Brazil's carrier may be replaced with British assault carrier,

>>33464888
>selling your flagship and only operational carrier to Brazil

Impressive. Very nice.

>>33464912
You realize that by the time it'd be sold, at least the first QE would be in active service, right?

>>33464934

With what aircraft?

>>33464949
The helicopters that were operating on Ocean, and the bunch of F-35B that will be ready by then.

File: tmp_9730-Carrier-Strike-Timeline-B154972878.jpg (577KB, 2400x1697px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 2400x1697px

>>33464912

Ah yes forming your opinion before reading the article very nice. Very good.

Its crazy how ahead of the curve the UK is on naval development that they can invent then sell their old ships like this and still influence the world.

>>33465031
This is /k/ after all

>>33465138

It's just a mark of quality. Same with buying Ex-USN, people know that the design is well tested and built to a higher standard than you'd get from a local build (and done of the bs you get with building). Of course, as I say this the Type 45 issues spring to mind, but so does the LCS and Zumwalt.

In releative terms Ocean isn't that old and plus she's on the market at the right time to be a stopgap until Brazil can finish their carrier replacement program.

>>33464949
>>33464964

Also, USMC F-35Bs will help to make up the numbers.

http://www.janes.com/article/66308/fallon-confirms-usmc-f-35s-to-join-maiden-deployment-of-hms-queen-elizabeth

The potential for USMC and RN F-35Bs to cross deck in future as well is pretty good.

>>33465290
>US F-35Bs refuse operator input every 10 minutes for a commercial break
>UK F-35Bs play classical music and display a photo of the queen on the display every hour for tea time
swapping sounds like a bad idea

File: HMS-Ocean.jpg (386KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1280x854px

>>33464888

She's a beaut

>>33465297

Personally I'd love a plane that displays a picture of the queen.

>>33465487
She's gonna die soon. Then you'll have baldy horseface mcCharles' face up there.

>>33465321

She was done on the cheap and served with expensive. Looking good for something that's pretty much knackered.

File: yes that is the queen.jpg (52KB, 634x583px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 634x583px

>>33465523
i am going to be very sad when the queen dies.

>>33464949
Chinook
Apache AH64
Merlin HM2 and HC4
Wildcat AH1 and HMA2
Merlin Crowsnest AEW

Makes sense, Brazil can probably afford it

>>33465837

Makes more sense when you consider how experienced they are at maintaining their much older carrier. No reason to waste those technical skills they've gained from it.

>>33465537
Loving all 10 pixels in that pic

>>33465837
We probably cant, but will try it anyway. The Navy is already doing some cuts in personnel expenses, which the two other branches are also doing, as the current government main objective is trying to reduce government expenses and put the deficit in place. A new carrier may not sound like a good idea to our public accounts, in the view of our finances minister, who needs to release the money for any deal of the kind.

>>33465907

What could happen is that HMS Ocean gets bought, but in exchange the future carrier project is scrapped.

>>33465916
We would have to give it up of it anyway, for now. The project for the new carrier seems to have bogged down since the time they announced it. The plan was also made in a time when our weak economic situation was not clear enough, and it asked for a foreign partner, which only complicates the matter and slow down the process.

>>33465977
>The project for the new carrier seems to have bogged down since the time they announced it.

"bogged down"
which is why one's been built, fitted out, and is expected to have sea trials in the next 3 months, and the other has been built and is now being fitted out?

Or did you just expect them to pop into existence fully-formed?

>>33466200
Not that anon but you should read his post again

>>33466200

Good job reading his post you twit.

>>33465537
>Implying that she will not outlive us all

File: 1488615211435.jpg (68KB, 497x829px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 497x829px

>>33464888
Why do brazil even need a carrier for? It's not like they really need power projection.

>>33466525
nah what they do is they keep the same lizard (Grand Lord Dramus Bigwig XXLLVVVI) but they just apply a different shape shifting hologram to it every 60 years. If they're feeling particularly edgy they'll invent a few abdications and succession crises along the way

What would the hues even fly off of it?

Can Skyhawks operate off a helicopter carrier?

>>33467487
>Why do brazil even need a carrier for?

bullying argentina probably.

>>33467487
>need


look! i found a comie

>>33467797
Yeah, I guess. We are all into that.

