Do you really hate our new carriers?

File: newdeck.png (1MB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x664px

And yes we have fixed the deck

>>34082413

It's a massive, massive capability upgrade.

It's not a Nimitz/Ford carrier, but it was never intended to be.

That is it.

It was relatively cheap to buy (despite the CATOBAR flip-flop), and will be cheap to run (tiny complement due to automation), both the RN and RAF will be operating the same jet type for commonality, and the USMC will be effectively sharing it. It's pretty decent to be honest.

>>34082470
How would the pair preform in a theoretical Falklands war? Could we protect them?

File: SantísimaTrinidad.jpg (90KB, 1056x541px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1056x541px

>>34082524
It would be extremely painful

>>34082413
Better than nothing.

File: stupidfrance.png (345KB, 386x826px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 386x826px

>>34082519
Would you say its better then Frances aircraft carrier?

>>34082578

Easily. That picture is massively inaccurate.

QE can carry up to 70 aircraft (48~ F-35, 20+ helos), while CdG only carries 30-40 (30 Rafale, 2 E-2, smattering of shelos)

It's also 70,600 tonnes now, not 65,000.

File: 1368570636470.jpg (83KB, 800x770px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x770px

>>34082524

What kind of theoretical Falklands war? Argentina has a extremely limited capability in being able to launch a amphibious assault or sustain such a operation.

>>34082578

Yes.

CdG has significant problems like the flight deck being too small, using a submarine reactor etc. CdG will be the last nuclear carrier that France will ever buy.

That graph is inaccurate. QEC is capable of carrying more than 72 aircraft.

File: 18446780_1428514007195310_2522087715959047429_n.jpg (105KB, 960x619px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x619px

>>34082609
I mean Argentina in its current state and our army in its current state, considering our navy is shit compared to how it was in 1982

>>34082644

And you think Argentina's navy has improved? Their navy is barely a navy.

>All their munitions are out of date
>Their submarines get less than a few days submerged a year
>One of their destroyers capsized in dock
>Their flagship got impounded in Africa
>No real amphibious force
>No means to project air power

A single British escort along with the island itself could defeat them these days.

>>34082644

Argentina in its current state is not capable of successfully overwhelming the present Falkland defenses

The Royal Navy has taken a significant cut in numbers, but it still remains one of the most capable and advanced navy's in the world.

>>34082644
Numbers wise the RN is worse than in 1982 but nowadays it is very modern, remember that the Belgrano was sunk with a WW1 torpedo so imagine what would happen now.

>>34082672
**navies

>>34082524
>How would the pair preform in a theoretical Falklands war? Could we protect them?

most of argentina's current navy would struggle to sail to the falklands under their own power and any that did would probably get torpedoed by nuclear submarines before the carriers even arrived on scene

assuming an F-35 did get a chance to face the argie navy then it would be a anti-ship missile turkey shoot like Gulf of Sidra 86 on steroids as all of argentina's naval AA missile systems have expired missiles

>>34082644
> our navy is shit compared to 1984

It's smaller in strict trends, but each individual ship is orders of magnitude more capable than our mid cold war designs. The argies have basically been stagnant, their real capability has deteriorated, they had a carrier in the 80s for fucks sakes. Our fleet has progressed into a leaner, more lethal force with much better sensors and better weapons and better planes...

The RAF has sacrificed some capability to downsize arguably, but the navy hasn't. The navy is more potent than ever.

>>34082413
The QE class is perfect for the role for which it was intended, that's all that matters.

>>34082787
1982*

>>34082413
>I know it has a ramp and its not nuclear powered but it still okay isn't it?
It's like buying something for $50,000 and then waffling on $2,000 that would offer 50% better performance.

>>34082578
Yes, it's also downright impossible to keep a single carrier active constantly.

>>34082674
>Belgrano was sunk with a WW1 torpedo so imagine what would happen now.
no, it was a WWII design

Right a real question here, could Britain take Argentina with 50 spitfires and 5 Lancaster bombers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6c3v9iihgw&t=107s

>>34082431
What was wrong with it?

>>34082808

Except it's not like that at all. The catapults would have cost at least another billion, would have reduced it to a single carrier and then delayed that until 2023, 6 years later than they want the carrier in service, and would not offer continuous carrier coverage.

