$13 Billion Aircraft Carrier That Has Trouble With Planes

File: index_6.jpg (43KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 330x319px

>>34271195

>flat top

>>34271195
Military contracts aren't about delivering viable hardware. They're about leeching as much taxpayer money as possible and making sure everyone from the Joint Chiefs, the lobbyists, the senators and the CEOs of the contracting companies gets their cut. Who gives a fuck if it doesn't work and every soldier dies using it in the field?

>>34271221
Good thing it's (flat top carriers) more effective than anything the other side has.

>>34271195
>First in class with brand new technology
>Being surprised it has teething issues

No ramp
lmao

oh boy the weekly carrier shitting thread

>sequestration cuts 10% off the dod budget
>past ten years have had late budgets and continuing resolutions which cause funding delays and periods of inactivity
>congress theatrics makes everything more expensive, behind schedule, and buggy
>media bitches about every military procurement like it's the contractors fault

Bureaucracy is the worst.

>>34271251
ramps never fail though, cheaper and require less maintenance.

Still better than anything else out there

doesnt even have a ramp.

fucking joke.

The amount of people in active duty military needs to be cut in half

You don't need people sitting around being full time tankers or infantry

The Navy needs to be building extra ships as reserves, not wasting billions driving them in circles constantly.

@34271203
@34272210
@34272399

Bait.

>>34272409
>@

Back to discord with you

Should have just built Nimitz with better automisation.

>>34272399
EuroGook Detected

This is what happens when you try to build everything without the UK out of misguided pride.

>>34272460
taking the bait
>2018-1

>top kek

>>34272489
THIS

People don't seem to realize how much of British naval engineering went into to all previous US carriers. Just because they stopped building them for the Royal Navy all those years didn't mean they stopped building them altogether. How else do people think they went right back into building large carriers again with no issues?

Stupid arrogant americans tried to do it themselves and are showing the world how incompetent they are. Sad!

>>34271195
Software issues again, just like the F35. It's an interesting time to be alive when the people who physically operate the system can't fix it because they aren't coders, and the people writing the code can't operate the system because... well, they're coders.

Semi-related question as regards the EMALS..
I get that they work with magnets, so do they interfere with any of the deck crews electronics? Bit like if you put a magnet on the screen of an old TV, it fucks with the colors and can lead to permanent damage

>>34272582
No

>>34272406
>What is training
Shit is kept running so that when shit hits the fan it doesnt have trouble starting.

RAMPS
A
M
P
S

Britain Wins Again

>>34271195
>500 rubles have been deposited into your account, comrade

File: 9f476a1aa049c069264efb07fabc749fa333caa3b079e6b34d635a6d89f0205a.jpg (139KB, 625x538px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 625x538px

>>34272656

>>34271195
Is Ford-class bashing the new thing since the F-35 actually ended up performing well?

>>34272817

It's butthurt europleb and vatnik shitposting. Nothing more.

>>34271486

Asides from EMALS there is nothing new.

QE has far more advanced automation.

just look at the crew requirements without airwing for fuck sake. It's almost like the US wants to waste money crewing carriers to the point where they have to cut numbers.

>>34271486
Only thing new is the catapult, and it's shit.

Everyone said it gonna be shit and they yet insisted on it.

>>34273879
>>34273906
and the radar, and the reactor and the wiring for those things and the EMALS

Oh yeah? China has worse problems they just hide it

Like white people commit more crimes than black people they just hide it

>>34272406
?

>>34273879

Now out of all the bait in this thread, this is the most legitimate comment.

>>34273921
The radar, reactor and wiring is not a problem since is just new stuff and "Old Tech", the EMALS in the other hand is shit stuff, they knew it since they started to build the Ship Class, yet "they" insisted in build it for some extra money in the project. (Nothing too see here Goyim)

>>34273879

Automation is a good thing, to a certain extent. Any past a certain level and it starts hindering your ship far more than it helps.

US Carriers are built to be "over-staffed" for the capability to sustain damage and continue fighting. Further automation is beneficial in cutting down manpower, but spare manpower is essential when you suffer damage in combat situations. Everything from more bodies to repair damages, to even having to replace twenty or so men on the deck because a missile blew early and they got fragged.

