Fucking Ramp

Mostly a /k/ meme.

The retarded believe they somehow limit the aircraft when they do the opposite. The ramps only boost the aircraft.

And because people don't understand what requirements are. Like the reasons why you would want lower maintenance and higher availability option.

File: 1492647457750.png (18KB, 129x128px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 129x128px

>>33793194
>>33793241
>a fucking RAMP

>>33793194
Because they're the budget thus inferior option.

They limit the payload and wight of the plane that can be launched. They also put more stress on the plane during take off meaning the weight has to be watched or landing gear has to be beefed up.

>>33793532
>They limit the payload and weight of the plane that can be launched
seems to me that it would do the opposite since the ramp would generate more lift no?

>>33793532
once again retards just parroting memes they read in other threads

Ramps are actually better than catapults in every way.

>>33793654
It generates more lift, but requires the engines going into afterburner to lift it. Having a ramp basically means your engines are going to have to work a lot harder. They limit weight because fuel has to be accounted for - and you're going to have a far slower launch speed therefore less lift. Ramps offer very little but cost savings over catapults.

>>33793698
*It generates more lift than a flat deck

File: alucard hellsing nose glasses I can see both sides of my nose at once.jpg (75KB, 875x681px)

75KB, 875x681px

Why not just use catapults AND ramps

File: 1491093150124.jpg (60KB, 578x560px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 578x560px

>>33793673
>a fucking RAMP

>>33793194
Due to the way they work, there's an upper limit on takeoff payload. It's higher than a flat deck, but lower than a catapult.

Additionally, because they rely on the plane's afterburners being able to get it up to speed very fast after leaving the ramp, you're further limited by the type of aircraft you can launch.

So you burn more fuel and put more stress on the engines than you would with a catapult, and you get even less payload. Furthermore, you're more dependent on the facing of the aircraft carrier. A CATOBAR carrier can simply dump more power into the catapult to launch a fully loaded fighter into the wind. A ramp carrier can't do that. If the headwind is too strong, the carrier either has to turn 180 degrees or the payload has to be reduced.

>>33793712
That's what the Chinese are doing for their next carrier. It will be better than any aircraft carrier ever built.

File: uk-skijumps.jpg (208KB, 1496x648px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1496x648px

It's cheaping out and giving up a large amount of ability for a tiny amount of savings. It's a bad deal.

>>33793730
>because they rely on the plane's afterburners
The Su-25UTG has afterburners?

>>33793654
It generates lift in an inferior fashion. Aka increasing angle of attack.

In order to take full advantage of the increase in the aoa you need to limit physically what you can carry for aerodynamic reasons. And because there is structural shock as the plane rises up the ramp which also limits payload because more stuff means more shock.

Catapults increase lift by increasing speed. In the lift formula : Coff lift x rho x vilocity^2 / 2

Vilocity is more mathematically significant than coefficient of lift, which is what angle of attack effects.

Also increasing aoa increases induced drag.

And thus cats > ramps

T. Aeronautics student

>>33793194
More of a status thing from what I can figure. In ramps vs catapults, catapults require more tech ability, money and R&D to implement. Supposedly they give you more weight to throw on your fighters at take off, vs the ramp. Although I'm sure there's ramp launched fighters that could be comparable.

At the end though that's just my two cents and since I'm American I say fuck those yuropoor ramps

>>33793765
Sorry I also missed the surface area part in my formula.

Lift = Cl x A x v^2 x rho / 2

>>33793194
You've seen the Chinese escalator videos? Image what havoc a high powered catapult cable would wreak in case of a malfunction

>>33793194
>Why are ramps on aircraft carriers so looked down upon?

Because they're the poorfag option.

>>33793698
>Ramps offer very little but cost savings over catapults.

Wow, way to removal any creditably in your post.

>>33793698
I may be completely wrong because I really haven't watched a carrier launch in-depth recently, but don't most CATOBAR fighters still launch in afterburner?

>>33793888
Yes, but they can throttle out of it a lot sooner. Ski-jumps can't, or they'll crash into the water.

File: 1337990482_map2.jpg (65KB, 800x524px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x524px

>>33793712
Ulyanovsk-class was supposed to be like this.

Catapult would be used primarily for launch of heavy AWACS planes while ramp would be used by fighters.

They should just angle the entire flight deck.

>>33794183
kek

>>33794183
Kekd irl

>>33794183
They should just put a bunch of heavy stuff in the back of the boat.

>>33794183
That's not a bad idea. Why the fuck doesn't the deck have it's own suspension and hydraulics?

>>33794183
>>33794400
They should put the hole flight deck on a swivel, that way the ship doesn't have turn into the wind ever again.

