Kek Sea Grippen never.

>>33012702

A single cat? I wonder what the sortie rate is.

>>33012702
Well, there trying to sell it to India as well. Not that it has much chance there either. In any case i don't believe there is a single succesful naval variant plane that was a conversion instead of designed that way from initial development.

>>33012784
Unless they planed to remove it old Clemenceau has a second one on the angled runway

>>33012784
>I wonder what the sortie rate is.
Better than on any British, Russian or Chinese carrier.

>>33012840

The advantage with a fucking ramp is sortie rate. Planes have to sacrifice payload.

>>33012840

You are retarded.

>>33012702

The problem with the Sea Gripen is that nations who buy Gripens usually can't afford carriers

And nations that can afford carriers can afford better planes than the Gripen. Hence the F-35

The Sea Gripen's market is pretty damn small. Only India fits the potential client category.

>>33012702

It's so cute! It's like the Hello Kitty of carriers.

>>33012840
VSTOL carriers don't have to fuck around setting up their aircraft on the cats leading to higher sortie rates.

>>33012702
>Grippen

>>33012925
>The advantage with a fucking ramp is sortie rate.

Nope.

I wonder if sweden could afford it's own carriers if we removed kebab and revitalized our industry.

>>33014433
There's so many Somalis in Sweden that in few years Piracy in the Baltic and North Sea will be a new economic source to the Nordic Countries.

>>33014537
Somali pirates in stealth corvettes when

Is it cheap enough /k/ could buy it?

>>33014537
New age muslim viking when?

>>33014348
>The advantage with a fucking ramp is sortie rate.
Yep.

>>33014348

1 ramp > 1 cat for sortie rate. So the comparison of the sortie rate from a single cat is accurate to say a ramp provides a higher sortie rate in that case.

The reason US catapult ships manage more is because they have four fucking catapults.

File: gripenhuenever.jpg (277KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1280x960px

>>33014668
WE WUZ VIKING AND SHIT.

>>33014348

Yes, retard. One of the key advantages of them is the sortie rate.

They scale very well.

>>33014433
A Swedish carrier would be more useless and a bigger money sink than the Somalis tbqh

>>33014433
You'd have to cut a lot of your social programs too. The dirty little secret of European style "socialism" is that it wouldn't be economically viable without the US Taxpayer providing the majority of your military force for you.

>>33014752
why are all the deck crew white?

>>33014752
hue I feel well represented

>>33015169

because this was made in sweden.

>>33015665
>because this was made in sweden.
I think his question still stands

>>33015820
true

>>33012796
The Hornet has been pretty successful.

>>33015665
I dont see any Somali or any Feminst using a veil in this deck son.

>>33016014
Designed from the start as carrier-capable

>>33014703
>The reason US catapult ships manage more is because they have four fucking catapults.

Thus are also capable of launching with a full combat load, instead of a crippled one using a ramp

>>33016196

>Moving the goalposts

And F-35Bs are hardly crippled. They're the second longest range maritime fighter in the world, beaten only by the F-35C.

>>33016196

The ramp doesn't cripple it. Does quite the opposite.

>>33016196

Honestly for the QE class I think the ramp was the safest choice. Getting steam for catapults as an IEP non-nuclear carrier would have been a headache, and the Gerald R. Ford CVN is showing that EMALS has quite a few teething issues to sort out (even if the USA were willing to transfer technology).

Though we all know the real reason is with the budget the choice was 1x CATOBAR or 2x ramped STOVL.

>>33017393
Compared to what? A catapult? Fuck no.

>>33017393
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the Britbong in his highest state of denial.

>>33017775

Tell you what fella, get some reading comprehension and critical thinking skills THEN make commentary.

>>33017393
The ramp was a stubborn british innovation that did very little and they sunk too much money into to back away from.

>>33017796

Not an argument.

>>33017825

None of that is true.

Should we Kickstarter this for the LULZ?

"And in other news tonight, bored nerds on the internet raised enough funds to make a major military project viable. The entire industry is predictably baffled and horrified....but took the internet's money anyway."