A US carrier is supposed to function like a small city, capable of being able to sustain itself for long durations.

>>34273950
The EMALS is required if you want to launch drones safely, as well as launch fighters without putting unnecessary strain on their airframes. There's a lot of merit to transitioning to it over steam. Plus there's already been a lot of proven civilian applications for EMALS tech.

The only problem is that the Navy went all in on the tech before they actually tested it.

>>34273950
Why is they is parentheses? What are you trying to imply?

The reason we're going with EMALS is because it's ease of maintenance and because it's less wear and tear on the air frames on takeoff. Nothing is "Old Tech" it's all new, the reactor had to be new because of all the new shit being but into the carrier.
The decision to adopt multiple technologies at once with Ford has come under much criticism, and unfairly so. The biggest new technologies in the Ford are EMALS, AAG, the new reactor, the electrical grid and the radar. The radar was chosen in anticipation that it would be equipping a large number of zumwalt class destroyers, and while problematic, you can't chalk this up to the ford design. As for the other three technologies, they all had to come at the same time. EMALS requires a huge amount of electrical power instead of steam, which means it could not be adopted without a new reactor and a massive internal re-design of the ship, and a new electrical grid. You could have built a new carrier with a new reactor without EMALS, but then you would spend a fortune on a new design that would need to be tossed out if you ever decided to adopt magnetic catapults

>>34273973
The Navy actually met with Disney when the Ford Class was still in its design phase because they were the only company that EMALS being used (if only for their rides, but i think it's neat).

>>34273985
When i said Old Tech, im saying tech we already know and dominate (Radars and Reactor), about EMALS, im sorry but there's lot's of reports that said it is experimental and we dont have full know-how yet.

Also "they" im saying Lobbist that add some millions in the project.

>>34273879
what happens when your ship gets damaged with a skeleton crew bong? Why am I trying to have a discussion with someone who has never served and thinks he's an armchair general b/c he played c&c?

>>34274079
If you're on the coast you pull into harbor and bonk some louts on the head outside the local tavern. If you're at see you stop and American ship and remind the crew that they're subjects of the crown.

Stupid Americans don't even understand how to navy.

>>34274079

Not him, but I'd hardly call QEs crew numbers skeleton. Both the USN and RN fully well understand the concept of damage control and what happens when you don't take it seriously enough.

Everything has their merits and demerits.

>>34272253
>ramps never fail though,

Objectively wrong. Ramps will fail, which is probably the determining factor of the life span of the design. Your obsession with cheaper/less maintenance is a false economy. Disposable ships are a horrible idea from a doctrine/strategic integration viewpoint.

If your country is poor, build fewer carriers or do without. If you're going to have carriers, it's imperative that you get it right and keep it right. The Ford class is a huge step for US naval aviation, and they're doing it the right way.

Ramps were appropriate back when fleets were accompanied by colliers.

>>34275144

That's one way to say a whole lot of nothing.

>>34272536
>>34272489
explain

>>34275144
>false economy

don't use words you don't understand, big boy

>>34272586
And you know that based on what?

>>34275239

If you're going to be spending the cash to build a carrier, you can't go cheap otherwise it's not going to work. Things like catapults, arresting cables, elevators, etc, all have to work and work perfectly because if they don't the carrier stops being able to do it's job.

Which is to say, a country that wants to build a "cheap" carrier is only hurting itself and is better off putting the money into something else that is more fault-tolerant.

>>34275144
Please tell me how ramps will fail under normal conditions?

We have discussed the pros and cons of ramps a thousand times here but reliability is not one of the cons.

>>34275391

I'm not sure why you're arguing something that nobody has said or advocated. Seems like you just want to be "right".

>>34275144
>which is probably the determining factor of the life span of the design

QE class is to be in service for 50 years.

Keep talking out your ass

File: Capture.png (109KB, 798x414px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 798x414px

D I G I T A L
I
G
I
T
A
L

>>34271195
>2017
>not even having a single carrier with a ramp
Fucking 'murilards just can't do anything right.