>>34082857
It just looks rusty in the picture i used

>>34082876

All ships get rusty persistently over short periods. Maintenance fixes it, then they go out again.

>>34082845
1927, it is a dumb fire torpedo that is more WW1 than WW2.

>>34082808
Too much superstructure. Learn to deck park.

>>34082858
And thats before you go into the costs related to nuclear propulsion

>>34082858
A catapult costs a billion dollars?

>>34083226
A catapult requires a nuclear reactor and all the infrastructure that goes with it.

File: laughing padawans.png (561KB, 854x740px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 854x740px

>>34083240
>A catapult requires a nuclear reactor

Good one, britbong.

>>34083240

That's wrong.

The problem was that going with catapults this late into the manufacturing process introduces some serious issues..

>>34082910
There were only two uncommon torpedo designs that were guided, Oddly enough the allied one, the Mk 24 could only be dropped by plane and not fired by sub for fear of targeting itself. The germans got around this by only targeting surface ships but was useless against subs.

File: HMS-Conqueror-pirate-flag.jpg (57KB, 590x577px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 590x577px

>>34082910
Yes, but the Mark 8 was a great torpedo, and perfectly suited for what it had to do: Sinking an armored warship. It made far more sense than using the other option, as the Tigerfish was the only thing in 1982 that worked less than British automakers unions.

>>34082549
4 hue

>>34083254
steam powered catapults typically use steam generated by the nuclear reactor. yeah it's not required, but do you really want to have a separate steam engine just for your catapults?

>>34082609
>Argentina has a extremely limited capability in being able to launch a amphibious assault

that's what the container ship filled with tanks is for!

>>34082910
>it is a dumb fire torpedo that is more WW1 than WW2.

however, it is what the ship's commander chose to use, despite the boat also being armed with the Tigerfish torpedo - its unreliability in live-fire testing meant he decided that the old mk VIII was a better choice when he had only once chance to take the shot.

>>34083471
>that's what the container ship filled with tanks is for!

Doesn't work like that.

>>34083886
you've clearly never read the highly detailed invasion plans involving beaching a container ship in Port Stanley, composed by some of Argentina's elite tactical strategists...

>>34083900

Calling Port Standley, a port is generous.

>>34083421
>he's really this retarded

>>34083915
not nearly as generous as describing the frothing loon who posted the ideas about invading "las Malvinas" via a container ship an "elite tactical strategist"

>>34083931

Nothing he's said is factually wrong.

>>34083900
These Einsteins never seem to realize that you can't fit any sort of armored combat vehicle in a container.

>>34083931
hes right so what are you rambling on about?

>>34083931
>he thinks modern fuel burning ships run on steam

File: 1442108871469.jpg (33KB, 600x604px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x604px

>>34082413
Hate them? Oh no no no, my dear Kafir, we do very much want them!

>>34083945
>>34083988
>steam powered catapults typically use steam generated by the nuclear reactor
>typically

Demonstrably wrong, even if you limit the scope to US carriers.

Non-nuclear steam catapults:
>14 Essex-class carriers
>3 Midway-class carriers
>4 Forrestal-class carriers
>4 Kitty Hawk-class carriers

Nuclear steam catapults:
>1 Enterprise-class carrier
>10 Nimitz-class carriers

>>34084042
>14 Essex-class carriers
In commission: 1942–1991

>3 Midway-class carriers
10 September 1945 – 11 April 1992

>4 Forrestal-class carriers
1 October 1955 – 30 September 1998

>4 Kitty Hawk-class carriers
21 April 1961 – 31 January 2009


PLEASE DO GO ON.

>>34084083
what an impressive non-argument you've made, britbong

>>34083240
>this is what britbongs actually believe.
Also
>>34082578
We'll know when the QE will :
1) be operational
2) be sent to war
3) have its capabilities scrutinised and enhanced after said war so people know what the ship is really capable of
Not before. Or that's called fiction. Like the F-35 being operational and ready for deployment in 2010. This kind of fiction.

>>34082413
>ramp

Do Argies still fear the Harrier?

>>34084157
>1) be operational
>2) be sent to war

CdG hasn't done these either

>>34082413
Its non nuclear? Fuck, i bet it'll fuckin eat fuel.