>>33017862
>Not an argument.
Are you seriously implying that a STOVL carrier can launch the same aircraft, with the same payload, *better* than a CATOBAR can?

Cry more, Bitchbong

>>33017890

Was not at all suggested, though you're welcome to try and spin that I did.

File: FA18 Hornet Bear.jpg (756KB, 2728x1444px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 2728x1444px

>>33016145
I thought it was designed first as a light-fighter to compete with the F-16. When it lost that contest it was modified for use by the the USN.

>>33017915
You said that a poverty ramp doesn't cripple an aircraft's combat load, and that it does the opposite.

In what universe is that not saying that STOVL is at least equal to if not better than CATOBAR in terms off aircraft payload?

>>33018009

The ramp itself does not 'cripple' the aircraft. Without it the aircraft would be required to launch in VOTL with a far more limited payload and amount of fuel -- or even in STVOL with an even futher limited load.

For what adverse impact does it have on aircraft performance when it increase payload, fuel and sea state launches?

>In what universe is that not saying that STOVL is at least equal to if not better than CATOBAR in terms off aircraft payload?

Where has this statement been made? Please quote the post that stated this, excluding your own, of course.

>>33018084
Ah, shifting the goalposts are we?
>>33016196
said that US CATOBAR ships are capable of launching with a full combat load, instead of a crippled one using a ramp.

Obviously comparing ramped STOVL carriers to CATOBAR carriers.

to which you responded
>>33017393
>The ramp doesn't cripple it. Does quite the opposite.

Now you can say "no lol I was totally just comparing it to VTOL and not CATOBAR the whole time xDDDD"

But you're being intellectually dishonest either way.

>>33018184
>Ah, shifting the goalposts are we?

My postision hasn't changed on anything. Ramps do not 'cripple' aircraft. They do the opposite.

>Obviously comparing ramped STOVL carriers to CATOBAR carriers.

Read the post. It makes no such statement saying they are equal or comparable. Says the opposite.

>Now you can say "no lol I was totally just comparing it to VTOL and not CATOBAR the whole time xDDDD"

I have never mentioned CATOBAR in any of my posts. Only VTOL and STOVL. An aircraft, the F-35B in this case, launched from a ramped carrier with STVOL will have greater range and payload than one launched from a non-ramped carrier with STVOL or VTOL. This is a statement of fact.

However, an F-35C launched with CATOBAR with have greater range and payload potential than a F-35B launched from STVOL. This too is a statement of fact.

>>33018363
Like I said. Intellectually dishonest either way. Though I'm glad you're not actually stupid enough to think STOVL is better than CATOBAR.

>>33018412

If you can point to where I've been inconsistent, please do.

>>33018432
Rules lawyering is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

>>33018475

An insightful statement, but irrelevant.

>>33014676
thats... thats actually your response?
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreddit>>33014348

What I've taken from this thread:
1. catapults allow heaver launch loads than ramps but are slower to launch so you need a bunch of them if you want to have the same sortie rate
2. /k/ posters are annoying autists who don't know how to argue

>>33018554
It's only only letter shorter than yours. What's the problem?

The point is, America is the best and everybody else is second rate.

>>33014348
>Nope.
Yep.

>>33016145
Nope. Northrop YF-17 was designed to compete with General Dynamic YF-16 for USAF LWF programme

>>33017888
Kek has spoken, we must start the funding.

>>33018910

It's a little more complex and comprehensive than some morons on here make it out to be.

There's advantages-disadvantages to both ramped STOVL and CATOBAR.

>>33012840
Another quality post brought to you by some dumb k/unt on 4chan.

>>33016145
Ever heard of LWF? What about the YF-17?

>>33012702
Tfw our monkey crewed carrier is just a dream now...T_T

>>33012784
>A single cat? I wonder what the sortie rate is.

one meow per minute

File: Theresa_may_fashion_sense_1.jpg (82KB, 234x679px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 234x679px

>only one(1) citadel
>no ramp

>>33025852

Heh

>>33026478

That's pretty bad.