Why do yuro poors use ramps? Is it autism?

The allow harriers and f-35Bs to take off at full capacity without the use catapults, which dramatically reduces the time it takes to send out multiple birds.

Ramps. Are. Better.

>>33536823
Too poor.

>>33536944
>harriers
HAHAHAHAHA
>full capacity F-35B
When they could be carrying much more with a CATOBAR and the C variant.

>>33536823
we don't rely too much on carriers because unlike the US we don't need to cross the oceans to invade any worthwhile country

>>33536823
UK anti-weapon laws forbid all forms of slingshots, including catapults.

>>33536944
>take off at full capacity
>with a ramp
Wrong. Ramps limit capacity because more mass = more force when you hit the ramp. The airframes can't take that at full capacity. A catapult put's force on the airplane in a vector parallel to the direction of flight, whereas a force a plane experiences when hitting a ramp is perpendicular to the direction of flight.

It's like how you feel heavier at the bottom of a hill on a roller coaster.

File: charles-de-gaulle-aircraft-carrier-1.jpg (80KB, 690x388px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 690x388px

>Frogs only ones besides burgers who operate a nuclear CATOBAR carrier

>smaller & less capable than a Nimitz in every way

>18 month refit every 2 years

>can only afford one

truly to be a Europoor is suffering

>>33536823
Because in Top Gun when they tried to scramble more Tomcats to help Iceman and Maverick, two catapults failed and it took 10 minutes to repair, forcing Maverick to do all the heavy lifting on his own.


Ramps don't break down and allow higher sortie rate.

>>33536823
for a guy who doesnt know anything about ships, why is the front of the ship curved in like a mouth and not a straight line downward?

File: royalcaliphatenavy.png (3MB, 1772x997px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1772x997px

>>33536823
ramps for champs

>>33536823
I will admit their carriers do look a lot more organized. Our carriers always appear to be a clusterfuck on the deck. But I really know fuckall about naval air strike efficiency, or even naval ships for that matter.

why not ramps AND catapults?

>>33537107
/thread

>>33537151
At least they try. That's more than we can say about the anglos.

"Britannia rule the waves" my ass.

>>33537195
When women see ramps their pussies dry up.

>>33537279
like i give a shit if its wet or dry

>>33537294
Typical rapefugee.

>>33537139
No, you moron. The planes are rated for turning at over 7g at hundreds of miles per hour, you fucking retard. Flying off a ramp doesn't come close to those forces.

File: 1403894913945.png (20KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 560x407px

>>33537195
I do wonder why Americans think they can make fun of Brits. Last time I checked you had mexicans, negroes AND muslims in your country.
Do American carriers operate around lowriders that drive around on the deck, mud huts that serve as crew quarters and pagodas that look like minarets?

>>33536944
W R O N G
R
O
N
G

>>33537336
The airframe is, not the gear, numb nuts.

How do catapults work anyway? All I see is just a tiny part of the runway behind the place sticks out at an angle, I thought it was gonna be something that threw planes down the runway

>>33537336
>The planes are rated for turning at over 7g at hundreds of miles per hour, you fucking retard.
Not while fully fueled with full takeoff load you halfwit.

>>33537353
Even burdened with niggers and spics, America manages to build carriers without ramps. How truly embarrassing that the UK cannot, despite your assertion that they are in a better ethnic demographic situation.

>>33537375
>>33537409
>This landing gear can take the force of the aircraft landing on the carrier in any load condition
>But can't handle a ramp at max load, the forces are too much

Keep clinging to your memeapults while the rest of the world moves forward.

>>33537463
You mean to electromagnetic catapults?

>>33536823
It's cheap Steve. We have been over this before. Sorry folks, Steve is a bit special in the head.

What does it have 2 islands?

>>33537336
>I came here to be wrong and to cuss out helpful posters

>>33537180
It's a compromise between straight line speed, maneuverability, and armor. Straight lines aren't good for much. They're weak, turbulent, and lolcantturn

File: 1458248725940.gif (241KB, 300x199px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 300x199px

>>33537463
>failed physics
should have done your homework more, faggot

>>33537397
I think you're looking at the jet blast deflector. It is there to keep the jet exhaust from fouling the area of the deck behind the launching aircraft. There is a physical component that hurtles down a track, dragging the airplane with it, imparting energy.