File: 1493417972877.jpg (52KB, 746x560px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 746x560px

Found this on /pol/

>>33794000
But it doesn't make sense.
If you can make catapult just install one more and have a normal carrier.

>>33793736
Just like the Soviet stuff was? At least if you believe the propoganda. They'll be lucky if it works. Carrier ops have a steep learning curve.

File: 160261-164677[1].jpg (35KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 320x320px

>>33793654
what the fuck
>>33793663
am i reading

aircraft specific energy effects
take off weight
take off speed
mechanical fatigue
compression stress
hydraulic stress
critically, it looks dumb as fuck

imagine a bowling ball as it approaches a ramp. it's center of mass lags behind, compressing the object before again centering. it's two forces, not just a compression. the weight on ramp t/o increases, jesus fucking christ, meaning your top-end payload weight suffers IN SOME MANNER- beefier hydraulics, greater acceleration off the deck (energy has to go somewhere retards), and so on all lead to other mechanical stresses, decreasing flyable hours.

a ramp is not free energy, i got trolled hard

I don't like ramps ever being considered for AMERICAN carriers.

Flat real estate on deck is more valuable for the size carrier we build.

On something like a harrier carrier that's smaller than a LHA, sure.

File: 1490757557494m.jpg (119KB, 1024x682px)

119KB, 1024x682px

>>33793194

File: 1920px-Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano.jpg (294KB, 1920x984px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1920x984px

>>33793673
Okay then why not a third option: a fucking long-ass runway that takes the normal amount of length for the plane to take off.

Just make the carrier longer instead of weird looking. None of the WWII carriers had goofy skateboard ramps on them.

>>33794812
yeah ramps are so good, that's every runway on land has a ramp. it's just good business.

>>33794826
i think we should put a runway on every ramp

File: 1295349312741.jpg (722KB, 1500x2100px)

722KB, 1500x2100px

Ramps: Mechanically simple, always available and inexpensive, but also limit the weight and type of aircraft that can be launched.

>>33794950
c a t a p u l t
even simpler, fewer drawbacks, and in fact opens up more options to launch heavier planes like seaborne AWACS

>>33793755
It's not a tiny amount of savings when you need to do a huge amount of start up and development cost to get the first one you build going.

It's a lot more economical when you are building a fleet of carriers. When you are going to have two, a ramp starts to look pretty good.

>>33793194
Save gas for the plane, therefore extended range and loiter time

File: 1461251717920.jpg (1MB, 1795x1205px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1795x1205px

The reason American Amphib Assault Ships don't use a ramp is that their primary purpose is to operate rotary wing operations. The fixed wing assets (AB8B & F35B(coming soon)) are supportive only.

>>33793532
>ramps stress airframes more than catapaults
Ramps have clear disadvantages to cats, but don't be a retard.

File: 1st-nation-hunger-strike-121112_lead_media_image_1.jpg (32KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 620x349px

>>33794961
>even simpler
anon pls...

File: wasp7[1].jpg (463KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1920x1280px

>>33794950

Also takes up available deckspace, which is why US navy amphibious carriers never adopted ramps. Takes up a few spaces for helicopters to use.

>>33793654
Going off the ramp at that high speed makes G's that hurt the plane, and hurt the deck brah, so you gotta be careful

>>33794290

Flooding compartments was used on battleships to control listing from flooding.

/k/ told me some clever BB captains would flood compartments to list the boat purposefully ton give their guns higher elevation.

Genius.

Because only 3rd world countries have ramps nowadays lol.

>>33794812
Poor Shinano ;_;

>>33794183
>>33794400
>>33794421
I think this is great, just have the flight deck constructed at a sort of a slope to the rest of the ship, and launch planes up the slope

>>33794453
lol, that's pretty good.

Now git out

File: 1486243700344.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px)

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>33795649
the center of mass is altered twice, that energy loss bleeds momentum. ramps allow you to simply get a bird off deck with less runway.

>>33794743
a ramp is not free energy

they are a less expensive solution to dedicated mechanical infrastructure and additional vessel length. they impart larger forces to the aircraft in a different way, and demonstrably more rapidly.

a catapult is mitigated with frame integrity and resisting that acceleration curve. the curve on a ramp induces a different axis of momentum, and is a greater engineering problem. think of all the components that withstand a shift in momentum that's at a right angle to the earth's center, where the aircraft is designed for rapid acceleration in the other fucking direction-> forwards.

every cannon plug, contact, lateral welds, rivet assemblies, the entire bird for all maintenance can do, is compressing and decompressing vertically, where the aircraft is fundamentally a horizontal vehicle.

retarded rampfags need to admit that it's just cost savings. considering that modern carriers are capable of trans-pacific shit, when you finally pull into range of a target, do you want to limit your tank size or munitions, because that's how the fuck energy works. you don't create energy with a god damn ramp. later nerds

>>33795865

What if they built a giant downhill ramp that leads up to the jump ramp like on a real ski jump?

from the sinodefenceforum. Summary of the lastest rumour about China's next carrier.

