>Ramp >Fail-35 is its main aircraft Has there been a bigger

>>33936002
Yes. Your life.

>>33936029
/thread

File: sosorry.jpg (38KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x360px

>>33936002
America's demographics.

>>33936002
You forgot price. They could buy a fucking Nimitz.

>we need to save some $ so lets spend more money so that we can spend more than we were trying to save and end up with a mediocre product

lol brits

>>33936002

They're a massive step up in capability from the Invincible class and harriers. That's all that matters.

>>33936383
>price includes two units and program costs
>what are life costs
You are retarded.

>>33936490
a guy in a kayak with a gun is a massive step up from the harriers and invincible class because they dont have either anymore.

File: WzMHRtW.jpg (184KB, 1200x691px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1200x691px

>Has there been a bigger laughing stock in recent years?
yes, pic related

>>33936526

Not really, as a dude with a kayak is special forces stuff and cannot substitute strike/CAP.

>>33936551
ships/aircraft that dont exist cant into strike/cap either

>>33936565

That insightful.

>>33936565
They don't have harriers anymore because they knew they were getting the new shit. They got rid of them early because they didn't think they'd need them, which is stupid but ended up being true.

quit being autistic

>>33936002
I just found out it didn't have catapults. I thought it was a legit carrier. I mean they were carrying the f35. say what u will about it.

nope, they go with the f35b. they fucking vtol version....
why?
why not put a catapult on it? it cant be that much more expensive
and I would imagine the f35b is more expensive then the carrier variant (the only half usefull one because of it having large enough wings to semi-manouver) because the f35b is more complex

File: Ghost-Flag.jpg (1MB, 3324x1824px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3324x1824px

>>33936542
lol I can its Russian
but what ship, do u know anymore

>pic not related

File: ghost-boat-132699287293.jpg (114KB, 410x410px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 410x410px

>>33936614
*I can tell


and shit maybe pic is related
I think his project turned out to be a joke
>boat made for stealth that isn't a sub

>>33936604
The F-35C is more expensive than the F-35B

They didn't want to spend the money on a catapult system, shits not cheap.

>>33936604

Because EMALS and AAG were having immaturity issues that would have caused delays and significant cost overruns. Steam was not practical since the ship is conventionally powered.

There's also issues that it would change crew requirements, training pipeline and F-35 buy rate. RN liked what it got from the harrier in Falklands, it wanted to continue that.

>>33936002
At least it is not digital

>>33936604

The catapult is a lot more expensive, they looked into it. Apart from anything else, it is a gas turbine powered IEP vessel so it doesn't normally produce steam, and EMALS is an immature technology (look at the issues with the USS Gerald R. Ford). On the other hand, the F-35B has comparable range & payload to the F/A-18E which is currently the most capable combat aircraft operated from USN carriers. The F-35B is also going to be operated by the RAF, as the UK's sole F-35 variant for the foreseeable future, leading to cost savings over a mixed fleet.

Also, if you look at the procurement costs and the operating costs (look at the crewing requirements) of the QE carriers compared to the latest USN CVNs, even with the costly delay and double U-turn over the F-35C, it works out phenomenally cheaper.

>>33936706
>The F-35B is also going to be operated by the RAF

Both the RAF and RN have joint ownership and control of the F-35.

Why do we have to have threads about carriers with ramps all the fucking time

File: wtfgif3.gif (726KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 240x180px

>>33936733
what are pros and cons to having a ramp vs no ramp

>>33936752
Pros
>Safer
>Simpler
>Cheaper

Cons
>Can't launch heavy aircraft like E-2s

The "jets can't take off with full payload on a ramp" is utter bullshit. MOD documents show F-35Bs will be taking off from the QE with full rated payload

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

79KB, 546x493px

>>33936002

Trying to argue that the F-35 is shit on /k/ isn't gonna work out well for you.

Best you stick to /pol/

As for the 2 Elizabeth class carriers they will still be the 2nd best aircraft carriers in the world

>>33936752

As in still operating STOVL aircraft without a ramp?

>With ramp: better payload (take off and bring back), better range, safer in general and bad weather, minus some deck parking space for ramp

>Without ramp: invert everything from above

>>33936781
what about the Charles du galle

>>33936733
Better than flat deck VTOL carriers like LHAs but worse than CATOBAR carriers like the US's CVNs.

File: wtf1.gif (482KB, 499x250px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 499x250px

>>33936787
no overall

>>33936796
More like Charles de Broke

Having only one carrier is incredibly limiting

File: 815389-485b4dc8-086d-11e3-842c-e58b8b7bc9c3.jpg (8KB, 316x237px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 316x237px

>>33936656
>Totally thought this was onion tier satire when I first read it
>Trum pactually said this shit
Americans are so fucked

>>33936800

What do you even mean by that?