>>34272590
Any time the shit hits the fan you have months of time to warm up/mobilize
A ship doesn't need to be deployed the maximum amount of time a year to be sure it'll work in an emergency.

>>34272253
And they SEVERELY and PERMANENTLY restrict the weight and types of aircraft you can launch from a carrier you scientifically illiterate shitstain.

>>34275861
If you have a ramp your planes will have to jump when taking off. Being naval aviation this significantly increases the chances that there will be a shark off the ramp. This resulting shark jump can be catastrophic to a navy's capabilities, and multiple such jumps will swiftly bring even the most advanced and competent navies down to the level of India or even the Russian Fleet in the early 1900's.

>>34271221
Literally this.

>what are government contracts

Just say "Le oops we have a priblum!!!! XDDD"

Bam. $25,000,000 in you bank account every week for a month.

File: 829347982374913.png (83KB, 600x598px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x598px

>>34271221
this with a caveat: the insanely over budget pattern to US contracts is because that money is being siphoned for black projects and they need excuses for why this shit costs so much; also acts as a disinformation campaign for our enemies:

>hahaha stupid american cannot buird carrier proppery
>F35 cruise speed a shit!
>America is rear paper tiger, attack!
>Oh fuck what are these tungsten rods falling from sky ahhhhh

>>34276776

Fuck. I want to personally strangle everyone who parrots this fucking meme. You people are the cancer of every naval discussion.

No matter how many times or how many years you fucking retards all parrot thr same shit

>>34278395
So are you claiming that if you have two equally sized carriers, one using CATOBAR and one using a ramp, the ramped carrier would NOT have lower take off weights?

>>34271195
kek'd fucking hard!

YOU HAD ONE MISSION, CARRIER!

Fuck.

>>34278873

What? No, not at all.

>>34275402
Simple. Ramps take more or less the same pounding that cats receive. Lots of cycles of shock loading, with temperature variations thrown in for good measure.

Cats, while maintenance intensive, are modular for purposes of maintenance and repair. These activities can and are performed by ships force.

Ramps, on the other hand, are an integral part of the flight deck. When brittleness and cracking starts up, your whole carrier becomes worthless from a flight ops point of view. It'll take a major yard availability to fix the issue.

>>34275441
Lets see how long before the first stress fractures start showing up on the ramp and supporting structures. Good luck fixing that while underway.

>>34281403

Thankfully, I'm not so arrogant to pretend I have a better understanding than the people working on the project. So no, I'll reserve my judgement.

File: g3bMg.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>>34281395
>Ramps, on the other hand, are an integral part of the flight deck

>>34271195
>China
What? China invented its own version of EMALS?

>>34275324
Common sense

>>34276776
Are you saying the USN with it's F18's is currently inadequate?

Because an F35B from QE can carry more, further than any catapult (or non-catapult) launched F18.

Unless F35B from a ramp is fighting an F35C then comparison between the two is irrelevant. And even if you did wan't to make tha comparison the aircraft are identical, apart from F35B having a shorter total range (which can be mitigated by refuelling) a higher thrust to weight ratio and a higher g-limit thanks to the smaller wing that isn't compromised by a fold.

helo aew is more versatile and cheaper allowing it to be deployed on a larger scale - from picket ships hundreds of miles away, from land bases and the ability to drop the equipment into a Merlin with minor modification means replacing combat losses is easy.

The USN can't provide AEW for lone ships on patrol on counter-piracy/smuggling missions, the RN can. (putting aside the proximity of most drug smuggling to the US coast).

The advances in tilt rotors has lready provided tanking and COD options for ramp carriers, and this will only improve in the future.

Catapults SEVERELY and PERMANENTLY restrict the sortie rate of a carrier.

The flexibility of VTOL wins every time.

File: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg (63KB, 554x376px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 554x376px

>>34282757
>Catapults SEVERELY and PERMANENTLY restrict the sortie rate of a carrier.

>>34282810

Compare the turn around time of an aircraft that has to hook up to a ramp (wait for said ramp to be charged), launch, recover, get removed from the traps VS just accelerating and braking.

turn around time is one of the key advantages of ramps retard.