>>33536944

F-35Bs have a much smaller internal payload, shorter range and performance than F-35Cs.

You also can't launch E2 hawkeyes which is a huge problem in the modern battlefield.

>>33537139
No, it limits capacity because a catapult launches you to a much higher airspeed than what you can do with a ramp. That's why the catapult oriented F-35C is so much larger with a higher payload than the F-35B

>>33537208

They look more 'organized' because they have big ships but are putting tiny compliments of aircraft on them. The USN has ~80 aircraft comprising of strike aircraft (normal outfit is 48 but can handle much more) a lot of helicopters (some SAR, some anti-sub, some dual role cargo/attack (against small boats) , Electronic jamming aircraft (growlers and prowlers) and 4 early warning aircraft and a couple of cargo aircraft. And the US has been perfecting that "chaotic" loadout for decades. The british carries could handle 48 aircraft but due to constrainsts they'll probably embark with 20-24 attack aircraft and some helos.

>>33536823

No, I'll tell you what is autism though. Dumb cunts like you starting the same thread over and over and over again. That's autism.

>>33537771
Well whatever, ramps limit capacity one way or the other. British are cucks who WISH they could have catapults, which are plainly superior.

>>33537463
>doesn't understand the difference between mono directional loading and omni directional loading
If you tried to send a fully loaded F 35 off a meme ramp the gear would fold and you'd probably kill the pilot.

File: WRONG.jpg (147KB, 882x486px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 882x486px

>>33536944

>>33536944
Patently false. Catalpults allow for higher speed takeoffs and thus more payload. That's why the f35c has a larger fuel and weapons capability than the f35b.
Catapults are for winners. Ramps are for cucks.

>>33537151
Free healthcare costs a bit homie

File: 6658342561_994d949d6f.jpg (73KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x374px

>not using invisible ramps

>mfw ameripoors cant afford planes capable to take off without catapult
Truly inferior engineering

Fuck this ramps vs catapults shit

Lets come up with the most /k/ way to launch fighters.

How about a semiautomatic mechanism that can load ready to go jets in a sabo type projectile and are shot out of a big cannon

like a floating 1911 full of jets

File: 762px-Boeing_B-47B_rocket-assisted_take_off_on_April_15,_1954_061024-F-1234S-011.jpg (119KB, 762x599px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 762x599px

>>33538805
>>Lets come up with the most /k/ way to launch fighters.
JATO

>tfw ramps allow f-35bs to take off on a 50m runway, fully loaded
>they have higher sortie rates than catapults
>they never break down, unlike catapults
>they cost nothing to maintain compared to catapults
>better in every way

Why the fuck does America use catapults, again?

>>33538923
>>33538763
The f35c has a larger fuel and weapons payload thanks to the higher takeoff speed allowed by superior catapults.
Get cucked, europoors.

>>33538529
Easy to have free Healthcare when mommy America is there to keep the big bad Russians away.

PAY YOUR FUCKING 2%, EUROS.

>>33538805
>>33538896
>powered by autism and rainbows

>>33538944
It has more fuel because it doesn't have a lift fan.

Without a lift fan, it has a longer take off distance.

>>33539183
And it needs the lift fan to do STOVL operations on a ramp carrier. Ramps btfo.

>>33537353
At least we don't have Chavs

>>33540400
You just have white trash and gang wannabes instead

>>33537151
>18 month refit every 2 years
Even when out of current refit, it wlll still have more than 50% disponibility over its entire career. As far as small-ish carriers go, it is a very solid ship.

>>33538955
>keep the big bad Russians away
Keep telling yourself that all the tax money your military-industrial complex gobbles up does something useful. Americans could leave tomorrow and we wouldn't feel a thing.

>>33540469

Why necro this shit thread

>>33538763
Obvious bait. No one is this autistic

>>33536944
>which dramatically reduces the time it takes to send out multiple birds.

Wrong.

>>33538717

> Not using downward sloping ramps
> Not plunging your fighter craft beneath the waves to bring the fight directly to enemy submarines

>>33537069
Gotcha. Your goal is the conquest of France.