>>34084042
Yeah, but not even considering the use of a catapult, not using a reactor for a ship that large means your tied to an oiler for several hours twice a week or you are dead in the water.

>>34084175
Seeing as their air force is in even worse of a shape than it was 20 years ago, a particularly aggressive flock of birds could strike fear into their hearts

>>34083240
>steam catapults require a nuclear reactor
>>34083421
>steam catapults typically require a nuclear reactor
>>34083989
>modern steam catapults typically require a nuclear reactor

Where will the goal posts end up next?

At least you guys have carrier(s).
Being a Leaf we have a little more than a dozen Frigates that were first designed for ASW but are being dragged along into whatever the fuck the current Navy dynamic is now.

The only thing we have going on now are a bunch of small weaponized icebreakers for Arctic patrol. Bretty cool
But still, at least you guys have ships that are made to attack ships.

>>34082812
You wrote this before and still haven't explained why.

>>34084480

not him but you do understand ships need maintainance, refitting and reactors need fueling? that crews need leave and preperations have to be made on entering and before leaving port? Rule of thirds(rule of fourths at least for nuclear vessels)

america has 11 carriers but less than half are available for even surge operations at any one time

having 1 nuclear carrier like CdG means half the time you don't have a carrier and having only 2 E2s means half the time your carrier is a sitting duck with no effective early warning against sea skimming targets (having De Gaulle be sent to the bottom by a ghetto nation with Exocets because her E2s were in deep maintainance would be pure poetry)

>>34083254
Barriss did nothing wrong!

>>34084480
Doesn't really seem like it needs explaining mate. You've really never heard of maintenance? Training?

>>34085243
>>34085292
Nope, it's late and I read the post wrong. Few weeks ago there was a dude who claimed you can only have one CVN active at any time, which is retarded obviously. My bad, didn't read anons post properly.

>>34082413
Can someone post the images of the automated munition handling system? Seem to surface every now and then when its Bong-o-clock

>>34082524

The Falkands War is a compelling argument against SA missiles because the long-range shootouts they were built for never happened.

It is however, also an argument for how much the carrier/aircraft has eclipsed conventional surface combatants that even a third-rate country like Argentina can destroy billions of dollars worth of ship tonnage using limited air power, and how the submarine has grown into the chief ASW vessel.

France now has a better navy than the UK.

>>34087986
>now

France has had a better navy than the UK for some time, even with their busted-ass carrier.

>>34082891
not the aluminium ships

>>34087986

In terms of what? RN still has the overall qualitative and quantitative advantage over MN.

Only real capability gap for the RN is the current lack of fixed aircraft.

>>34088044
Submarine and aviation assets are about the same, and France has a significant advantage in surface combatants.

File: IMG_0462.jpg (18KB, 255x244px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 255x244px

>>34082851
Technologically no, due to Cold War tech being better. However this is Argentina so who fucking knows. However Spitfires are eternal and bomber Harris would rise again to ensure that each Lancaster sent 1000 argies to hell.

>tfw you live near where the last spitfires fly from a few days most weeks
>you can hear one approaching from miles off.
>I can hear one now.

>>34082524
Implying Argentina could ever attack the Falklands again.

>>34082413
It has a ramp because Britain has no planes with a hook, or an airframe based around taking that impact of landing. There would be zero point for a royal navy aircraft carrier to have a catapult.

File: 1493978866272.jpg (53KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 540x960px

>>34082413
>no shipborne AWACS
>no EW fighters
>outdated design
>lack of decent carrier escort warships and submarines

kek, Wang kun

>>34084042
>>34084083
holy fuck

does the US still operate WW2 era fucking ships?

>>34082413

The automated munitions system is cool as fuck and can work in any weather / wave condition the carrier would find itself needing it in which is a hell of an achievement. I had an article that goes into depth about the capabilities of said system but I've sadly lost it.

>>34088053
>submarine and aviation assets are about the same

Nope. The Astute and Trafalgar classes are vastly more capable Rubis class. MN has advanced in aviation due to fixed wing.

>France has a significant advantage in surface combatants

They have only twelve escorts - which of two are their only modern air defense destroyers. That's compared to the RN nineteen escorts - which of six are modern air defense destroyers.

