african country on our side of the atlantic.
With everything in it built by whites, and their government funded by our taxes.

>>32281909
>voting liberal

>>32281932
>NZ doesnt even get a little handgun with a hat on it

rip

>>32280946
>CdG has automatic munition handling too
>What, you think there are no armorers aboard the QE ? Sure buddy, sure... Automatic stands for the little elevator taking stuff on the deck. Well CdG has it
You really have no idea what automatic munition handling is, do you?

>>32276187

Because Frogs and Brazilians can manage catapults but Bongs are baffled by them and the thought of maintaining them.

>>32282027
>Deserts exist because of brown people
Are you literally retarded? Those deserts pre-date humanity, for the most part.

>>32272587
Be nice man, they even put twin towers on the thing to accommodate Muslims.

>>32281484
> he doesn't know about refuelling and complex overhauls
Go look up carrier gap and current cvn deployments

>>32282242
We all know how much twin towers triggers muslims.

>>32282275

SAVAGE

>>32281484
Right now only the Pacific fleet has a carrier, the 5th fleet won't have one until bush takes over in February, the British hms ocean is running things till then.
>There is no US carrier operating today in the Middle East, a situation that is the product of several years of high-tempo operations and the need to catch up on major maintenance put off to sustain that pace. Carriers have been absent before, the last time was in 2007, but this gap has caught a lot of people's attention, even more so as another will occur in 2016 in the Pacific operating area.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/03/congress-forbes-courtney-stackley-moore-navy-naval-aircraft-carriers-ford-kennedy-enterprise-gap-middle-east-centcom-pacom/75119168/
>When the carrier Theodore Roosevelt leaves the Persian Gulf this fall, U.S. Central Command will be without a flattop for as long as two months 2015
https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/30/richardson-hearing-confirmation-senate-mccain-gillibrand/30882305/
>The U.S. Navy is facing a looming shortage of aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific and the Middle East this year going without an aircraft carrier for months.
>“There is no easy way to take a ten-carrier force and operate it like you have sixteen, at some point the wheels will come off the cart.”
>In recent years the U.S. Navy’s carrier force has shrunk to only ten ships. The Navy is required to operate eleven carriers by law, but the Pentagon applied for a waiver to keep only ten ships in service.
>The gap between Enterprise’s retirement and Ford’s entry into service is much longer than anyone had anticipated. “It was supposed to be a fourteen-month gap at ten carriers and now the gap will be almost eight years
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-dangerous-carrier-shortage-the-pacific-14848

>>32281484
What are the American carriers doing right now?
Regan is in port near the Philippians
Eisenhower is on its way to port from the Middle East
George bush is doing nothing, preparing to depart for arrival at Bahrain in February
Nimitz is doing nothing
Vinson is doing nothing (until 2017)
Truman in port doing nothing
Stennis training/doing nothing
Lincoln has been doing nothing since 2012
Roosevelt has been doing nothing and will continue doing nothing until 2018
Washington was taken out of port where it was doing nothing since 2015 to aid hurricane relief, after which it will go back to doing nothing until 2018
Gerald R Ford is being built and is a year over due and unlikely to be ready until 2018

>>32272587
The QEs are designed to have the lowest amount of project risk, not the highest amount of combat capability. The RN wants two carriers so they choose a design that would not have budget overruns that could result in the order being cut.

>No nuclear power.
The British have never built a shipboard reactor for anything larger then a SSBN. That means either multiple small reactor (like the Enterprise) or an expensive new design (like the de'Gaulle). The conventional engines are proven low risk designs, far less likely to cause problems.

>Ski Jump.
There is nothing to go wrong with building a ski jump while the UK has not built a carrier catapult in decades. Again, the lower risk was chosen.

>No need for a carrier
This is just wrong.

>>32282352
Only two of those carriers are actually unfit to sail out and fight within a week or two.

>>32282377

Yeup

>>32282383
Explain why there is only one active cvn and there will only be one active until February. I'd love to hear how all the expert warnings of the huge problem that is carrier gap can be explained away by an armchair admiral shitposting on /k/

>>32282216
Neither can manage more than one carrier at a time though. Which is a much more more serious problem for their operations.

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>32282249
>> he doesn't know about refuelling and complex overhauls
>Go look up carrier gap and current cvn deployments
You look it up. Here:
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

It's really not that fucking hard. Pick a date. See where the carriers are on that date. For instance:

11/15/2016:
Nimitz: EastPac Exercises
Eisenhower: Persian Gulf
Vinson: JTFEX in Pacific
Roosevelt: Refit/repair
Lincoln: Just finishing RCOH (reentered water 11/3/2016)
Washington: Port call at Norfolk before FRS Recert and Deploy
Stennis: Port call at Bremmerton to take on supplies before leaving for Pearl Harbor for Dec. 7 memorial then deployment
Truman: Norfolk for 10-month PIA ending May or June
Regan: West Pac deployment
Bush: JTFEX in Atlantic

That's two actively deployed to hotspots.
Three in the middle of deployments running small-medium scale exercises.
Two in refit/repair.
One just finishing Refuel.
One finishing up recert/training after maintenance downtime and about to deploy.
One actively leaving for Dec. 7 memorial service and then WestPac deployment.

That's 5 deployed, two to be deployed within the month and three in for refit/repair/refuel, which is right about EXACTLY what I fucking said. Don't tell me about the carrier gap, son. I do this shit every fucking day.

>>32282352
See my source. Actually learn something and get your facts straight.

>>32276365
I wasn't aware that you spelled either Britain or the United Kingdom "US Marines".

That or you think you're being funny posting a pic of USMC F35's flying with a Tornado.