>>33467812
(you)

>>33467797
>>33467825
>Be Brazil
>be broke
>be corrupt
>be in relatively peaceful region
>have no real adversaries
>have no tangible threats
>be largely incapable of projecting power
>have questionably effective navy
>navy largely incapable of supporting an expeditionary force centered around a carrier
>last carrier wasn't used, broke down, and turned out to be a huge waste of money and effort
>still looking to buy helicopter carrier
>still looking to get into nuclear submarine game

Is Hueland's national pride really worth that much? I guess they just love to waste money, given the World Cup and Olympics.

>>33467903
delete this

>>33465537
With any luck she dies strangling Charles in the bathtub with her body weight.

File: NDM Bahia.jpg (210KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1280x853px

It won't, they already have the Bahia.

Plus the Royal Navy would be selling their fucking flagship.

t. Armyfag that knows Navyfags

>>33467903

>be country with fuckhuge of resources
>be country with fuckhuge landborders where it's route for international traffic
>be country with fuckhuge coastline with a fuckload of resources as well
>In the future the world will probably be fighting for resources as well.

Nigga we're just thinking at long terms.

>>33468664

It's being retired. So yeah, they would sell it.

File: NK qts 8.jpg (470KB, 1080x1440px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1080x1440px

>>33468704

Doesn't make sense tho. This is why i fucking hate the Navy, they been throwing money down the drain with the carrier, while the Frigates and Corvettes were getting deactivated one by one, now that they realized that they would barely have an escort for the carrier, they decided to scrap it and invest the cash on the new Corvettes and Subs(including the nuclear).

Now they come with this shit, want a new Heli Carrier that will need more ships for escorts and will have to buy more helicopters, including attack ones. Basically more money down the drain.

Not even the Army and Air-Firce are this retarded, this is why it's our shittiest branch of the three forces. They dream too much.

>>33468723

Are you talking about the Brazilian navy or the Royal navy?

>>33468803

Brazilian Navy.

>>33468819

I was speaking about the Royal navy.

But you are correct about the Brazilian navy. There's such a heavy focus on high end capabilities that there's a complete and total under investment in the enablers for those capabilities like training or suffient numbers to have an impact.

File: arton30087.jpg (656KB, 2480x1795px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 2480x1795px

>>33465031
>initial operating capability in fucking 2023
>full capability in 2026
he who laughs last laughs best

File: SBR1.jpg (525KB, 900x599px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 900x599px

>>33468848

Good thing is new Diesel subs are being finished this year. But to reach Army and Air-Force update capabilities they're still far off.

File: 800px-Marquis_of_caxias_c_1860.jpg (147KB, 800x1036px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 800x1036px

>>33468848
>There's such a heavy focus on high end capabilities that there's a complete and total under investment in the enablers for those capabilities like training or suffient numbers to have an impact.
Yep, you are correct. Historically the Brazilian army always had a total lack of appreciation for training and drilling, aside from some few characters in specific times, like pic. There even a story about how some of our army officers in Italy during ww2 didn't understood the insistence of their american counterparts that they should be training whenever was possible.

>>33468958

>Historically the Brazilian army always had a total lack of appreciation for training and drilling.

Completely opposite today thanks to that. My knees kills me everytime.

Also Caxias trained literal farmers, slaves and other types of people while in the frontlines. There's a huge pic of him in the base where i work.

>>33468987
>Also Caxias trained literal farmers, slaves and other types of people while in the frontlines.
Yep, that's why I mentioned him. Before they let him step in, everything was done in a willy nilly way: the army camps looked more like gypsy caravans, with entire families accompanying soldiers, proper logistics are nonexistent, discipline was horrible and training was barely minimum. They simply gave a gun and a uniform for the soldiers and trained them for a month, if they even trained at all, before throwing them into battle. After he entered, discipline was enforced, the camps are put in order, roads were built to help logistics and the soldiers are retrained and drilled again in the frontlines before more offensive actions could be put in place, which resulted in we winning some major victories of the war in one single month.

The problem was that as soon the war was over the army got back to their old ways, and it took some good time before it changed to better.

>There's a huge pic of him in the base where i work.
Are you doing obligatory service or career?

>>33468882

Ah yes Charles de Gaulle such a successful design that they were planning on buying a variant of the QEC up until 2013 when it was cancelled.

The carrier isn't to blame for delays in the F-35 program.

>>33468664
>Plus the Royal Navy would be selling their fucking flagship.

It won't be the flagship by 2018

>>33469206
The QEC was a great design until it was neutered with STOVL, now it's just eh

>>33469322

It was STOVL in original concept. Secondly, the entire design is not wrapped up in a single aspect like the aircraft it launches.