>>33936542

When I first saw this I thought someone was urbexing in some old factory.

>>33936816
I mean some carriers have ramps
some do not
why do nations choose one over the other

>>33936849
R u retarted

>>33936849
Ramps
>lower maximum take-off weight
>cheaper
>less maintenance intensive, naturally, no moving parts
>has become more feasible in the recent years with higher thrust to weight ratio on modern jets
Cats
>Higher MTOW, allows launching E-2s and other things that aren't jet fighters
>more expensive, adds to the design requirements of the vessel with the steam system and all
>requires more maintenance
>EMALS is experimental but probably offers significant benefits over steam

Then there's things like sortie rate and the wear on aircraft they cause which I'm not going to address, the primary issue with bong ramps is the lack of fixed wing AWACS, US supercarriers are naturally more capable than the lighter bong carriers but there's more to that than comparing ramp vs. catapult, they are of course more expensive as well.

>>33936002
ITT: people who know nothing about aircraft carriers or military aircraft

File: C4l00GUUEAAVeWM.jpg (169KB, 1200x908px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x908px

>Has there been a bigger laughing stock in recent years?
Sure

>America's economy
>America's current government
>America's current social situation
These three off the top of my head

>>33936875
>>33936864
oh ok so its a cost thing
thanks senpai

>>33936884
Yeah but we also have 11 aircraft carriers so who's the real winner you little faggot

>>33936875

It is actually possible to launch fixed wing AWACS from a ramped carrier, it just requires arrest gear. E-2 was proposed to the Indians for their STOBAR carrier.

>>33936900
carriers can't save you from the evil within

arnt the Russians working on a nuclear diesel hybrid?

>>33936900
>we

Get a life you sad dweeb, you don't own shit all. Don't take pride in something you have zero input into.

File: HMAS_Canberra_in_June_2015.jpg (95KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x600px

what a an amphibious assault ship mixed with a carrier like the Canberra.
could take the beaches at Normandy her self

>>33936029
FPBP

>>33936903
>It is actually possible to launch fixed wing AWACS from a ramped carrier
Prove it nigger

>>33936796
A single carrier which spends most of its time in maintenance as the frogs cannot into reliable.

>>33936941

Literally Google it you nigger. There's plenty on this, the Russians were even considering it before the USSR collapsed.

https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-46251.aspx

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stobar-considered-to-meet-cvf-requirement-157153/

>>33936490
>price includes two units and program costs
For that price they could buy a Ford-class. HMS Queen Elizabeth alone costs more than Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Both ships cost like one Ford-class.

>>33937048

Again, that completely ignores life costs which are the real costs. Unit costs are quite literally nothing compared to the running and support costs.

In addition to the redesign work for British specification.

File: 5b5708a8ac4891ceafe3axos9z.jpg (174KB, 1024x758px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1024x758px

>>33937062
>British specification
>Not like they use whatever their US masters will say.

>>33937064

Ah, yes hello Ivan.

>>33937062
Life cost is not in contract. Anyway, UK economy is bigger than French but France build a fucking nuclear carrier.

>>33937080
Good morning, Ahmed.

>>33936604
Its fitted for but not with catapults and a reactor. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years time they refit her with them.

The reason they went with ramps and conventional power is not only cost but reduced crew & maintenance.

From what i remember CATOBAR requires regular replacement parts, even while at sea.

The ramp also allows for quicker scramble.With Catobar you have to reset the catapults after every launch.

>>33937083

That's not the point. We're discussing the price for capability and you'd be retarded not to consider both support and life costs.

And France built their nuclear carrier and has suffered for it. A budget is a finite thing.

The next carrier they were going to build was a conventionally powered QE derivative - does that not suggest something?

>>33937150
>does that not suggest something?
Yeah - never cooperate with Brits in anything.
Nuclear power is life and love.

>>33937166

Why? The French considered the nuclear option and rejected it.

Daily reminder that the GAO found the difference in effectiveness between nuclear and conventional minimum at best.

>>33936029
fucking /thread

>>33937091
Nice meme

checkback when you're not >60%

>>33937048
>>33936383

>For that price they could buy a Ford-class.
>Ford is $10.44B a ship
>QE is $9.47 bn a ship

Ah, yes. Let's purchase a POS ship which is 40 years old that will not suit our standards nor our manpower or maintenance budget.

Jesus fuck you're retarded.