>>32282426
Eisenhower is not active in the gulf, HMS ocean has taken over the fleet.
There is one carrier in the us navy doing its job.
1 out of 10, almost 11 carriers

>>32282413
Because nothing that is happening in the world right now is worth taking a carrier out of its normal train/deploy/repair cycle. The only carriers that are truly unavailable are the ones in major maintenance work, so the Truman, the Lincoln and the Roosevelt

>>32282319
>>There is no US carrier operating today in the Middle East, a situation that is the product of several years of high-tempo operations and the need to catch up on major maintenance put off to sustain that pace. Carriers have been absent before, the last time was in 2007, but this gap has caught a lot of people's attention, even more so as another will occur in 2016 in the Pacific operating area.
The Eisenhower is in the Med, dipshit.

>>When the carrier Theodore Roosevelt leaves the Persian Gulf this fall, U.S. Central Command will be without a flattop for as long as two months 2015
Truman entered the Med literally 13 days after Roosevelt entered the Indian Ocean from the PG.

What you're completely missing is the difference between maintenance evolutions being deferred because of surged/increased tempo during the GWOT, which now that everything is slowing down is catching up AND just not having enough carriers. Yes, we need one more. But from late 2014-about 2018, there will be slightly lower overall availability due to increased tempo and strain from 2006-2014. That's a temporary state, not the normal situation.

>>32282456
>Eisenhower is not active in the gulf,
You. Fucking. Moron.

Unless the Ike transited Gibraltar in the 17 fucking hours since they executed a strike on ISIS in Syria, you're fucking pants on head retarded:
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1736323-uss-eisenhower-attacks-isis-mediterranean

>>32282528
I think you're the retarded one here, anon.

Jesus Christ.

>>32282456
>>32282528
Oh, and furthermore, the post clearly fucking states: >>32282426
>11/15/2016:
when the Ike WAS IN THE FUCKING GULF.

Read the fucking source. Actually learn something, you cancerous prolapsed rectum.

>>32282502
For the last time, Eisenhower has departed the 5th fleet based in the gulf out of Bahrain, she is in the med because she's returning to home port.
I'm sorry you don't have uptodate information but maybe stop posting the same shit over and over when told how wrong you are

>>32272587
>Britain has almost no overseas assets to protect anymore anyway
1982 was a thing anon. Also aircraft carriers are damn near essential for power projection and the UK gets involved in conflicts around the globe semi-regularly for whatever reason (not just the Middle East, places like Sierra Leone).

>>32282541
>Pretending the Ike can't strike Gulf targets from the Med

>>32282551
>Pretending the Ike is in transit when it entered the Med on Dec. 4 through Suez, yet just yesterday morning (5 days later) was still off Syria performing ground strikes.

Just fuck off, anon.

>>32272587
At the risk of being buried alive by shitposters im going to ask a question i tought of recently.
Why didn't the us and the uk made a joint project of the ford class and the queen elizabeth class? I mean all memes about
>muh ramp
Aside There are sone neat design and automation elements in the QE that would be of interest to the us and sharing the costs for r&d would allow the uk to go catobar or buy more stuff be it another carrier, more planes or just more toilet paper. So again why? The us and the uk are pretty damn close allies so there is no risk of a future war between them....

>>32282551
>I'm sorry you don't have uptodate information but maybe stop posting the same shit over and over when told how wrong you are
Anon literally provided you a direct source showing the Eisenhower was striking targets in Syria yesterday morning.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
This site is extremely accurate, and gets updated about every other day.

>>32282616
>Aside There are sone neat design and automation elements in the QE that would be of interest to the us and sharing the costs for r&d would allow the uk to go catobar or buy more stuff be it another carrier, more planes or just more toilet paper. So again why? The us and the uk are pretty damn close allies so there is no risk of a future war between them....
They already do transfer tons of this tech. Closest in the SSN/SSBN tech exchange (for instance a US Electric Boat employee ended up running the Astute program for the three years before the Astute was finished), but you can be assured they both have been closely watching each other's CV design processes and testing.

>>32277191
>They are both significantly better than a Midway

Take it back and admit you're wrong

>>32282551
You are one dumb asshole. 10 seconds with google:
http://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/uss-eisenhower-enters-mediterranean-sea-after-months-in-the-middle/article_3384d9b4-d732-563c-8716-abce48527074.html
>The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower entered the Mediterranean Sea on Sunday after spending five months in the Middle East in support of operations against the Islamic State group, the Navy said.

>The Ike strike group left for a seven-month deployment June 1.

Sure as fuck doesn't sound like they're on the way home.

>>32282674
> Ike strike group left for a seven-month deployment June 1.
Jesus Christ....what is June plus 7 months retard?

> Ike’s departure from the Gulf leaves the troubled region without a carrier, which has been a happening more often as the Navy fights to reign in its deployment lengths, which have dropped from nine-10 months to about eight months.
>The so-called carrier gaps began last Fall when the carrier Theodore Roosevelt departed the Persian gulf without a ready replacement. Leadership blames a readiness shortfall created by budget cuts and being forced to meet more commitments than the Navy has ships.
>The George H.W. Bush strike group, meanwhile, is out to sea training for its upcoming deployment early next year.

http://www.13newsnow.com/mb/news/military/eisenhower-carrier-strike-group-heading-home-on-time/362377577

File: cdg-000024.jpg (78KB, 800x540px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x540px

>>32281225
>It was posted earlier in the thread you fucking moron. >>32276956
Yet the french hawkeyes didn't suffer from low availability during the recent campaign against ISIS.
To achieve permanence in the air we need 4 hawkeyes. We only have 3. No need to deny this. I'm talking about the point : when they were needed, the planes were there. Peace time availability ratio is thus irrelevant.
The same goes with the Atlantique 2 which have a real BAD availability rate. Yet are widely used both over Iraq and Mali.