>>34282757
> Catapults SEVERELY and PERMANENTLY restrict the sortie rate of a carrier.
This is 100% wrong whenever there are multiple catapults.

>>34278395
Listen up you mathematically illiterate fucking nigger. It's a fact that a multi-cat carrier has a higher sortie rate and can launch heavier aircraft than a carrier with only a ramp. Nothing you can say changes the laws of physics that dictate this.

If you can't handle those simple facts, you need to do our species a favor and fucking kill yourself now.

>>34282830
Fuck off cunt. This is blatantly false for a carrier in the configuration of a Nimitz or Ford. You people are willfully ignorant trash and need to be sterilized.

>>34283423

No one is saying that ford or nimitz should have ramps, nice strawman.

>>34283395
>This is 100% wrong whenever there are multiple catapults.

QE has a higher sortie rate than CDG

>>34283620
>Half as many cats as a US Carrier
>honhonhon being used as example of CATOBAR sortie rates

>>34273879

>QE has far more advanced automation.

Have the QE systems been proven in the real world yet?

I mean on the actual ship, not the industrial warehousing systems they're based upon.

File: sat-fierycross-2015apr18-720.jpg (281KB, 1440x918px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1440x918px

>>34271195
>$13 Billion
That's one expensive floating airfield
China does it better

>>34273879
This is horseshit. The total crew size of the Ford was reduced by 25% compared to the Nimitz because of automation.

>>34283653
Don't talk about subjects you know nothing about. It's embarrassing.

>>34283637

>state that something is 100% wrong when dealing with more than one catapult

>give example where this is wrong with multiple catapults

>b b but there are ships with more catapults

If you're going to state something so definitively, best make sure it's not wrong.

As a side note the US sortie rate is a fiction, its based on the time spent launching, recovering and rearming.

Unless the target is 100 miles away then there is not going to be a conga line of planes doing a loop around the target area for 24 hours.

QE can launch an alpha strike faster than a Nimitz or Ford, it can also recover one and do it again faster.

>>34283620
Prove it.

>>34283618
You brought it up you syphilitic cuntrag. Stab yourself it the temple immediately.

>>34283683
You have ZERO evidence to support this assertion. And you're too inbred to even realize it.

>>34283647
>Have the QE systems been proven in the real world yet?
>I mean on the actual ship, not the industrial warehousing systems they're based upon.

remote monitoring is the biggest crew reduction method, this has been in use on various commercial ships for years.

the weapons handling system has been tested outside of the ship up to sea state 7. Putting that system into the ship will be a non issue.

what automation are you wanting to know about?

>>34283683
Cite your sources, child.

>>34283685
>Prove it.

Easy

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/frances-charles-de-gaulle-aircraft-carrier-the-good-the-bad-14379

CDG 100 sorties a day in optimal conditions

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

QE 110 sorties in 24 hours - based on a sustained 5 day rate of 550. surge operations can be higher

>>34283693

Yes i do, from the aformentioned link:

The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.

These numbersd are impossiuble with CATOBAR - unless you have anything to say otherwise.

How does it feel getting rekt by facts? guess all those insults didn't help you.

>>34281395
Not sure if trolling or retarded. The bongs have used ramps for decades without problems. It's a solid part of the deck, no moving parts, no electronics that can fail.
The only time a ramp can fail is when it is hit by a missile - and in this special case it's still easier to repair outside of a shipyard than a catapult.

>>34283703
>>34283693
>>34283685
BTFO

Thanks >>34283729, i kek'd

>>34283673
t. indoctrinated mexican retard

>>34273935
>Like white people commit more crimes than black people they just hide it
Even though this is bait, fun factoid about Amerikan crime/prison demographics information is that probably 20-30% of "white" inmates/criminals/victims are "white" hispanics. Most government departments have three classifications for race: white, black and other. Probably half of hispanics end up tagged white.