>Hmmwv just posted the latest rumor any comment?. Not sure what he meant by 35 to 40 aircraft wing is that meant fighter only?
Seem like the catapult competition is settled It is steam catapult

>fzgfzy has reaffirmed his previous assessment of the 002.

>74,000t (I assume fully loaded), 3 cats, 2 elevators, 220,000-240,000 HP steam turbine. Slightly larger hangar than 001A, aircraft wing size 35 to 40+. First ship already under construction at JNCX, second one will follow at DL.


>军报记者写的是否有保密需求不知道,但也是目前最官方的说法了,2013年11月开工~15年3月入坞。后一个数字因为前后和当天都有图是可以确定的。13年8月底老大去后。图纸,号科和预处理之前鹤飞有科普贴大约三个月内切板,时间对的上。之后大组立,14年中分段(发过手绘贴),遐迩的入坞预测都证明了。显示了CD作为最有影响力的军坛的地位。

>002第一条,无论CD主流的上海17开动(开工这个词太那个,干脆不用),还是15年开动,还是大连造,这个诂计也要很多年才能用可以看见的事实来反推了。

>我们大家军迷也就是起哄,我个人消息,002在上海已经动作了(和流泪观点一致),仪式是还没有,多大级别老大来不清楚,今年年底前有可知的消息。

>002预计7.4万吨上下,动力"加压蒸…"预计22~24万马力,升降机两台,机库略大,35~40多,看机型。弹射蒸气,三条。

>>33793194
It's an outdated nigger-rig workaround to a problem that a certain other superpower solved over half a century ago, and it's also really unaesthetic as it ruins the flatness of a flattop.

File: A6M.jpg (144KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1152x864px

>>33794812
The carriers in WWII had one advantage: their aircraft had short takeoff roles because they were a fraction of the weight.

File: 1332707598274.jpg (673KB, 1920x1080px)

673KB, 1920x1080px

>>33794950

F/A-18: objectively superior combat aircraft, not limited by a ramp.

Its capabilities are worth far more than a chunk of concrete wedge.

>>33793194
Manly memes.

File: 23000e shtorm project.jpg (378KB, 802x1134px)

378KB, 802x1134px

>>33793712
SOON

>>33795718
>Feeling sorry for a piece of shit.

>>33794453
i want to do this now

>>33796084
>more info by the end of the year
So it's going to take a while just to show up in the dockyard huh. There's still a chance that it's completed before India's Vikrant though which would be absolutely hilarious.

objectively a ramp and low maintainence aircraft that can be started up and inspected in under a few minutes is better than very expensive aircraft that require catapulting

if a nimitz comes under sudden attack and has 10 minutes to launch as many aircraft as possible it will do pathetically compared to an elizabeth. now for long term sustained carrier operations (gunboat diplomacy) the nimitz is the best carrier in the world

>>33797239
Russians don't have the yard to do something that big.

>>33798787
>if a nimitz comes under sudden attack and has 10 minutes to launch as many aircraft as possible it will do pathetically compared to an elizabeth.

Wrong. There is no difference between launch times, but the Nimitz has 4 simultaneous take off points instead of the stack.

You think pilots just pull up and take off on their own?

>>33798818

No....they double tap Z to boost on through.

>>33798818
the simple fact that american aircraft must go through a long startup taxi through a very clutterred deck and then be afixed to a catapult that has to be reloaded before the next aircraft can be ready for launch means that our system of sortieing all aircraft would take much longer than a 'standard' ramp carrier

>>33798857
The reset of the cat is done while moving into position. Attaching the book takes minimal time.

The rest is the same weather or not you have a ramp.

Only Subhumans use ramps.

>>33798923
>book

Boot

>>33798923
as i understand it they are unreliable sometimes taking a day to repair during operations. the ship also must be pointed the right direction and rather stationary due to the short ramp take off as well. also any angular difference than truly pointing down the runway can fuck things up as well as a screw on the deck.

so many problems with le suber awbsomes newclear carriers and big 100 million dollar fighter jets that i rather think what a huge fucking waste. do we even have half our carriers operational now?

>>33798951
>as i understand it

Straight up, you don't judging by your post.

>are unreliable sometimes

Steam cats are extremely reliable.