Also
>>32281172
>UK has 0 carrier right now
>You're seriously reduced to thus?
>Truly pathetic attempt. Must try harder.

And you're comparing a commissioned in 2001, with 15 world tours, 25 thousand landings, many times battle proven carrier which is just returning from the persian gulf after a war campaign on isis, Got a number of major deployments during the last 15 years, and currently got some sailors who passed more than 200 days at sea on this last mission alone, with a ship not even commissioned, under testing, which should have its fighters ready to do anything else than aeroclub in 2020.

>"pathetic, childish" ?
Listen to yourself.

Stop trying to bash the french
Wait procurement of the QE
Wait deployements
See what happens
Then come back talking
If it's real good then go trashing the french if you please
But not now
okay ?

The Type 45 had problems it wasn't supposed to have either.

>No, you don't quite understand the level of automatic munition handling.
>See:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/29931241/#29935572
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/29931241/#29936186

OK that is great. High safety level and fast delivery. However there will still be armorers on board manually checking on weapons and arming them, right ? No way robots do this. So how is it more of a game changer than the simple dedicated elevators linked to the CdG's isolated and armored munition storage facilities ? pic related

>>32281086
>Wrong, she has 15 across the globe.
The Isle of White and Isle of Man don't count bro.

>>32275816
But with catapult equipped carriers, they have the ability to launch aircraft with a Heavier payload in a shorter distance and short time, thus allowing for better launch capabilities when it comes to a wartime scenario. Ramps are for countries that use their aircraft carriers in very situational needs, Unlike glorious American and French carriers which patrol the high seas.
t. American

>>32282108
They're there with the Australian helmet and AG, though

>>32282738
That would be New Years Day, you unmitigated fuckstick. What day is it?

With all the baguette asspain ITT, it's a wonder we all haven't spontaneously brie'd in our pants.

File: CVN69 + R91.jpg (244KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x857px

>>32283193
Commencing dump of glorious pair of nuclear powered carriers, namely the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 accompanying the Charles de Gaulle R-91, on their way back to their respective countries.

File: From the Eisenhower.jpg (113KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1200x799px

>>32284671

File: Nieces in arms.jpg (308KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1200x857px

>>32284693

File: at sunset.jpg (167KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1200x857px

>>32284736

File: this is what freedom looks like.jpg (176KB, 857x1200px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 857x1200px

>>32284751

>>32281909
>HMCS Charles Windsor
That's a pretty nice name, actually. I always imagined a carrier for us being named HMCS Citadel hill or HMCS Shearwater (If it was Halifax based)

Is it true these ships come complete with a Mosque?

>>32286884
haHA NICE MEME

>>32286884

Completely untrue, it was decided that to construct a mosque inside the ship sufficiently large would use too much space.

Instead they decided to have the whole vessel declared a mosque and standard operating procedure will be to point the ship toward Mecca when in theatre to facilitate efficient prayer at all times.

Hey what's going on in this thread?
Oh it's the weekly /pol/ invasion.
Remember not to mistake memes for facts kids, no matter how funny they might be.

>>32287095
>Hey what's going on in this thread?
Just talking about aircraft carriers, I duno what the fuck you're whining about.

>>32287213
I see misinformed opinions and nonsense that reads like it was written by 8th graders and that's before the /pol/ tier "poverty ramps" and "CdG port carrier" memes.

Ramps are incredibly cost effective but second rate to catapults, luckily the F-25b will out range and perform the jets it's replacing across the globe.
CdG is a fine carrier and only gets shit thrown at it because of the issues during her construction and until the 2007 refit. She's a single carrier working in a two carrier fleet.
The QE looks to be a fantastic class and as the only western country outside of US building carriers and modernising her fleet while matching the 2% nato budget the UK should be commended, and more so in the real world, outside of drooling /pol/ posters, it is.

Also Carrier gap is a real problem but only until Gerald R Ford is ready and even before that the Navy is experimenting with Expeditionary Strike Groups based around a Wasp or America class using F-35b, the first of which will deploy in 2017 in the Pacific. They sound adorable and awesome as fuck.
https://news.usni.org/2016/11/23/pacflts-swift-amphib-wasp-will-deploy-surface-action-group-2017

>>32275932
>tl;dr:
>fag 1 - why don't we make the planes lighter?
>fag 2 - if we make planes lighter, that still means we can strap more bombs onto it when we throw it from a catapult
I love america.

File: Haha_Totally.jpg (24KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x399px

>>32279546

Wait.. So the British ship broke down because of American technology?

ha

haha

hahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

File: CVF PA2 CATOBAR.jpg (284KB, 2990x1600px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 2990x1600px

>>32282616
>Why didn't the us and the uk made a joint project of the ford class and the queen elizabeth class? I mean all memes about
You are now aware the QE class or CVF project was originally a french-british project. The french one being catobar. At this time is was believed the brits would buy the F18 super hornet or the F-35C, then they decided a catapult on a non nuclear ship was stupid, the EMALS were far from being ready, and they bought the F-35B.
Then the french realised they would need 2 CVFs to have a coherent force yet they could not afford 2 more carriers and conventional propulsion on a catobar was stupid. After spending more than 100 million euros the project was scrapped.

>>32287477

You're half wrong.

CVF began as a British project back in 1997, when SDR1997 called for two new larger carriers to be built on continuing the success of joint RAF-RN harrier operations.

In 1999, companies were invited for submitting for the class which would carry the FCBA, or Future Carrier Borne Aircraft. Yes, whilst one of the possible options was the F-18, it was agreed on to be the F-35B in 2001.

France only joined the project in 2004, paying for design access only, but not design input.

>>32282960

>Yet the french hawkeyes didn't suffer from low availability during the recent campaign against ISIS.