>>33469646
>the entire design is not wrapped up in a single aspect like the aircraft it launches.
Its capabilities are

>>33469646
>a carrier is not defined by the aircraft it carries

lmfao

Dumb Hues. OCean was built quickly and cheaply to commercial scantlings and does not have much life left in her.

Incidentally, the most useful and heavily-used ship in the RN.

>>33469665
An F35B from QE carries a bigger payload, further than any aircraft currently launched from a Nimitz or cdg

Also the sortie rate from QE shits all over cdg.

The automation, crew requirement, build and operating cost shits all over ford class.

EMALS still isn't working, once it is the RN has the option of converting with relative ease.

>>33468882
That'll be QE an PoW then, since each of them will be in service for 50 years.

I wonder how cdg will be doing in 2070.

>>33469774
>since each of them will be in service for 50 years.
As much as the CdG then? Cause they don't plan to retire it until the 2040s

>>33469651

Not really.

>>33469665

You need to improve your reading comprehension skill, because I certainly haven't said this.

>>33469784
you're literally proving my point. QE class will have the last laugh. cdg is obsolete NOW, imagine how hilarious it will be in 2040 (i doubt the french will be able to keep her going till then though).

>>33469755
so what aircraft are currently launched from eq ?

sadly f-35c will enter service with usn at the same time and will fly further and carry bigger payload than b

sortie rate is bs as well considering f-35c can hand for much longer and can sortie from further away

>The automation, crew requirement, build and operating cost shits all over ford class.

> a carrier with 30 aircraft is cheaper to run than carrier with 70

who would ever guessed ...

>EMALS still isn't working

problems were fixed last year

>RN has the option of converting with relative ease.

complete carrier rebuild sure is easy and guess what, its not going to happen

>>33469755
The Rafale M's max payload is 9500 kg, which is higher than the F35B's

>>33469819
>cdg is obsolete NOW
Hardly, plus they're also upgrading it NOW

>>33469836
>complete carrier rebuild sure is easy and guess what, its not going to happen
b-but they left space under the deck

Why the fuck would you name a ship "ocean"? That's like naming a satellite "orbit" or "space"

>>33469894
or a moon lander "luna" haha

>>33469784

except in the CdG's case it will be more like 20 years at sea and 30 years in the yards

>>33469912
good meme I like it

File: 9213523515_22c2c99704_o.jpg (80KB, 960x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x568px

>>33469836
>so what aircraft are currently launched from eq ?

It's still being built dumbass.

>sortie rate is bs as well considering f-35c can hand for much longer and can sortie from further away

I don't even understand what you're trying to say, sortie rate isnt based on how far you fly.

> a carrier with 30 aircraft is cheaper to run than carrier with 70

24 standard loadout, 36 as a tailored airwing, up to 50 for surge and capable of carrying 70.

Look at the crew requirement for QE and you will see how advanced the automation is. HMWHS is a world first.

>problems were fixed last year

except the problem could not be solved so they are having to re design the gear of the F35C.

>complete carrier rebuild sure is easy and guess what, its not going to happen

Except it is nothing like a complete rebuild, it could be done in a planned refit. It was literally designed to be able to make this choice in the future.

>>33469933
But why only 2 cats though?

And won't you have to retrofit the planes as well, or will your Bs be able to launch from catapults?

>>33469867
9500KG when taking off from a runway, It's nothing close to that from a catapult.

F35B can take off from a ramp with a full payload.

>>33467903
>still looking to get into nuclear submarine game

doesn't argentina keep talking about how they plan on having a nuclear sub too? considering the argentine navy in 1982 couldn't even maintenance a torpedo properly I'd hate to see then operate a PWR

>>33469836
>sortie rate is bs as well considering f-35c can hand for much longer and can sortie from further away

that isn't what sortie rate means

>>33469954
>Only 2 Cats
Deck space, and the foredeck probably doesn't have enough room for a second catapult anyways.

>Won't you have to retrofit
Buy F-35Cs, actually. None of the F-35 variants can be converted to another variant.

>>33469989
You think they'll have enough money to buy Cs after they've bought a whole fleet of F-35Bs for the current version of QE?

>>33469954
Presumably this would be after F35 has been replaced. However if it was done during the life of F35, the RAF would get the B's and the FAA would get C's.

regarding catapults, they would be electric with minimal 'reload' time, so two well-serviced cats could put up aircraft faster than squeezing in extra catapults that would require more complicated deck operations.

File: APe_01-52-1.jpg (909KB, 3508x2339px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 3508x2339px

>>33469975
>9500KG when taking off from a runway
No, it's higher than that when taking off from a runway, pic related.