>>34283729
*420 over 5 days with the surge being higher at 110

Still higher tha cdg - even bearing in mind that cdg's number is theoretical only

File: tmp_27737-6fa34fd0f3181aa05683ca70a3204cbd1456017522_full.jpg.cf850688438.jpg (55KB, 640x363px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x363px

Not bait but why does everyone shit on ramps?
I have 0 bote knowledge
Except Iowa a best

>>34283773

because people think what their country uses is the only acceptable option.

it's pretty much the basis of all military equipment v military equipment threads.

People latch onto a statistic or event that is beneficial and use it like gospel with no consideration of alternate doctrine.

>>34283773
Legitimate fact that Cats are better overall for naval aviation+non american nation bashing (especially bongs)+refusal to understand other countries having different restrictions like money and manpower

LMAO at Yanks. WE still rule the waves. slavs, chinks, amerilards BTFO!

>>34283844
Even if the US was producing exclusively 1970's era stuff, the numbers are still enough to BTFO any other current navy. Put some GDP into, Limey.

File: 1497010703834.jpg (20KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x200px

>>34271195
>doesn't even have a ramp

>>34283873
>BTFO any other current navy
except for a Philippine merchant ship LMAO your time is over. It's our time now you bitch ass mexi afro mutt.

You know, I've been onboard the QE carriers. I think they're amazing machines that are going to be better than any carrier out there that isn't American, and are a lot better than some on here seem to think.

But god DAMN if there's some overly nationalistic shits who go way too far with bigging them up on /k/ right now.

They have some facts and posted them, but then they always seem to throw just one overblown sentence out there that ruins their entire otherwise good points.

Ask me whatever if anyone wants a more reasoned, calm bit of info about those ships. I did a thread some months ago answering things and that went down well. Given the QE is set to sail THIS MONTH it might be appropriate.

As a note, I'm very excited to see what the Ford is capable of once it's fully operational. Ford and QE photoshoot WHEN?

>>34283729
> CdG vs QE
Oh I see, you're not serious.

You are intentionally ignoring the Nimitz, by far the most prevalent CATOBAR class of carrier (and the most numerous of any class of carrier, CATOBAR or otherwise) because it proves you wrong. There are 11 active CATOBAR carriers on Earth and 10 of them are Nimitz class, with 4 catapults each in addition to a diagonal landing surface, allowing for 2 catapults to be used while another fixed with aircraft is landing.

>>34283747
You couldn't be more ignorant of IR if you tried.

File: 1497717660694.jpg (32KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 720x480px

>>34271195
>rampless

File: BritishNavy.png (1MB, 1384x770px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1384x770px

>>34283894
Your navy will ditch your ramps for suicide ships in 20 years.

File: index.png (11KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 263x192px

>>34271195
>completely flat

>>34283729
>Nimitz can sustain 120 and Surge to 240
>Ford Class will do 160 and Surge 270

One French carrier is not a good example of what CATOBAR sortie rates look like.

>>34283415

Wrong. STOVL scales sortie rates better than CATABAR. This is non-optional. If someone were to build a STOVL carrier at the exact same scale as a CATABAR carrier - you will get more sorties from the STOVL. However, nobody has so retards like yourselves think the opposite.

File: 51274223.jpg (24KB, 311x311px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 311x311px

>>34284494
show an STOVL AWACS with significant loiter time that is currently in service or being developed.

>>34284494
Wrong motherfucker. Plain and simple. And you have yet to provide a single piece of hard evidence indicating otherwise. You, being the piece of human shit you are, completely ignored all but 1 example of CATOBAR carriers in order to try and make an argument that is proven factually wrong with less than 5 minutes of research. A Nimitz has a higher sortie rate than any other class of carrier active today. Period, end of fucking story.

>>34284494
You are saying the Kuznetsov and Liaoning have higher sortie rates than the Nimitz. This is plainly false and you're not even trying to troll subtlely.

>>34284926

It's not worth engaging him. He turns up ever carrier thread.

I'm proud of our nation's new carriers. They'll be fucking powerful, but that guys had some massive autistic bend about them for a while, ends up creating more problems than he thinks he's solving.

>>34284943
I'd pay money to watch him get held down and have with skull caved in with a rusty crowbar.