And yet a direct source from the French MoD themselves disagrees with you.

>And you're comparing a commissioned in 2001, with 15 world tours, 25 thousand landings blah blah blah

I suppose you think CdG is better than a Ford class then too? Get over it, CdG isn't a big dog in town for the near future any more. Ford and QE are another level, it's that simple.

>Listen to yourself.

Given you're the one who is spouting utter bullshit and routinely not mentioning or going IT DOESN'T MATTER about all the other things that get brought up that show why CdG isn't as good as some newer designs to try and hope the arguement gets slowly whittled down to just a couple points, I'd say you're the one making it very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>So how is it more of a game changer than the simple dedicated elevators linked to the CdG's isolated and armored munition storage facilities

Robotic automation is vastly more efficient and much quicker. You are (once again) trying to oversimplfy the problem until it fits your own warped perception. Do you think a factory that uses very little automation will be as fast as one that uses a lot of it? Of course it fucking won't. Here's from Babcock themselves:

"The HMWHS is the first maritime application of shore-based commercial warehousing processes using automated systems with all-electric control, adapted for safe transport and stowage of munitions in a warship environment. Munitions can be delivered, in bulk, to the point of use at rates that could not be achieved manually"

"A number of lifts provide interconnection between the magazines and the hangar, weapons preparation area, and flight deck, and a unique mechanism enables the mole to access the lift platform without needing to disengage and re-engage the pinion from the rack."

Its a game changer in munitions handling.

File: F-35A_three-view.png (259KB, 1115x786px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1115x786px

Weird question, but could you launch an F-35B with cats?

>>32282960

>He still thinks the machine-robotic automated delivery magazine is something CdG has

I bet you think the Rafale is a stealthy 5th gen too.

>>32287571

It doesn't have the equipment to do so, the C also has significant structural strengthening because of the forces applied on it when taking off.

>>32287569
Much words.
No backing up.
The post.

>>32287724
>Learn to green text
Was that an attempt at a doge meme?
I'm not that anon, but I would enjoy to hear you saying the CdG is better than the Gerald R Ford.

>>32287724

Except he's entirely right. You keep removing parts from the discussion because you get BTFO out on them and refuse to provide the sources YOU were asked to show

We're still waiting on you to post a source that the CdG can go faster than 27 knots. We're still waiting on you to post a source that it can carry 30 Rafales or more from any official source. We're still waiting on you to post a source that condradicts the French MoD's own source about the E-2's having a greater than 30-40% availability. We're still waiting on you to post your source that says the CdG has a robotic automation handling despite only one carrier class in the world having it.

Thats in addition to you trying to pass off the on board simulators as nothing important (just because CdG lacks them), in addition to you still claiming the Rafale and longer range than an F-35 (it doesn't), ignoring you trying to claim the CdG would be brought up to the same radar quality despite the QE having both Artisan AND an S-1850M and your trying to claim that having to go into port for 18-24 months every few years isn't a disadvantage somehow.

So if anyone is gonna be talking about "no backing it up", the burden of proof is on you first and foremost, because you're trying to hope no-one remembers those points you made that you KNOW you can't win on, but sorry, it's not gonna be forgotten so you can wriggle out.

He showed a manufacturer's own specific statement, and has described numerous times why it's a better handling system.

Now I'm waiting for your reply to only pick one sentence from this post and try to hope again desperately that no-one else notices the rest.

>>32287724

>He's saying CdG is better than a Ford now

Just give up, Frog.

>>32287731
>I'm not that anon, but I would enjoy to hear you saying the CdG is better than the Gerald R Ford.
I am not the original poster.
I never claimed any ship was the better and I am not going to make that claim. Just stop projecting.
What I do object to is a wall of baseless opinions with exactly zero backing up. He is just wasting time.

>>32287781
>You keep removing parts from the discussion
Another one projecting, heavily. I am not that poster. Get it?

>Now I'm waiting for your reply to only pick one sentence from this post and try to hope again desperately that no-one else notices the rest.
No, you are just not getting it. See: not everyone being critical is one and the same person.

>>32287789
>Just give up, Frog.
I never even lived in France.

>>32287819
>And you're comparing a commissioned in 2001, with 15 world tours, 25 thousand landings, many times battle proven carrier which is just returning from the persian gulf after a war campaign on isis, Got a number of major deployments during the last 15 years, and currently got some sailors who passed more than 200 days at sea on this last mission alone, with a ship not even commissioned, under testing, which should have its fighters ready to do anything else than aeroclub in 2020.
You are saying that the CdG should not be compared to ships that are not fully active. This means you believe that the CdG is more capable than the Queen Elizabeth and through the same reasoning Gerald R Ford, it's a stupid way to argue and you know it

>>32287819

>Does exactly what was expected and not tackle any of the raised issues but keeps resorting to ad hominem

>>32282445
They have F-35s, not just the Marines have them anymore.

>>32282445

So you're confirming that you're both a fucking idiot and completely blind.

Here's a hint - Look at the plane at the very back.

At least we know the low-observable markings are indeed what they say they are now I guess.

>>32287836
>You are saying that the CdG should not be compared to ships that are not fully active.
NO! I am not.
At least TRY to pay attention to what I wrote.

>>32287843
>Fail to grasp ad hominem
The movie

>>32287932
Mate you were pulled bullshitting a stupid argument, stop trying to pretend you said something different.
Your original point was saying that the UK has zero Carriers, as if the Queen Elizabeth somehow doesn't count (If she doesn't count then neither does the Ford)
The anon you were talking with called you pathetic for implying this, rightfully so and you came back with the quote about Comparing QE to the super badass commisioned since 2001 CdG as if that was laughable. It's not

The Queen Elizabeth will sail in March for sea trials and this entire topic was created to discuss her. You don't sound smart by disqualifying comparisons between QE and CdG based on operational time length.