The RN has six amphibious ships to the MN three. The RN has six RAS (all displacing over 23 000), with the latest one displacing 37 000 tons. Compared to the MN, which has only two oilers at 17 000 tons.

File: USCGC Eagle.jpg (218KB, 1440x1499px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1440x1499px

>>34088128
yes

>>34088175
>advanced
*advantage

File: 3423.jpg (368KB, 1500x1090px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1500x1090px

Ramp or no ramp, nuclear or non nuclear they'll serve a purpose for the next 40 years or so. Plus I think they're gorgeous.

>>34084185
Are you fucking serious?
CdG has been successfuly deployed numerous times.

>>34085243
France's Navy has 3 E-2s. Not 2.

>>34082808
The choice was 1 CATOBAR or 2 ramps, and since they were almost certainly going to be flying the F-35 regardless going for the ramps made more sense. Only real disadvantage is the lack of fixed wing AWACs but we're pretty good at jury-rigging helicopters for that and the carrier herself has quite an impressive radar array

>>34088213

I think he's referring to the fact that you'd only be able to fit two E-2s on the CdG without decreasing the other aircraft complement.

File: Essex-class_carrier_modernisations_1944-1960.jpg (412KB, 1920x1070px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1920x1070px

>>34083421
>steam powered catapults typically use steam generated by the nuclear reactor. yeah it's not required, but do you really want to have a separate steam engine just for your catapults?

First of all take basic engineering or automotive or mechanical engineering before posting assumptions on how steam can only be generated only though the most complex means. Even the Essex Class had catapults after most ships were recommissioned and refit from WW2 battle damage to the deck.

>>34087986
>>34087999

Not even close. The Royal Navy puts out at around 700k tonnes, the French Navy is only around 400k.

Royal Navy has a fucking enormous logistics wing. Seven oilers in total in the water, most of which are enormous at nearing or over 30k tonnes. French Navy only has three small ones at 17k tonnes. Royal Navy has solid support ships and sealift vessels, French Navy has none at all.

Royal Navy has 7 amphibious ships caoable of launching landing craft, the French Navy has 3.

Royal Navy has 19 escorts, the French have 13 (and 5 of them are of extremely dubious quality as a modern escort). Not a single ship has an AESA radar, not even the air defence escorts. Meanwhile, AESA is pretty much a standard on most and soon all Royal Navy ships.

Royal Navy has one more attack sub, but the Astute class are a monumental upgrade of quality of the Rubis class, and even the Trafalgars are still a much superior platform to it. Even the new Barracuda isn't particularly special, its builders have already confirmed that they're not aiming for much more than 90's era stealth on it and they're going to be quite small. Both Astute and Trafalgar have Tomahawks, French subs have none and rely on the much lower quality SCALP missiles on a couple escorts instead.

Fleet Air Arm also has a lot more helicopters of much superior quality for transport, mine hunting and attack (French are still using Alouettes!).

The only areas the French have something over is in their current fixed wing carrier (which is currently in a drydock thus meaning the French Navy has COMPLETE ZERO AEW for the time being) and in small patrol ships to handle their giant EEZ, most of which are dedicated to patrolling it and aren't available, and are all lightly armed and small anyway.

They're good. But to harp out the MUH BIGGER AND BETTER IN EUROPE thing is (as someone else said) both numerically and qualitatively incorrect. And it's only going to get more pronounced in the coming years.

>>34082644
>considering our navy is shit compared to how it was in 1982

the navy is smaller than it was in 1982, however individual ship effectiveness is significantly higher, and AAW capabilities in particular have vastly improved, the ships fighting in the falklands had no VLS syystems and only a few had sea wolf at all, nor did any have CIWS systems - the USN had only just started rolling those out in its own fleet in 1980- todays fleet has VLS systems throughout, better radar, CIWS etc, as well as significantly improved ASW capabilities.

File: 24612242962_4c5a629dd1_b.jpg (82KB, 645x912px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 645x912px

>>34088179
Superior German quality

>>34082644
iirc the Argentine air force barely even exists anymore, and the four typhoons at Stanley would be more than enough to handle what's left.

>>34084291
An attack against one of HM's Realms is an attack against them all desu

>>34088432
To be honest that particular design is hilariously widespread because of World War II. There are five ships of that class and another four built in South America to a similar design. German Quality indeed.