I like it.

>>33541153
Has it ever been anything else?

Fucking gauls need to stop gauling around though.

When will /k/ realise it's literally the one guy who posts these threads then replies to his own thread with "ramps are better" to try and troll the Murricans/get hate on the Brits?

It's literally the exact same process every time it pops up.

>>33540400
>At least we don't have Chavs
You call them wiggers, and you have plenty of them.

>>33536823

Seroius answer?

Doctrine. Europe mainly needs to defend against a land invasion, and carriers is pretty shit at that. Europeans rarley go around invading contries on the other side of the world for fun anymore.

>>33536823
An island that is smaller than Texas needs two carriers to enable it to always have one deployed, if they chose nuke carriers, then they could only have one.
If they chose ramp carriers, they could have two, and its not like they are new to ramp carriers.
To be fair, for a country of that size they punch very much above their weight.

File: 7b5f4237940256420ec8fc109e67ad6c[1].jpg (268KB, 800x1226px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 800x1226px

>>33538529
>>33538955
Actually french healthcare costs less than US healthcare since they don't have massive advertising expenditures (amongst other things).
>French expenditure per capita (ppp): $4,508
>US expenditure per capita: $9,403
>muffled honhonhon in the distance

source: http://apps.who.int/nha/database

>>33537746
>You also can't launch E2 hawkeyes which is a huge problem in the modern battlefield.

Britain intends to use these carriers mainly to help the US bomb sandniggers, so affordability is more important than capability.

In any situation where they would need things like AEW the US is already going to be doing the heavy lifting anyway.

>>33544171
>Britain intends to use these carriers mainly to help the US bomb sandniggers, so affordability is more important than capability.

Quite the contrary, they were specifically designed to fight a real war, not just COIN. This was one of the core design requirements, of course subject to affordability.

>In any situation where they would need things like AEW the US is already going to be doing the heavy lifting anyway.

It is extremely unlikely that the UK would go to war alone, yes. But the intention is to keep the ability to do so.

>>33537647
>What does it have 2 islands?

one is for the bridge and funnels (remember, its conventional engines, not nuclear), one dedicated to air control. Apparently gives a number of advantages to logistics and efficiency.

File: 1472418054623.jpg (117KB, 1024x693px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x693px

>>33536823
Nucelar reactors and cats and traps are better but they are vastly more expensive and complex and require huge amounts of maintenace meaning your ships are available a lot less than conventional power and ramp carrier. You get more bang per buck with diesel and ramp and still a highly capable ship. Imagine if Britian had two CdGs, it stil coulen't gurantee having a carrier available. Even the US Navy with 11 supercarriers faces a period when it will have to rely on the QE because it has no carrier availabilty. Swings and roundabouts.
The QE class is also heavily automated meaing it has a ship crew of 700 (for a 70,000 ton carrier) whereas the Ford class relies on thousands of toiling nig nogs to shift stuff around.

>>33544922
>bang per buck with diesel

Pretty sure the QE class is turbine powered.

>>33536982
harriers are cool

>>33540407

>Paris attacks

Yeah, Britain is so much better.

>>33539198
not actually true, the marines are planning on flying their F35Bs frm some of their LHAs and LHDs

Ramps are significantly better for STOVL, allwing higher takeoff weights and thus longer range and higher payloads but ramps are not a requirement for STOVL operations.

>>33536944
If ramps are better then why is china aiming to move away from them with their indigenous carrier program?

>>33544642
both islands have funnels, the choice was between one long island including both funnels or two islands one around each funnel and a large lift between the two structures.

the front island holds the ships bridge and navigation functions etc the aft island is dedicated to C&C functions for the air group

>>33546468
I'd assume that they can also somewhat do each other's job in case of damage. Two islands gives you a little redundancy in case a cruise missiles makes it through or something.

>>33541160
>Has it ever been anything else?
No, in Whiteall, the French were always the real enemy.

>>33536944
>this is what the desperate europoor scrub believes

>>33540494
When muslims are raping you in the ass every day, I suppose a russian taking over wouldn't feel much different.