Of course if you wanted to do that, I wouldn't bring up CdG before the 2007 refit, she was a national embarrassment from the 1994 launch right through to the 2000 commissioning and a string of failures until 2007. 13 years of shit is a long time to just pretend she was amazing, and this is not even talking about the delays in building from when she was laid down in 1989, what was it, 5 tools down strikes?

>>32287932

Oh the backpeddling now, it's delightful to witness.

Still waiting for you to actually respond to any of the points made, by the way. And yes, it was ad hominem.

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

You were presented with facts. You made claims that went against them. You were asked to provide any sort of fact or source to back up those ridiculous claims that CdG was better than a Ford/QE, or that it also had robotic automation aboard, or any of the dozen other things in >>32287781 this post.

You instead decided to start targeting the person making the arguement rather than the arguement he made, in order to try and get away from you knowing you'd been proven wrong.

That is ad hominem, by literal definition.

>>32287965
>Your original point was saying that the UK has zero Carriers, as if the Queen Elizabeth somehow doesn't count (If she doesn't count then neither does the Ford)
No really, it was not. my first post in this thread was >>32287724
You are still projecting.

>>32287984
>Still waiting for you to actually respond to any of the points made, by the way. And yes, it was ad hominem.
Another one projecting.

>That is ad hominem, by literal definition.
Bonus "literal". I guess that would be "literally" so.

>>32288047

I'm neither of those guys, but I cannot see what your original point was. It seems like you're starting an argument for the sake of it.

>>32282216
Catapults are outdated bong tech.

>>32287477
>Then the french realised they would need 2 CVFs to have a coherent force yet they could not afford 2 more carriers and conventional propulsion on a catobar was stupid.
Not true, they could have easily had 1 CVF in addition to CdG

>>32287337
Close enough.
Also note that if the new Bong carrier had cats they could have bought F-35C- the more capable aircraft.

>>32288581
How does the F-35b stack up against the sea harrier it replaces and compare to the F-35C
Or whatever the other nations use on their carriers?

>>32273086
>Maybe at some future point nuclear will be cheaper than hydrocarbons
but it ain't today

Nuclear Fusion is the answer

>>32282229
Deserts have plenty of water available for people using modern technology in an efficient way. But even people with great wealth can fail at the 'efficient' part if they have incompetent governance and uneducated/caring citizens. Look at California.

>his carrier doesn't have a ramp

How are you supposed to do a sick flip when you commit suicide from it?

>>32288719
The F-35B completely outclasses the Harrier in every respect. However, to acheive STOVL/VTOL capability it has a large lift fan taking up room and weight along with side thrusters and engine dicting, and a light structure with a shorter lifespan. The C variant has extra fuel instead of the fan, none of the extra lift devices, a larger wing, and strengthened frame to cope with CATOBAR life.
The B outclasses all VTOL and STOVL in existance, and the C outclasses all current naval air in terms of systems, though not in terms of combat radius, weapons load, or kinematics.
However stealth and sensir fusion give it a huge advantage over everything currently fielded at sea.
The real questions with the 35 is how it will stack up against future 5th gen aircraft, as it has world class systems on a second rate airframe.
One of the main (true) criticisms levelled at the F-35 project is that the B variant forced certain constraints on the airframe that took the A and C away from what they ideally could have been- aircraft woth better kinematics, capable of matching F-15 levels of maneuverability and not F-18, or with increased weapons capacity and range- larger, more capable aircraft. For the Navy in particular, since they retired the F-14 (and before that the A-6) they lack truly long ranged strike and fighter power; such capability usually comes with size.
It's very possible that the US would have been better off designing 3 distinctly different airframes, with common system architecture and electronics.
I personally hope that the US will take all the systems which are now fully developed, and embed them in a large fighter-bomber, preferably joint Navy-AF like the F-4, creating a cheaper (and better) F-22 as replacement for the F-15, and to return the Navy's lost long range.
The US supercarriers can launch A-3 skywarrior sized aircraft, why not utilize that capability?

>>32272587
no nuclear - calls in commonwealth ports which ban nuclear powered vessels.

designed around the f-35 which was supposed to have been in service by now and cost far less.

What I want to know is: Why does the QE only have only one launch position on their ramp?

Other ramp carriers have two, seems like that would be faster. There's certainly enough room, did they decide helicopter staging area is that much more valuable than f35 sortie rate? Or does it not make that much of a difference?

>>32282216
We're so baffled by them that we ended up inventing them

>>32288150
My point was that the arguments had descended into walls of text with claims with absolutely zero basis. That is just wasting everyone's time. Providing some basis for statements, however, is more enlightening.

By the standards of /k/ that is enough to get the neets triggered.

>>32288946

I wouldn't think it would make much difference. I doubt there are many circumstances where the sortie rate bottleneck is the ramp, it has no mechanical components like a steam catapult.

In addition, I can imagine that extra flat space on deck is useful, both for moving aircraft around on deck, and as you said helicopters are important to this carrier. For airborne early warning (AEW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), carrier onboard delivery (COD), and as a landing helicopter assault (LHA) ship for up to a battalion of Royal Marines.

>>32289100

Zero basis?

I'm not going to argue with you, but if you re-read that discuss, you'll certainly see there's a basis on everything that is said.

>>32289100

>the arguments had descended into walls of text with claims with absolutely zero basis

So basically what you're saying is people posted detailed, factual replies to the bullshit you claimed, and you had no answers for those informational posts, so you resorted to just insulting the person making it instead, and are now hurriedly backpedalling on the whole thing.

Yeah, that looks like what just happened.

>>32282445
I see only 1 USMC F35 in that pic.