>>33469836

Ok Nassim si tu veux, va sucer Soral si ça te plaît.

>sadly f-35c will enter service with usn at the same time and will fly further and carry bigger payload than b

There's about 50nm combat range difference on paper between the F-35B and C, don't have the exact numbers for takeoff weight but I iirc that the ramp adds 1,00lb+. The numbers behind what SRVL adds aren't published.

People keep repeating the meme that STVOL aircraft are totally crippled, but if you look at the numbers, difference isn't that huge for the QE class.

>>33470026
No, all variants have a maximum payload of 9500KG, M has fewer hardpoints to carry this theoretical maximum, and launching from a catapult it would be able to achieve around half to two thirds of that payload.

>>33470071
>KG
Kelvin Giga?

>>33469713
>does not have much life left in her.
Anon, compared with the brazilian carrier that is in the process of being decommissioned, São Paulo, a french Clemenceau class launched in 1960 and purchased in 2000, or even compared to São Paulo predecessor, Minas Gerais, former HMS Vengeance, launched in 1944, purchased in 56 and operated from 60 until 2001, Ocean is a newborn baby with a long life time ahead.

Brazilian reporting in, what /k/ thinks about our navy and airforce?

over/under on when QE2 *actually* enters service? I say 2022

>>33467487
It's fucking hard to learn how to use a carrier and the navy top brass is megalomaniac.

>>33465321

She does look pretty for a carrier. Not a ramped monstrosity like the Lizzy.

>>33465537

is that Edward VIII?

File: AV-8As_VMA-513_in_flight_1974.jpg (459KB, 2209x1546px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 2209x1546px

>>33465779
Brazil!

Why u no Harrier!

File: HMCS Magnificent 1953.jpg (67KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 960x720px

I wish we would buy it, or buy a mothballed one from the states.

>>33474566

The second hand USN flattops aren't very practical or economical.

>>33472555
Because they are 40 years old and only good for bombing people who don't have any fighters or Anti-aircraft guns.

>>33465228
>Of course, as I say this the Type 45 issues spring to mind

yeah but type 45 issues were somewhat overblown, the problem only ooccurs in hot climates and when running in economy mode, when the ship is running at full power as in combat or expecting the possibility of combat the problem isnt a issue, and the fix is easy

>>33471294
Arrives in pompey towards the end of this year, it's being commissioned mid 2018, First deployment is in 2020 to the South China Sea with a squadron of F35's, and escorts.

>>33475859

There's more to it than that, but yes

>>33474921
The Kitty Hawk needs some love, but she could be made operational.

File: letu.jpg (26KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x450px

>>33469755
>shits all over ford class.
>option of converting with relative ease.

>>33475859
If it was overblown and the fix was easy then it wouldn't have completely crippled the ships for years.

>>33467903
>be Brazil
>see chance to buy expensive naval toy boat
>see opportunity to swindel a few cool million from taxpayer
>huehuehue all the hue to the bank

>>33476117

Not an argument.

>>33476143

But they weren't crippled, they still continued to deploy across the world.

File: PoW LRR.jpg (244KB, 1623x1073px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1623x1073px

>>33476117
I'm right though. the QE class was DESIGNED to have the option of converting from STOVL to CATOBAR during it's 50 year life.

The crew requirement of the US carriers is a joke, they made a big deal of their 'automation' with the ford class reducing crew requirement by 600 from a Nimitz, but it still needs 2600 crew JUST for ship operations. That's almost 4X more than QE.

QE has an area the size of a frigate inside the ship that resembles a car factory and is dedicated to automatic weapons handling. crew on deck or in the hanger can tell the computer what weapons they need and robots will pull weapons from the palletised armoury, fuse them, moved them onto mounts, transport them to where they need to be in minutes. It can operate in any sea condition that the carrier will find itself in, and it's world beating. The Americans have visited the system a few times and are very envious.

So in the areas i mentioned, QE shits on Ford. just like i've shit on you.

File: 1486381073742.jpg (773KB, 3000x2041px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 3000x2041px

>>33476143
>completely crippled the ships for years.

a T45 has never returned to port with a propulsion or power issue. A deployment has never been cancelled or delayed with a propulsion or power issue. T45 has the highest availability record of any RN ship, and easily the highest availability of any IEP ship.

good job at humiliating yourself.

>>33477056
T. BAE Lobbyist

>>33477088

BAE isn't really to blame. Especially if the client goes against the recommendations of the manufacturer.