>>34283933

>searching for amjad Hussain then typing British navy (not its name) into the search box

Lrn2url summer fag

>>34283897
No, the original statement was that ANY catobar carrier has a better sortie rate.

The following argument has proven otherwise.

We also reinforced the fact that QE is quicker to deploy and recover an alpha strike.

At no point has anyone said QE is better than Ford.

That was your inference

>>34284776
Merlin.

5 hour endurance.

And we can deploy them from any major surface combatant, meaning picket ships and ships operating alone outside the fleet, negating the range issue.

Did I mention they can hot refuel on the deck of any RN warship?

And did I mention that despite a lower altitude and shorter range they still provide several minutes warning of hypersonic weapons?

>>34274135
>If you're on the coast you pull into harbor and bonk some louts on the head outside the local tavern
That worked back when ships were made of wood and repairs amounted to 'can you measure rope', 'can you cut wood', and 'can you place these planks properly'.

>>34284926
Except as mentioned the Ford sortie rate is based on a fictional chain of aircraft flying to an unrealistically close target in single file.

QE has a greater alpha strike generation. 24 jets launched in 15 mins, 24 jets recovered in 24 mins.

>>34277460
8/10, breddy gud

>>34283653
>fixed immobile location

>>34283894
>>except for a Philippine merchant ship LMAO your time is over
>didn't even sink the destroyer
>didn't even mission-kill it
>burke still made it into port under own power

File: 1495.jpg (52KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 720x480px

>>34285222
a helicopter...? you're comparing a helicopter awacs to this?

>>34285222
When you quote a wikipedia stat like 5 hours its not particularly helpful anon. Is it with Full load? Empty? Sea level? Flight ceiling?

At its flight ceiling of 15,000ft endurance is going to get fucked, and its still only going to have a radar horizon >100km shorter than something like an E-2.

Against some of the hypersonics in development, if you detected them at the EDGE of a Merlin's radar horizon flying at FLIGHT CEILING, you would have under 2 minutes to act. This is an unrealistic scenario in more than one way.

>>34285237
And yet you can't actually prove your conjecturous, nonsensical statements that have been proven wrong by observed reality.

>>34285237
We have seen the Nimitz operate for decades. That alone directly counters your claims. It's pathetic that you don't seem to realize that.

>>34284940
>>34284926

Jesus, you both are the same. Totally unable to comprehend anything. Re-read what I have said.

>Studies compared the effectiveness of conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) and V/STOL aircraft at sea. One study, conducted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in 1980, concluded that V/STOL aircraft provide better mission performance at sea with fewer aircraft. This stems from the V/STOL's ability to generate a greater number of sorties for a given time period, primarily because it is unconstrained by the normal deck cycles of CTOL aircraft. The AIAA study points out that "the air platform from which V/STOL operates can be smaller than today's large deck carrier. The support costs, including logistics, maintenance, manpower, et al. are reduced for both the aircraft and the ship." This concept sets the stage for reducing the large overhead normally associated with sea-based tactical aviation to the point where it can be considered viable on many more seagoing platforms.

>>34284926
>>34284940
>The STOVL JSF greatly reduces the training and currency requirement for fixed-wing operations afloat. This increases commensurately its ability to be adopted and employed jointly as the Air Force is no longer excluded from non-land-based operations. With the large power margins, enhanced stability control, and pilot augmentation systems the STOVL JSF will incorporate, safe and efficient landings at sea will become easy and straightforward. This should lead to streamlined training and extended currency limits�so much so that non-naval-trained pilots could become ship-qualified in just a few days. Consider the flexibility of being able to jointly sea base all of the services' primary tactical air assets, not only in the context of the tenets mentioned earlier, but also in the form of indefinite sustainment for the force structure. The STOVL JSF squadrons from any service, with minimal effort, could provide forces for surged or sustained sea-based maritime operations�a force planner's dream.