File: yf_25_wyvern_by_bagera3005.png (163KB, 1736x1632px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1736x1632px

>>32287322
>F-25b

>>32289425

Looks like shit.

>>32290202
It is. I wish autists would stop constantly throwing forward swept wings out there, much less this switchblade bullshit.

Forward swept wings look kinda neat. That's it. They significantly limit top speed, they're incredibly fragile, they carry intrinsically higher wingtip drag, they're a huge ball of Dutch Roll just waiting to happen, they're devoted to fully exploring every sort of unrecoverable stall, etc. All this for dubious claims of increased maneuverability (salted by the need for more rigid software flight control laws to prevent asymmetrical wingtip stall, Dutch Roll, aeroelastic failure on the wing tips, etc.) and increased controllable Angles of Attack (when the US alone has at least two conventional designs in service comfortable at insane AoA already, the F-22 and F-18E).

Terms for Ace Combat autists to look up before they thing about further shitting up this board with forward swept wing bullshit:
>mach angle
>wing tip aeroelasticity, specifically how it leads to wing structural failure over time, asymmetrical stall characteristics at the wing tip, increased drag, transient overstress during maneuver and exacerbating stall regimes which would be recoverable in other aircraft
>yaw instability and why large amounts of Dutch Roll built into a design is bad, mkay?
>software control laws, and why just because an airframe is unstable that might not immediately translate into extreme manueverability because control laws have to keep snap control movements locked down just to keep the aircraft from departing controlled flight while heading straight and level

>inb4 muh Su-47
You do realize the Su-37, a conventional design and immediate prototype predecessor, was more maneuverable in every flight regime, faster overall and much more durable, right?

>>32288732
productive nuclear fusion doesn't exist, and I'd say it wouldn't exist even if they had gotten more funding

>>32283193
>French carriers
>glorious
>patrolling the high seas
more like patrolling the drydock

American here. I prefer to think of the QE class as the british equivalent of the America class LHAs. They're both designed for STOVL operations. In that, I think the QE is actually better. The America class would benefit from a ramp for ita f35b's.

>>32291500
Fusion is fucking hard. Someday maybe, but it's going to take a multi-decade push.

>>32293200
>The America class would benefit from a ramp for ita f35b's.
It would make sense if the first two Americas (the ones without wet wells) weren't specifically tailored for air assault. They happily give up the extra payload/range on the F-35Bs for getting 3-4 extra simultaneous helipads for launching mass air cav assaults.

>>32293664
>for getting 3-4 extra simultaneous helipads
Just how big do you think the ramp is?

File: USS America.jpg (41KB, 400x511px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x511px

>>32294124
The two slots the ramp itself takes, and then the two auxilliary spots on the starboard side of the bow next to the ramp which cannot be spotted due to the risk of rotor strike on the ramp. You go from 8 (10 in a pinch) to 4 (six in a pinch) simultaneous spots with a ramp. See pic related. All four of the bow spots would go away.

File: QEII.jpg (150KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x720px

>>32294124
>>32294364
Now see pic related, and note the impossibility both of spotting choppers on the ramp itself, and on the deck right next to it.

This is fine. The America class has a different primary mission. Regardless of how much it will get used as a mini-carrier, it will always first and foremost be an amphibious/air assault asset.

The QE is meant to be first and foremost a fleet carrier, hence the ramp and emphasis toward fixed wing flight ops.

Just because they're both carriers does not mean they're supposed to do the same exact thing.

>>32294124
>>32294413
Pic related should also illustrate how much smaller the America is compared to the QE. The QE is a big bitch overall - 70,000t VS the America's 45,000t.

File: ussamericaart.jpg (70KB, 800x524px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x524px

>>32294462
shit. forgot pic.

>>32293664
the real problem is that air assault is a fucking meme
A buncha old generals who learnt nothing from the loss in vietnam

Transporting troops and supplies around by helicopters is insane, makes no sense in throughput or cost

>>32296910
Gee. That's funny. Maybe you should tell that to the guys who went into Afghanistan in 2001. Or any number of other very successful missions since completed with helo insertion and extraction which could have been performed off an amphib ship with no issues. Like, say, the bagging of Bin Laden or any one of hundreds of other missions in the last two decades.

Read a history book, son, so you won't look so fucking stupid next time.

>>32296910
>moving people by helicopter is useless
>meanwhile, 15 years ago, an entire country was captured by helicopter

wew lad

>>32297194
plus you know, the whole northern alliance army...

>>32297143
The amphib is pointless, they are not used and never will be used. It'll either be choppers operating out of land bases or an actual conventional invasions, which these amphibs will have little role in.

Not to mention the US learnt the hard way not to involve the marines in this sort of stuff.

>>32297400

You're retarded.

>>32298000
The US enjoys doing their helicopter adventures then losing wars
Happened in Vietnam, happening in Afghanistan

But I guess its fun while it lasts, and while the tax payer has unlimited money to fund it.

>>32298103

Entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.

>>32298134
the point being that amphib ships like wasp class WEREN'T used and are not in the slightest worth their cost?

>>32288503
Nope. For France to run two carriers on such a small budget they would need to be identical otherwise the added costs of maintenance for two completely different vessels would fuck them over big time

>>32288876
>though not in terms of combat radius, weapons load, or kinematics.

Combat radius is a fair point but weapons load is only an issue when the aircraft is flying in stealth profile, and the F-35's kinematics are disputed - but the fact that US pilots who flew it prefer the F-35 over the F-16 and other 4th gen types (could someone post that chart?) suggests either that its manoeuvrability is on par with or better than previous types or that high off boresight capacity for the F-35 adequately compensates for this.

>>32297400
yo buddy ever heard of Grenada?