>. the ship also must be pointed the right direction

Wrong, cats deliver enough speed to make up for lack of ship speed.

>rather stationary due to the short ramp take off as well.

OK kid, I'm stopping here.

Cease and desist posting immediately

>>33793194

>>33798970
>ameriboo btfo
kek, literally a 10 knot wind across the bow could splash a plane being thrown off the deck with this stupid catapult system which is never perfectly pressurized and damages it's planes structures each time they take off

>>3379899

Why would somebody do this? Lie? On the internet?

>>33795416
See: >>33795865

Do you know what inertia is?

>>33795865
Modern planes pull 9Gs, I don't think the vertical acceleration caused by going up a ramp exceeds that

>>33793241
>The retarded believe they somehow limit the aircraft when they do the opposite. The ramps only boost the aircraft.

A lower payload and/or lower sortie rate is a limit, not a boost.

>>33796084
>summary of the latest wild speculation

ftfy

>>33796206
France?

Seriously, steam catapults are hardly an american invention.

>>33798787
>>33798857
>Nimitz sustained sortie rate is roughly equal a QE's surge rate
>Nimitz surge rate is nearly double a QE's
>Ford's are even faster

>>33798857
And yet a Nimitz at full scramble can get an aircraft off the deck every twenty seconds with a cat down (the crew cert standard). Each cat is supposed to cycle every sixty seconds, because of steam accumulation, which on next gen carriers won't matter, so they might be able to do a plane more like every 15-18 seconds, though there you're cutting close to the limits of how fast aircraft can be started and taxi to the queue. For a ramp carrier the smaller deck space is going to give real problems getting your aircraft into position so I'd be surprised seeing a very incredible rate. We'll see when the QE launch cert standards are revealed.

Historically, carriers have launched 45+ aircraft strike packages in 15 minutes, and that's likely at a slower rate than maximum for the extra safety margin.

>>33798993
>damages it's planes structures each time they take off
Not a problem, that's why engineers exist.

A ten knot wind also won't do shit to a Hornet, they're much to heavy. Maneuvering is mainly for safety margins near stall speed. You literally said the ship had to be stationary and that identifies you as a retard.

>>33793194
It means no catapult and it also means only one take-off point. CATOBAR carriers don't have ramps, because they have 2 catapults that give enough starting energy for the aircraft to start and even have increased fuel/munitions in comparison to Ramp-style. Ramps also reduce the surface area you have to store aircraft on the deck, reduce your landing zone and what not.

The main problem isn't the ramp so to say, but the problem is that if you go for a ramp, you didn't go for dual catapults.

>>33798951
>8951▶>>33798970
>>>33798923
Luckily you have 2.


You have one fucking ramp.

>>33794812
aircraft now are much larger, heavier and require greater speeds on takeoff than in dubya dubya too, so you'd need a couple of supertankers to fit a runway long enough

>>33794583

Don't expect the Russians to make sense. They just lost a fucking ship to Romanian sheep.

>>33799228
So the limiting factor is deck space not a ramp.

>>33798809

Or the money.

>>33793712
Why would anyone do that? Either go full cats or full ramps if you can't afford it.

>That one person ITT getting hyper defensive about ramps

Why? They're in most aspects tard technology.

>>33795012
Even then the US is spending a billion dollars per carrier on Cats

>>33799153
Modern planes cannot pull 9g's with a full load of fuel or munitions
Modern planes need extensive maintenance after pulling 9g's because stuff will have broken

>>33799407
1000 feet is ample runway

>>33799162

By the ramp compared to just having a flatdeck?

Yep, you're retarded.

>>33799739
because their country has one.

>>33798809
>What the fuck is Baltic Shipyard?
NTSA.

>>33794583
There is no such thing as "normal" carrier. Just because the US uses carriers exclusively as floating airbases for bombing towelheads doesn't mean this is the sole purpose of a carrier. Also Ulyanovsk having a catapult is a speculation.

>>33793194
CIDF on full force today it seems. How many yens have you earnes today Chong?

>>33800128

Have they ever built something that big thou? The largest warship they've ever built is the Kirov Class.

>>33800128
Does only commercial ships now.

>>33799760
Yes, but nobody is comparing ramped decks to flat decks. They're comparing ramped decks to flat decks with catapult systems, which are demonstrably superior in every possibly way.

You fucking dumbass. Go read a book.

>>33798993
Why don't people who post about ramped decks have any idea what they're talking about?

Are you literally a drooling moron? You can make the argument that ramps are cheaper and achieve acceptable results for less money. You cannot argue that ramps have any kind of capability advantage over catapults, because that's just completely untrue.