>Fewer aircraft require less hangar space, fewer maintenance and support personnel, and for STOVLs, fewer ship systems to support them and a much smaller air department. STOVLs require 30% less deck space for operations, which leads to increased operating efficiencies. Those efficiencies allow generation of more sorties given equal mission performance. For example, STOVL aircraft can generate 30% more sorties than CTOL aircraft for targets out to 400 nautical miles, and 15% more for ranges to 700 nautical miles. The affordable combination of multiple missions within one hull design can become a reality based on our emerging technology.

>>34286539
See: >>34284250
Real, full-size CATOBAR carriers are clearly more sortie-efficient than STOVL-only models.

>>34285237
>QE has a greater alpha strike generation. 24 jets launched in 15 mins
QE doesn't have the deck space required to arm enough planes to generate that supposed alpha strike in 15 minutes.
There's enough deck space for one plane to launch, a ready plane behind it and two MAYBE three planes being armed. Just arming the 24 planes in your "alpha strike" would require longer than 15 minutes.

>>34285635
When it does just as good a job as that obsolete pizza pan plane...

>>34271195
>>34271221

please read the book / watch the movie "The Pentagon Wars" if you havent yet. you will love it.

>>34287412
*Keeping in mind that, while entertaining, it's mostly fiction.

>>34277548
> This

>>34273879
>It's almost like the US wants to waste money crewing carriers

Aren't most just replacement crew? You know, just in case the state-of-the-art ship loses a few when it fails to notice a fucking great container ship.

>>34271195
Build a ramp

>>34287071

Are you retarded? A QE is not long off being the same length as a Nimitz.

>>34289539
That's not how you calculate functional deckspace you fucking dipshit. There are many factors that go into it, not just length.

Jesus fucking christ, this thread is retarded.

>>34286539
>>34286534
Congratulations faggot, you have tacitly admitted that you're egregiously wrong. Great work.

>>34289567

Oh, please do tell me how you've calculated the useable deck space and how it is used.

But oh wait, you can't. Because there's no fucking information on how the RN will be operating it.

>>34286988

0/10 re-read what has been said.

>>34289570

Sure proved me wrong.

>>34289666
It length, width, takeoff run configuration, landing area configuration, aircraft elevator placement, munition elevator placement, hangar space to determine how many aircraft have to be stored on deck, and island placement.

And that's all just at a bare minimum.

But by all means, keep being a retarded fucking nigger that considers only length of a ship to determine usable deck space.

You really should just blow your fucking brains out you ignorant, shitposting, cancerous rectal polyp.

>>34289682
Keep pretending you have actual facts to back you up, kid.

>>34289698

No, fuckface. How did you draw your conclusion with those factors IF that information is not public? How do YOU know how the deck is employed?

Substantiate how you know exactly how the RN is planning on operating the deck.

>>34289682
You admitted to using the CdG as the typical example of CATOBAR, when the typical example is the actually Nimitz class. You played yourself.

And let's not fucking forget than the British originally wanted catapults in the QE design and decided against it primarily on a cost and complexity basis.

>>34289722
Because it has been visually documented over i countless videos and photographs over the course of many, many decades.

You need to kill yourself immediately.

>>34289722
It is public you dense ape.

>>34289722
Are you saying that the footage we have of carrier operations from dozens of conflicts and exercises is fake?

>>34289720

You are literally retarded. Stop using a Ford/Nimitz as a reference point for this. Nobody has built a carrier to that exact same scale. You keep using the specific to compare the general and if you can't tell the difference you are chronically, unreservedly retarded.

>>34289722
Past British carrier operations plus the publicly known configuration of the deck and its various pieces determine that. You're the only one who thinks it's a mystery and you're the only one delusional enough to claim it's a larger space (in any regard) than a Nimitz or Ford even though the latter 2 are explicitly designed for simultaneous takeoffs and landings of fixed wing aircraft and the former can only partially achieve that.

>>34289724
>You admitted to using the CdG as the typical example of CATOBAR, when the typical example is the actually Nimitz class. You played yourself.

Nope, different poster.

>And let's not fucking forget than the British originally wanted catapults in the QE design and decided against it primarily on a cost and complexity basis.

No, QE started as a STOVL design.

>>34289731
>>34289736
>>34289741

You are all retarded. Carriers are not all operated the exact same way! Fuck. There is zero public infomation of how the RN will be operating the deck.