>>32294413
>and on the deck right next to it.
If there's enough space to park a F35, there's enough space to land a helicopter.

>>32298156

So? Having those Wasps gave the USN options, options that they chose not to take. But still options none the less.

File: HMS_Invincible_1991_DN-ST-92-01125s.jpg (187KB, 1200x644px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1200x644px

>>32298295
>If there's enough space to park a F35, there's enough space to land a helicopter.
Anon. Jesus. Just no. Not even fucking close.

Look at pic related. Do you notice the complete lack of all deck markers for take off or landing spotting next to the ramp? Yet they park birds there.

Don't be fucking silly. There are very important rules for rotor and flight ops clearance from obstruction, and they're ten times more important when you're dealing with a ship which is in motion and also rolling on swells, even slightly.

>>32272613
>Both those carriers cost less than one Zumwalt.

This is like bragging about being able to make two F4s for the price of one F22.

>>32299098
Fun fact, did you know the Zumwalt has the same engines as the Queen Elizabeth.
The Zumwalt, a 14,000t vessel is powered by the same engines that power an almost 80,000t vessel

>>32298409

To be fair, that ship has less than a third of the displacement of the QE class, so that space might be usable for a light helicopter such as the Lynx.

Also even if that space is only used for parking aircraft, that still frees up space elsewhere on the flight deck for helicopter operations

File: F-35B-on-Royal-Navy-carrier-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-45157052.jpg (75KB, 1024x574px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x574px

>>32272587

>Not nuclear powered (due to "high cost")

You can only go as far as your carrier group

>Designed around a plane that isn't in service yet and may not be for another 5-10 years

2018 is not 5-10 yeas away

>Outdated "ski jump" design
Can launch aircraft in rough seas. Wont break down

>Britain has almost no overseas assets to protect anymore anyway

UK has 50 overseas bases, however carriers are about force projection

>>32298211
For A2A missions it has second rate kinematics-can't launch weapons above Mach 1.2, relatively low ceiling, few A2A weapons carried. For strike it has a real advantage in not carrying draggy bombs under the wings.
As I said in the post you replied to, its sensors give it a HUGE advantage, and the real question is how it will match up to other 5th gen aircraft.

>>32299110
How many?
The LM2500 is industry standard equipment.

>>32299229
2x Rolls-Royce MT30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_MT30

>>32299223
what other 5th gen aircraft exist now or will exist in 10 years?

>>32299223

Is four Meteors and two ASRAAMs really that few?

>>32299164
He was talking about the America. Which is less than 2/3 the displacement of the QE.

>>32299269
Can the B variant really carry 4 Meteors?
IIRC the 4 MRAAM capability is limited to the A and C.
Compared to a J-20 size aircraft, which could very well carry 2-4 short range and 6-8 long range AAM, yes.
Particularly when you factor in that against an enemy 5th gen you will need quite a few missiles per kill.
>>32299249
Currently, it remains to be seen hiw advanced the J-20 really is. It's a large aircraft which would imply large potential, but it's chinkshit with second rate engines, questionable materials and electronics of unknown quality.
In 10 years it might be a viable threat.
Also in 10 years the Russians could be fielding something viable.
10 years is more than enough time to mature a design, even one which is now mostly paper.

>>32299357

Right, but subsequently the point was made that this portion of the QE class was also unusable for rotor-craft, which is where I interjected.

>>32299450
It's not usable on the QE. They will deck park there, but they will not spot aircraft for launch or landing. Again, rotor clearance. It's kind of a big deal. That's not really important for the QE, focused on fixed wing fleet carrier ops as it is, but it is a big deal for the America class, which needs maximum number of aircraft spots for assault.

Which is what I've been saying. This whole time. Please just read the thread next time.

>>32299469

And as I said, if you are using that area for deck parking, you are freeing up other areas of the deck for rotor aircraft. writing off area next to a ramp as useless is misleading

File: tmp_6290-F-35B-MBDA-SPEAR-ASRAAM-Meteor(2)2006254274.jpg (222KB, 2168x1069px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 2168x1069px

>>32299415

Yes, B can fit four Meteors internally. Though more can be fitted on the external pylons, it's just that it would have an adverse impact on RCS.

Now, the question is how many can it take off from a carrier with. Given the USMC has no plans for Meteor, we're only looking at the RN. That remains to be seen, but MDBA's concepts for the RN is the current only known loadout.

>>32299498
I know the RAF plan to use meteor but I've not read anything about the RN.
But the Japanese and U.K. have a joint program running for a more advanced seeker element, combining the British missile with more advanced Japanese seeker tech. Something to do with the current Japanese missiles not fitting in Japanese f-35's

I'll try and find a source

>>32273245
On the other hand that oil is in shale and sands - extremely inefficient to recover and process.

>>32299528

Yeah, UK wants the AESA seeker and Japan wants the missile.

>>32272587
>faggots still investing in carriers
aircraft carriers are a meme, battleships are where its at

Why do Americans always get so triggered about ski jump carriers?

>>32299498
>open the bays for AA

What a way of killing any little kinetic energy the F-35 has.

>>32299609

It wouldn't need the kinetic energy if it is engaging in BVR.

>>32299618
That's the part where you need all your kinetic energy.

F-35 is a sitting duck in air battles.

>>32299098
90 F-35s would shit all over a Zumwalt senpai, they can carry more missiles than it has cells

>>32299660

I'll humour you.

In what way is it more vulnerable compared to the other fighters that have their own bays? Who according to you, lose all energy.

File: 382-eurofighter-typhoon.jpg (1MB, 2200x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2200x1080px

>>32299673
If only the RAF would operate an own air superiority fighter.

>>32299671
Now I wanna see a F-35 carry a SM-2 or SM-3

>>32299696

Typhoon is very capable in A2A, especially along side the F-35.