>>33536823
bongs need ramps to let them know which way is up and burgers need catapults to let them know which way is forwards

>>33546435

Because that's what their stolen American carrier designs tell them to do.

>>33544922

Ye gods that's a fat ass.

>>33536823
Britain decided they wanted to build the world's largest escort carrier. Everyone else forgot to tell them what a dumb idea it was, as a joke.

>>33536823

Bitches dont know about muh SRVL or British Navay airpower doctrine.

Its a compromise, combining as eat as possible what the US marines do with their VTOL aircraft and what the US navy do with CATOBAR, we cannot afford both, so ramps for higher takeoff payload and SRVL so we dont have to waste that payload while maintaining the ability for purely VTOL operations with the same platforms.

>>33544922
This. It might not be the best for everyone but for the UK it is clearly the most rational choice

File: VjtIFX7.jpg (2MB, 5952x3648px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5952x3648px

*blocks your trade routes*

>>33537139
>ramp is perpendicular to the deck

>>33537353
I do wonder why Brits think they can make fun of Americans. Last time I checked you had poles, negroes AND muslims in your country.

>>33551141
But you have all of them too.

>>33551086
no 26s?

>>33551392
They're to come into service mid 2020s, that image is dated for the end of 2020
I'd say we can expect one ship in 2028-30 and the rest in the 2030s desu

File: awvktlr%20-%20imgur-1[1].jpg (173KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1200x800px

>>33551086
kek

>>33536944
>ramps are better
>the best navy in the world doesn't use them
hmm

>>33551454
kek what, UK's military expenditure is literally a tenth of the US, what did you expect

File: RFA_Wave_Ruler_(A-390)_refueling_USS_Donald_Cook_(DDG_75).jpg (507KB, 2100x1368px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 2100x1368px

>>33551454
I, yes? That is indeed the navy of the much larger nation that we're allied with
I'm not sure I see your point mister yank

File: HMS_VIGILANT_MOD_45137620.jpg (1MB, 2080x1680px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2080x1680px

Name a better looking submarine. Hint: you can't.

>>33551099
.....What, you think the airplane goes THROUGH the ramp? The normal vector is a function of the ramp's curve.

File: beau.jpg (79KB, 546x493px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 546x493px

Ramps for champs

File: Navy Future.jpg (375KB, 1064x1836px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1064x1836px

>>33551454

The US navy should be 10 times the size of the UKs with the amount of money they spend

>>33538763
>design f35b
>for ramps
>you autistic screech monkey

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (1).jpg (123KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 2048x1536px

>>33536823
Because ramps are cheaper, faster and more reliable. Deal with it.

>>33536823
A ski-jump converts part of the aircraft's forward motion to upward motion through the use of a curved ramp located at the end of the flight deck. As a result, the aircraft starts out its flight with a positive rate-of-climb. This allows heavier aircraft to takeoff even though the lift generated is smaller. Gravity causes the upward velocity to decline, but the aircraft continues to accelerate after leaving the flight deck. By the time the upward velocity has decayed to zero, the aircraft is going fast enough to attain stable flight.

wikipedia

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-04-06T15-38-48.951Z.png (337KB, 1016x924px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1016x924px

>>33551086
>Implying you even can
*calls for Icelandic Navy*

File: 1416996552849.gif (981KB, 290x218px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 290x218px

>>33551454
>>33551086
>US Carrier count
10
>US Defence budget
596 billion

>UK Carrier count
2
>UK Defence budget
55 billion

Adjust that UK carrier count for 10 times the expenditure to match the US and you get 20 carriers. British efficiency wins again senpai, more with less.

>>33552171
Oh look, meme stories.

Be a lad and bring up the emu war for your next trip

File: small island.png (142KB, 642x943px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 642x943px

>>33552395
There is no need to be upset.

File: brit kek.jpg (833KB, 1920x1600px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1920x1600px

>>33537107
U N D E R R A T E D

>>33552380
10 is more than 2

>>33552380
>UK Carrier count
0.

>>33537151
whats the point of having just one carrier? national prestige? at least tru out the cold war france had 2 carriers.. what if it gets sunk

>>33552447
>64 fucking submarines

how the fuck

Canada has 4 and they all suck ass and we have like the largest amount of shoreline in the world

>>33544922
>no carrier availabilty
how with 11 you have at least 4 available if not 5-6

>>33552447

Ah, it's you, the buttblasted Russian who has continually been bumping your own thread.