File: Queen Elizabeth Class Weapons Handling Sea State 7.jpg (49KB, 599x499px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 599x499px

>>33477036

Now now, show some modicum. We're all looking forward to seeing Big Liz sail with Mister Ford. Both great ships. Yes, HMWHS is an extremely impressive technology, but you and I both know that there's more to the personnel differences than that.

So lets put the comparison to one side before it gets ugly.

For interest, here's the HMWHS operating in simulated Sea State 7. Damn impressive technology.

File: Queen Elizabeth Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System mole.png (2MB, 1088x726px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1088x726px

>>33477614

And here's a more recent image of it partially installed. As far as I'm led to believe this is the first proper image of the system inside the ships, even if it's still being installed and doesn't have all its stuff up and running yet. It's a hell of a lot more together than when I saw it in person though.

>>33477056
I read here and there its propulsion is noisy as all fuck and it can be heard by submarines from 100+ miles (i'm assuming at full speed), any more info on that?

>>33464888
Dear Bongs, don't sell us this thing. It'll be another sinkhole of resources just like the Sao Paulo was and it will spend most of the remainder of its operational life in dry-docks, being refurbished. Sell it to someone that actually has the cash to operate it.

File: Queen Elizabeth Wide Corridors.png (2MB, 1081x718px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1081x718px

>>33477634

Another recent one showing the width of the corridors. The assault corridors are wider than this, but the inside is very very spacious. Very comfy.

On the HMWHS, for those who aren't in the know of the details, basically it's based around 56 "moles" (a mole is the yellow bit in the above pics) that can travel around the internals of the ship (predominantly in the centre of the vessel) and carry munitions to the flight deck or (if needed for resupply when all is clear) the hanger by travelling up elevators. As the other guy mentioned, they are effectively robots that automate the process and deliver munitions and (in theory) spare parts as needed. The moles effectively recognise containers rather than munitions, so you could store whatever you want in them really. They'll take them so long as the software has it added.

It's really quite clever.

>>33467903
It's like that other anon said, the Navy's top-brass is made of a bunch of megalomaniacal lunatics.

>>33477649

Tabloid reporting. There isn't a shred of evidence about it being so. Literally in the same tier as "F-35 can't fly."

>>33477668


>sell it to hues
>who sell it to the not whites
>who try to invade the Falklands with it
>HMS Ajax sinks HMS Ocean (renamed ARA Belgrano) in the Second Falklands war of 2042

>>33477088
Northrup Gruman made the defective component. Spoiling a glorious RR design.

>>33477036

>QE has an area the size of a frigate inside the ship that resembles a car factory and is dedicated to automatic weapons handling

but what if it wasn't a frigate sized area, but an actual frigate? what if the QE and the PoW are actually just runways bolted to a frigate? would that explain the small crew???

File: wtn.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>33477614
why are you talking to yourself?

>>33478013

Because I'm not? He made some rather ridiculous claims leading toward shitposting about personnel use in the ships, I laid out that clearly that isn't the case, and try to redirect the attention away to something else.

Not sure why you'd think someone who disagrees is the same person? I felt I could offer more detail on the HMWHS than he could. I've done a bunch of writeups in the past on it, so whatcha gonna do I suppose.

File: Ships 1.png (226KB, 920x856px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 920x856px

Any body have any news on the type 31 and its capability

>>33478157
Bongs seriously make the most aesthetically pleasing ships

>>33477881
>what if the QE and the PoW are actually just runways bolted to a frigate?

International shitposting aside, the British have been quite shrewd with their carriers. The problem with a lot of current American ships is that they were built with a USN in mind that ceased to exist by the end of the Cold War.

Basically they've built the largest and most capable carrier for their needs and requirements going into the next fifty or so years.

>>33470002
It's not as if they couldn't operate the Bs they have while using the cats for AEW, COD, next gen fighters, etc.

>>33478701
They look ok, but don't most warships generally look the same regardless of country?

>>33479159
to laymen yes.
but to people interested thats like saying the blacks all look the same

>>33478157
First from the top looks ugly. The rest are really pretty, with the second from the top being my favourite.

File: OCEAN13.jpg (131KB, 640x715px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 640x715px

>>33464888
Interest has been shown by Brazil on the subject of purchasing something that will be disposed of in the near term.
When did the RN last sell a ship that wasn't severely pre-loved.

>>33479471

Not really anything beyond an OPV.

>>33479471

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Choules_(L100)

Not the RN but the RFA, though.