>>33794183
No, they should make it slightly U-shaped. So that planes accelerate quicker and then ramp at the end.

>>33793798
I like you, more people need to argue like you.

>>33797239
>Russia actually manages to produce one.
>It's made as cheaply as possible.
>So many cut corners that it's a barely floating death trap for the crew.
>Still manages to cripple Russian economy.

>>33793241
>The ramps only boost the aircraft.

Its strange how you can find wrong and right in 4chan so hand to hand...

yes its mission its to boost the aircraft but that doesn't mean that the aircraft will go fully loaded or at least as loaded as it would do with a CATOBAR and you wouldn't be so limited to only a few specifically designed planes.

Ramps are great when you can't afford the maintenance and you only need semi loaded specialized fighters to do a certain job, because your country is not going to do force projection that often or is willing to suck US dick for it.

So its not a meme, its the indirect acknowledgment of submission to the country that actually uses their military for something else than parades

>>33795490
Yeah, that's what I said here: >>33795121

>>33801748
Question, can a US carrier launch fighters if the ship isn't turned into the wind?

Ramp carriers absolutely have to be turned into the wind to get their jets off the deck.

>>33801877
>Ramp carriers absolutely have to be turned into the wind to get their jets off the deck.

every time.

>>33801232
They have the capacity to.

>>33799739
Rampposting has kicked the inferiority complexes of numerous vatniks, chinaboos, and the occasional bong into overdrive. Just look at >>33799902

>>33794453
I keked much more than i should have at this

File: leon-karssen.jpg (20KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x300px

>>33794453
I keked but get the fuck out

>>33793194
>Why are ramps on aircraft carriers so looked down upon?

because Americans think alpha strike is more important than sortie rate.

File: 3-cvf.jpg (56KB, 620x310px)

56KB, 620x310px

If Le Pen wins will France build their PA2? It was a CATOBAR version of the ski-jump Q-E class the bongs are building

>>33804365
Le Pen isn't going to win so it really doesn't matter.

>>33799153
Is a modern plane's landing gear able to handle 9G? Because that's the salient issue.

>>33804492
They're capable of handling sink rates of over 30 ft/sec. The acceleration depends on the vertical travel.

>>33804365
France is doing some thingy with India.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2017/sea-air-space-2017-show-daily-news/5148-future-indian-navy-and-french-navy-aircraft-carriers-likely-to-be-fitted-with-emals-aag.html

>>33799153
The problem is that it puts a lot of extra stress on the gear, which are usually designed around the aircraft being empty when it lands.
Also, accelerating the aircraft up by the gear is functionally equivalent to a negative G on the wing, and most aircraft are designed with fairly low negative-G limits, especially when fully loaded.

Aircraft are never fully loaded on combat missions.

>>33793241
Hi slavaboo

Run down of ramps
Pros:
>Smaller, cheaper aircraft carriers

Cons:
>Can't launch at night
>Can't launch in rough seas
>Launch more slowly
>Can't launch heavier aircraft
>Can't launch aircraft with full ordinance loads

The US can launch an 50,000 pound Lightning II loaded down with 12,000 pounds of ordinance from a Nimitiz whereas the Chinese will only be able to launch the 36,000 pound Su-27 with a mere 4,000 pounds of ordinance from a ramp

>>33805014
>>Can't launch at night

What? Why?

>>33804940
What?

They're "fully loaded" to as much armament and fuel as they need for the mission and can safely launch with given the weather and runway length. Nations without aerial refueling have to sacrifice armament for gas, USA and friends sacrifice gas for armament and top off once they're airborne.
If you just want to be pedantic about the various definitions of "fully loaded" we could come up with, such as max allowable gross weight versus all stores loaded versus heaviest stores configuration, etc, then you can fuck off.

>>33805014
>Can't launch at night

I'm not even a ramp tramp, but my moderate knowledge of carrier ops is strained trying to imagine the reasons why nighttime ramp launches would be difficult.

>>33805126

can't see the ramp silly

>>33805126
You're forgetting that nations too poor to implement steam catapults probably also haven't developed electric lighting. See >>33805421

>>33799428
A ramp limits deck space. By a lot.

>>33804355
>Nimitz has higher sortie rates than ramp surge rates
Fucking neck yourself my man.

>>33794453
Saved.
You faggot status has been commuted.

>>33801686
:3

>>33793654

It doesn't throw the plane like a catapult though, so the extra lift is more than subsumed under the lower velocity.

As a result the Russians had to have lighter payloads on their planes than the US does.

It's cheaper than catapults and requires less of the aircraft and so allows cheaper aircraft, but it comes at the cost of performance.