>>32277441
this pic is bull i know ful well australia is bacally 60% watrer scairy

>>32299673
Other stealth aircraft have smaller side bays.

>>32299730

Mhm.

But what does having smaller bays mean?

>>32299714
ye

>>32299528

>I know the RAF plan to use meteor but I've not read anything about the RN.

Because when it comes to the F-35, RAF and RN/FAA are the same thing. They both use the same planes interchangeably.

>>32276356
Ahh yeah man you totally fight the bad guys with 6 jets. Go Britain strong :^)

>Because Anglo-cucked
Ftfy

>24 jets
Under equipped

>>32299498
>external ASRAAMs
I knew something was off.
IIRC the A and C have larger internal bays so maybe they can hold more, but compare the stealth loadout of 4 BVRAAMs and no SRAAM to the F-22's 6 BVRAAM and 2 SRAAM. there's a reason the Navy is planning their next strike fighter (to replace the Super Hornet) to be roughly F-14 sized- returning to using the real potential of the catapults (as I have mentioned previously in this thread). I went and checked, even modernized Essex class carriers could operate A3D Skywarriors, which is a whole lot of performance for such a small ship. Cats give you a huge advantage of you have the airframes to utilize it.

>>32300091

>24 jets
>Under equipped

And yet coincidentally thats the "starter" minimum of QE on its first deployment, which is as many as the maximum CdG can carry at all.

Don't let your envy show too hard. :^)

>>32299618
Wrong. The initial launch is a major factor in missile kinematics. A high altitude, high speed launch will go farther and faster than a low/low, particularly if the enemy is high- climbing uses up a missile's booster like nobody's business.

>>32300123

The only difference in bay size is that the B can't carry 2,000lb bombs in there, but A and C can. Thats about it really.

And remember that even a fully loaded externally F-35 is still going to be massively harder to detect than a similarly equipped 4.5th gen.

>>32300174
>And remember that even a fully loaded externally F-35 is still going to be massively harder to detect than a similarly equipped 4.5th gen
I know. Note that I said multiple times that the 35 has a massive advantage over older aircraft, and that the question is how it stacks up against other 5th gen.
And in the 5th gen fight it's rather on the small weak and slow side, compared to the 22, and J-20/PAKFA (once they actually work and aren't shit)

>>32300222

The T-50 is barely a 5th gen, it lacks almost everythingt that makes a 5th gen a 5th gen and has more in common with 4.5ths in RCS currently than it does a 5th gen.

The J-20 is an unproven concept we know literally next to nothing about.

You can make it fast and agile as you want, but if you don't meet the other specs, an F-35 is going to curbstomp you. Remember that pilot that said "The F-22 is the fastest, most agile plane I've ever been in, and that is the LEAST impressive thing about the plane."

>>32300141

You misunderstand, I have only said that aircraft does not need that energy. Nothing about missiles.

That anon implies it will typically be engaging in WVR.

>>32300269
You missed the point.
As I've said multiple times, current chink and slav programs are subpar. 10 years down the road, though, they could have working systems the size of current projects, but which are up to par and actually work. This is well within the lifespan of the 35, so it will be expected to go up against them should the need arise. In that case, it's a 5th gen vs 5th gen fight, and then matters like combat load, kinematic advantage, and all the rest do come into play. Currently the 5th gen advantage renders kinematics and load less important, but 10-20 years down the line, it's a different issue. I'm not falling for the chink/slav/4.5 gen memes, don't worry.

>>32300271
But the point I was making is that even for BVR the aircraft kinwmatics are significant. For example, a AMRAAM launched from a F-22 at Mach 2 and 60kft will go farther and have an easier time hitting that one launched from a F-35 at Mach 1.2 (current maximum launch speed) at 50kft. Which means the 22 (as a surrogate for future enemy 5th gen) has the edge in such an engagement. Add in the fact that the 22 carries more weapons so can expend more on long distance shots, and the 35 is at a disadvantage.

>>32300314

And you think the F-35 won't be upgraded too? It's already got new engines, new sensors, new missiles, upgraded radar and directed energy weapons being looked at.

>>32300340

Of course. We have no disagreement about that.

>>32287061
>>32286884

>Muslims serving for the kuffar army

Whats the point of praying? As if it will ever be accepted

>>32300390
The problem is that the problematic areas are ones which are hard to upgrade. The electronics are world class, and a full generation ahead of what anyone else is fielding. But once the rest of the world catches up, things like the low speed and altitude (relevant for evading future threats) and low weapons load (relevant for shooting down enemy 5th gen) become highly relevant and difficult if not impossible to upgrade. A more powerful engine will help close the kinematic gap (assuming, of course, that the aerodynamic problems with the weapons bays that currently limit it to 1.2M launch are solved), and new electronics would help it keep an edge, but not nearly the edge it enjoys today.
I personally hope the US takes the 35 systems, in which they have invested so much, and put it in their future high performance aircraft like the Navy's upcoming heavy fighter.

>>32299609
This has to be trolling at this point

>>32299495
Anon, are you stupid or incapable of reading? He never said it was useless. He only said the America prized spotting the maximum possible aircraft for launch or landing on its deck where the QE prizes maximum efficiency for fixed wing ops. Nothing about that space being "useless". Only that the America's mission means it needs to be set up without a ramp whereas the QE needs the ramp.

Not even that guy but I'm frustrated at how fuckin' stupid people on /k/ are sometimes.

>>32301984
>Not even that guy but I'm frustrated at how fuckin' stupid people on /k/ are sometimes
You should try hanging around /sci/ sometimes.
moonhoaxers, antivaxx, earth is flat, so on
Like /k/, just bigger words and more numbers

>>32302148
And less furfags

>>32302237
Also, this