File: 636 varshavyanka & 955 borey & 945a kondor.jpg (128KB, 900x571px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 900x571px

>>33552499
Russia is an independent country that has to think about its own security. Canada only has to think about how to be a good hat.
Seriously though, the raw length of a shoreline isn't really a good measure. Your coastline comes from a metric fuckton on islands around the Arctic Circle. Russian coastline is not that much different and furthermore Russia itself is a land power, which is a consequence of most of its main trade routes and area of influence historically being achievable by land, as opposed to other European colonial powers not having an entire northern Eurasia right at their borders to explore. So in the end they mainly relied on their Navy to fulfil a sole task of hunting American CBGs instead of projecting power. And on the opposite, the mainland US doesn't really have that much of a coastline, yet as a consequence of being stuck on a wrong side of the globe they rely heavily on their Navy to project power and secure trade. Bach to Canada, it is a former colony that hence doesn't have any historical area of influence and has its trade and interests essentially secured by other nations, namely the US.

File: 0_74b49b_4446e00d_orig.jpg (57KB, 500x426px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x426px

>>33552510
>The small islander's ad hominem

>>33552510
desu i woudnt bet uk navy alone beating the russian navy

>>33538458
Why not just use the catapults to launch boulders instead

File: HMS_Defender_undertaking_a_sovereignty_patrol_in_Gibraltar._MOD_45159240.jpg (779KB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 3504x2336px

>>33552783
B^)

>>33537353
Because were better in every way

>>33536823
>Wait for none steam catapults to be perfected
>In the mean time have what is essentially a relravilvely easily removable metal box on the front
>Swap out when electromagnetic catapults are perfected
Makes sense.

>>33536823
The first captain was a fan of skateboarding and wanted to pull off some sick tricks.

Also serves as a morale booster for their regular Boy-Scout style Derby car races. Winner gets better rations and a seat at the captains table.

>>33552987
youre so fucking stupid

>>33552447
China's airforce has huge numbers too

shame they're all MiG-21s

>>33536944
it also means the capability of the carrier is dramatically reduced in heavy sea or bad weather.

File: 1466354052165.png (92KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 512x512px

>>33552380
US defense budget includes costs associated with overseas bases.
>inb4 UK has overseas bases too
Yeah like 3. This whole thread is garbage but your post was just retarded.

File: 1462335024538.jpg (61KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 350x335px

>>33536823
>53m shorter than a nimitz

>>33552842
And? Spain is basically European Brazil, they're only a threat to themselves.

>>33553516

It is the opposite.

STVOL carriers have the advantage in higher sea states.

>>33553553

Not that I'm defending his comment, but there's at least eight.

>>33537353
Trump Russia Putin Syria gas chemical attack Assad healthcare pizza Rice unmasking gorsuch obama bannon security council

>>33552447
2/3rds of that personnel are divers and salvagers for fishing the rustbuckets out when they sink in port

File: emalsyou.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>33537353

>>33553212
*You're

>>33537162
>Ramps don't break down and allow higher sortie rate.
So isn't the solution to keep like 2 f35-b's on deck for immediate response and then use a catapult for responses that actually require a carrier?

Also don't they perform preventive maintenance/replacement on the catapult systems after 1/3rd the lifespan like they do with the arresting gear?

File: 1491494303685.jpg (44KB, 512x365px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 512x365px

>>33553212

>>33552115
looks like that carrier has an erection

File: MiG21operators.png (50KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1425x625px

>>33553459
Gooks don't operate MiG-21. Some NATO countries do though.

File: 1477054805002.jpg (226KB, 1432x964px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1432x964px

>>33553650
Huh. It explains the looks of the small island's navy.

>>33553959

It is really sad that I recognise you from previous threads.

Can you imagine being this upset that you austically spam this image of a few retards who know nothing about ASW talking shit about the best ASW surface hunter in NATO?