>>33937188
>some bean counter bureaucrats determined they don't like the military
Also, sauce

>>33937698
$9.47bn cost is for both QE class. Building domestically also means that the money is kept within the local economy at least in part, too.

>>33936002
Oh cool it's the weekly thread posted about the ramp meme from someone who is probably from /pol/ or /int/
The Queen Elizabeth class is the only aircraft carriers being built in Europe right now, and there's going to be two of them, it's fantastic they are being built.

>>33937738

Shit on the GAO if you want, that's your opinion.

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-1

File: 14773210980620.jpg (268KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x850px

>>33937779
Nice, I will use in every Kuznetsov tread.

Yeah, you

>>33938698
It's important to remember that the GAO findings where made in 1998, almost 20 years go now.
Another study closer to current day would be better, but its still an interesting read.

>>33938698

This is only in general terms and does not specifically apply to particular carriers.

You should not use this to justify Kuznetsov since it was built and conceived with an entirely different way of operating.

>>33938845

Yep, though the general conclusions would be the same (shorter maintenance cycles, lower crew requirements etc), but the smaller details is where you'd find problems.

Most likely you'd still find it favourable opinion of conventional given advancements like IEP and such, but underlying fact that you won't get the same power generation or speed without disproportionate effort as nuclear.

>>33938908
I think the biggest take away I read was that there was little benefit to nuclear in the gulf region, where the British carriers will be operating (I assume that's where their focus is since they are expanding a base in Bahrain).
I would like to see them and the french deploy more into the indian and South Chinese oceans though, but the French will need another couple of carriers to make that viable.
I don't know much about French logistics compared to the British in those areas other than the French have quite a few territories in the Indian ocean

File: bresident budin.jpg (70KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x576px

>>33937064
oh boy this picture again, same filename to boot

I wonder who could be behind this?

>>33936002
Zumwalt? LCS? F-35 itself?

All American designs.

>>33938698

Except the GAO report was for a conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier, not STOBAR. It also included issues for the USA that do not apply to Russia, for example the cost savings from "home basing" a carrier overseas (eg Japan) which is much easier politically and in terms of necessary base infrastructure.

>>33936029

That's it, we're done here.

>>33936002
>Fail-35
Retard detected, opinion discarded.

>>33936629
They actually had to put radar reflectors on the Zumwalt because it was too stealthy for port navigation radars.

File: 1490731022793.png (12KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x294px

>>33936787
ಠ_ಠ

>>33936884
We're still far better off than Russia's Short Man Syndrome posturing as everything is collapsing.

>>33940100
Why do reply to posts regarding things that you know nothing about?

You should kill yourself

>>33936614
it is the kuz

File: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales from above.jpg (63KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x480px

>>33936796

QE is a significant step above the CdG. It's faster, much larger, carries much more aircraft, has much more powerful sensors, better combat jets, automated munitions handling vs manual and has a much larger sortie rate. Not to mention it's decades newer in overall design. And there's two of them for no downtime per year.

The CdG does have E-2 Hawkeyes, however while the US can swarm the skies with them for absolute AEW dominance, the CdG only has two on board, of which only one usually flies at a time while the other is being readied and the third is back in maintenance in France. Compared to the 4-8 Crowsnest AEW kits that have a near 100% availability rate due to being able to mount on any Merlin in the battleground, it's more comparable than it would be vs the US carriers and their 2-3 in the sky at a time. Not to mention, if one QE isn't available they just go on the other one, or on any other ship. If the CdG isn't available (like it is now) then the French are shit out of luck for any AEW period.

>>33937771

Technically the Italians are building a small one with the Triete class LPH. It's supposed to be able to operate F-35B, but it's really not likely to anytime soon given Cavour is getting them instead and Trieste's role is very definably elsewhere. But yeah, QEs are the big thing for Europe.

>>33939616
Only LCS is a bigger laughingstock.

>>33937673
>greater than 60%
wew.

>>33940168
The CdG gets a lot of shit around here and other boards, but it's still impressive that the French built a nuclear powered aircraft carrier with Catapults in the 90's.
Sure she had issues, like a 6 year long period between her launch and her sea trials, all the stoppages and the issues with her propellers.
But for the past 15 years and probably for another 5 it's been Europe's only fleet carrier.

I know she's gone into refit now, is it as long as the Americans, four years?

>>33941014

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. Thats only by comparison to the much larger, more advanced QE. The CdG itself is nowhere near as bad as the memes say.

Well, at least it isn't any MORE.

Her refit is 2 years. Fitting over to only Rafales so it'll go from 23 Rafales max to 30 max, and getting a PESA at last to replace that mechanical they have.

>>33936590
They got rid of them because they were 60s tech and falling apart