>Ramps on carriers Why do third world shitholes do this?

>>33717077
>stupid posts that contribute nothing to the board

Why do retards like you do this?

File: topkek.jpg (20KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x250px

>>33717077
>kuznetsov carrier modernization
>they mopped the floor and painted new lines on it

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

123KB, 2048x1536px

>>33717077
Ramps are cheaper, faster and more reliable. Deal with it.

Shitty Russian attempt at power projection.

>>33717077
>Actually spend less on your military than the next 15 countries combined

Thats why.

So their planes go further when taking off, just in case it fails. Don't want it to hit the big boat and all.

>>33717616
>new engines
>new elevators
>new electronics
>No mememissiles for more hanger space

>>33717768
>No mememissiles for more hanger space
Give me a single fucking proof they enlarged hangar space at the expense of missile tubes. Protip: you can't. Because there are like three control posts between the tubes and the hangar, retarded gook shill.

>>33717685
>spend less than next 15 countries combined
wut?

>>33717077
It is cheaper, more reliable and it fits Russian naval aviation doctrine.

>>33717836
>Russian naval aviation doctrine
You mean getting drunk and sailing around in circles, then yes it fits it perfectly

>>33717922
It's more for supporting a navy with an air wing rather than sending out long range bombers for an invasion.

>>33717077
Steam isn't free, you know?

Poverty and a lack of engineering knowhow.

>>33717077
I think that's the Chinese Liaoning in your pic OP. ( I know it's a Kuznetsov class carrier)

File: I don't believe you.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>33717675
>faster

>>33718463
>Steam isn't free
It kind of is. The catapults on USA's carriers use steam recycled from the ships nuclear reactors.

>>33718545

Yes, they give higher sortie rate. This is not even debatable.

File: blank_1_s1[1].jpg (162KB, 1100x851px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1100x851px

Is the left ramp a basketball court?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (569KB, 1880x1795px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1880x1795px

Reminder that France is america's greatest ally as the posses the only other nuclear powered flat top.

Based frogs.

>>33719197
Also the catapults (and probably the whole CATOBAR system) come from the same supplier as for US carriers, so USN and French Navy carriers and aircraft are completely interoperable.

File: download (2).jpg (4KB, 193x261px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 193x261px

>>33717616
yet they still didnt fix the "visible from space" part

File: 0_17e944_1aa4b9e0_XL1.jpg (58KB, 591x800px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 591x800px

>>33719306
stop using ant images

>>33719197
But the CdG is a piece of shit

>>33717675
>more reliable
kek

>>33719222
>USN and French Navy carriers and aircraft are completely interoperable.

They're not. It doesn't work like that.

Just because you see tokenism of both F-18s and Rafales launching from each both, does not make it actually operationally viable.

File: 1492801031541.jpg (50KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x635px

>>33719327
thats on a good day

>>33717808
>Observers have noted the installation of Type 348 active electronically scanned array (AESA) Radar (four arrays) and Sea Eagle radar. The air defense system consists of the Type 1030 CIWS and the FL-3000N missile system. The anti-ship missile tubes would not be used, freeing up internal space for hangar or storage use. Russia has explored similar modifications to her sister ship Admiral Kuznetsov.[23]

Please tell me more about how you have seen the inside of the Liaoning. They do have structural posts there, but they are much smaller than the missiles tubes.

File: kusnetsov layout.gif (147KB, 2000x837px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 2000x837px

>>33719387
>A simple fucking ramp
>Not more reliable than a clusterfuck of engineering
Yeah, right.
>>33719447
Shitposter, please.
>>33719704
Nice wikipedia quote. come back when you will have the actual proof of them changing the internal structure of the carrier. As in pointing out where exactly did the three fucking command posts went instead. Rumours of Russians doing the same are bullshit as well.
>They do have structural posts there, but they are much smaller than the missiles tubes.
Pic related, 4, 5 and 6.

Because they are poor.

Ramps are less reliable, slower and the jets launched from them are inherently inferior to the ones launched via catapult.

Without the thrust of a catapult, they have to full speed off the decks, which stresses their engines, they can't carry as large as payload and their fuel loads have to be limited.

It's fine if all you are doing is fleet defense, but stupid for power projection.

>>33719197
What are those spines sticking out of the starboard bow?

>>33719953
>your source on the Liaoning is bad
>posts the Kutz

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

390KB, 2040x1203px

>>33720170
Liaoning is almost literally Kuz.

>>33720111
Curb feelers

try operating catapults in arctic, not gonna work.

>>33717549
>Why do retards like you do this?


Dude,Dude,Dude
Catapult

Fucking ca-ta-pult

a steam....powered...cat-a-pult

you must be joking. a fucking catapult flings a jet into the sky.

its fucking first world amazing

>>33721098
lol the navy got that shit worked out in the 40s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH2U5Uc4b1Q

>>33721098
>try operating catapults in arctic, not gonna work.

HORSE
SHIT
cold doesnt stop STEAM

STEAM IS HOT, VERY HOT

you sound like an ignorant vatnik

>>33720111
pops the tires of enemy ships that get too close.

>>33721304
>lol the navy got that shit worked out in the 40s.

thanks for the basic info breh

>40s

nice job vatniks. Jesus this cold sure is difficults, lelers

>>33721341
so it gonna freeze even faster

>>33721300
Welcome to the what, like 60s? 70s?

>>33721427
that's not how physics works.

>>33721645
US arctic carrier operations: 404.

>>33718970
Bullshit. CATOBAR clears up deck space to spot a greater number of aircraft topside for a given cycle, leading to a higher overall sortie rate. Likewise, CATOBAR allows parking aircraft on the bow on top of the catapults after recovery; STOBAR does not permit this due to the presence of the ramp.

>QE (lolramp): 72 sorties/day continuous, 110 day max
>Nimitz: 120/day continuous, 240/day max
>Ford: 160/day continuous, 270/day max

STOBAR might make sense if it allowed you to afford and operate a 50% larger fleet of carriers (which is certainly credible, CATOBAR doesn't come cheap), but ship-for-ship CATOBAR is definitely more capable.