File: 1490743305619.gif (143KB, 545x524px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 545x524px

>>33537107

File: 1143.6 riga & 1143.5 tbilisi (1).jpg (390KB, 2040x1203px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 2040x1203px

>>33553889
You see those carriers from Russia? They’ve got curved penises.

>>33554019
imagine floating around with a dick like that every day

File: 1143.6 riga & 1143.5 tbilisi (2).jpg (1MB, 1795x1205px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1795x1205px

BIG curved penises.

File: admiral blazeit.jpg (281KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1280x850px

>>33554015
>It is really sad that I recognise you from previous threads
I too think that your autism is rather sad. I mean I can't even imagine being this upset.

File: turkish lpd.jpg (48KB, 580x388px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x388px

>>33536823
>Why do yuro poors use ramps?

We aren't yuros (still poor though) is it ok for us to use ramps for our carrier?

>>33537782
>compliments
complements

>>33538955
Britain does both though?

>>33537232
Quick. Someone call India..

>>33537647
Brits don't care to maximize deck parking/ air group.

>>33537677
Reserve buoyancy for the North Atlantic. Without those lines, waves would roll over the bow and break on the island. And sweep your planes into the ocean, regardless of tiedowns.

>>33538458
UK did invent the steam catapult.

>>33537069
Makes perfect sense

>>33554823
But that carrier is spanish though?

>>33536823
They have trouble getting it up.

>>33552842
???

>>33537195
>those ramps

first time in a while that i've laughed out loudly at something on /k/

>>33552380
what people forgot is that us has 10 lhds and they in sea control role can embark about 25-30 f-35 so us has 20 carriers :^)

>>33551542
I like how it looks vaguely like a hump-back whale. Probably not an accident since a whale is that shape for a reason and it's probably efficient underwater or something.

>>33552478
>at least tru out the cold war france had 2 carriers
That was the time when they might fight someone who could sink a carrier

>what if it gets sunk
They don't fight those fights anymore, just insurgencies and shit that could, at best, shoot down on of the aircraft. Never threaten the carrier.

I don't know how NATO works with losses, if NATO fights someone big and loses a carrier, do the other NATO members involved compensate/insure for it?

>>33553677
They stuck an ammo cart on the catapult for fun?

At least tell me it was some sort of materiel recovery exercise for the divers.

>>33553893
>Gooks don't operate MiG-21
>Posts pic showing China operating MiG-21
What did they mean by this?

>>33561885
Like all americans, you are a very "special" boy, aren't you? Countries still operating it are marked in blue.

>>33562575
The PLAAF operates over 700 J-7s in multiple Division sized elements like the 7th and 15th 7th Fighter Aviation Division

Which are MiG-21s in everything but name.

Its like saying the Type-56 isn't an AK

>>33562595
Gook copycats produced by gooks have nothing to do with originals whatsoever. It's like saying J-31 is F-35.
Anyway, back to the point, as of 2012 they operated 320 J-7 plus 40 J-7 trainers. It's neither all, nor even anywhere near the most of their air force, so the analogy is rather shitty.

>>33562704
>Gook copycats produced by gooks have nothing to do with originals whatsoever. It's like saying J-31 is F-35.

>Literally a license built version of the MiG-21
>The same as the J-31/F-35

stop posting on /k/, forever. Tardlet.

>>33562718
Gook copycat is still a gook copycat, retard.

>>33562746
Calling anyone a retard when you compared a licence built version to the J-31/F-35 that are completely different is rich, nignog.

You don't know dick, stop posting.

>>33562760
Gook shill, please. Gook copycat is still a gook copycat.

>>33552987
>Spend more money on new planes/rebuilds because F35B dont like catapults

>>33561880
They are weighted sleds for testing and calibrating the catapults.

How hard would it be to make a mechanical ramp that is able to switch back and forth between flat and ramp?

You could install these on catapult carriers to give them added utility to more quickly launch planes that dont need a catapult. It would also provide a backup system on case the catapult failed.

>>33553959
lel I was in this brit/pol/ thread

literally every ID in this screencap had one post in a thread of 200

>>33563045
Wow, you're awesome! Wish we had more posters like you, who have been present in popular /pol/ threads, /k/ would be so much more pleasant, reasonable and informative!