>>34289746
Go fuck yourself you illiterate piece of shit. The Nimitz class comprises 91% of all active CATOBAR carriers. The CdG is the other 9%. The Nimitz is factually the mean, median, and mode of CATOBAR carrier design. It is required that it be used as the reality-based reference point for CATOBAR carriers.

>>34289763
> There is zero public infomation of how the RN will be operating the deck.
This is completely false and you're denying basic geometry at the same time.

>>34289763
Cite your sources. You are claiming that the Nimitz/Ford and QE have effectively the same amount of flight deck space. There's literally zero indication of that being true in either a measurable or operational sense.

>>34289754
>Past British carrier operations

Should not be considered as a point of reference as they have an entirely different way of operating the deck because it is a new ship beyond the scale of the older ones.

>the publicly known configuration of the deck and its various pieces determine that.

Which is what? Note, YOU'RE talking about something completely different to what I was saying.

>You're the only one who thinks it's a mystery and you're the only one delusional enough to claim it's a larger space (in any regard) than a Nimitz or Ford even though the latter 2 are explicitly designed for simultaneous takeoffs and landings of fixed wing aircraft and the former can only partially achieve that.

Where was this claimed?

File: A-10.jpg (1MB, 3600x2395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2395px

Fuck this thread so very much. It is a textbook example of summer /k/.

>>34289795
Right here nigger.
>>34289539

>>34289764

That's still irrelevant. As you're still referencing a specific to a general.

>>34289777
>This is completely false and you're denying basic geometry at the same time.

Please do tell.

>>34289786
>Cite your sources. You are claiming that the Nimitz/Ford and QE have effectively the same amount of flight deck space. There's literally zero indication of that being true in either a measurable or operational sense.

Where?

File: AC-130.jpg (3MB, 3216x2136px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3216x2136px

>>34289796

>>34289807
You are referencing purely theoretical and hypothetical statements against proven reality. You are openly denying the existence of the physical world.

>>34289803

That's not what I said at all, how the fuck could you misread that to think I said they're exactly the same?

File: B-1B.jpg (1MB, 3000x1993px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1993px

>>34289810

>>34289815

BECAUSE nobody has made carriers of exact matches! For example, if you were to build one STOVL QE and one CATBAR QE you would get more sorties from the STVOL. Do you see what I'm saying now? STOVL scales sortie rates better than CATBAR, but nobody has built carriers that are exactly comparable.

File: B-2.jpg (2MB, 2000x1252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1252px

>>34289820

>>34289830
You're flatly admitting that your comparison has never, does not, and will never exist in the real world.

That, by definition, means it's completely and totally irrelevant.

File: B-52.jpg (440KB, 1702x986px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1702x986px

>>34289901

File: C-5.jpg (579KB, 3072x2035px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 3072x2035px

>>34289908

File: C-17.jpg (588KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 2100x1500px

>>34289915

>>34285994

Yes I have, in >>34283729

>>34289906
>You're flatly admitting that your comparison has never, does not, and will never exist in the real world.

1. Not my comparison.
2. Not admitting anything as that's been my point. So please don't spin it like I'm coinciding something.
3. That's your own assertion if you believe that.

STOVL having a greater sortie potential is a well understood concept. Only on fucking /k/ would I have to argue it because of people's misguided sense of pride.

>That, by definition, means it's completely and totally irrelevant.

No idea what you're talking about, but I'll repeat myself. STOVL having a greater sortie potential is a well understood concept. Just because nobody has fully exploited STOVL's potential, does not mean it does not exist.

>>34272481
>pay trillion bucks for a catapult
>it even doesn't work
Meanwhile a simple ramp costs nothing literally cannot malfunction

Us
>gets wasted by flip fishing boat
>cant bulid a carrier
>lose in iraq
>lose in afganstan
>lose in vietnam (10000 aircraft lost)
>Americans think they can beat russia or china

File: LiveLeak-dot-com-ad9_1497479437-55a132be3741544b7dd8f534bba1edc78b0a263e_1497479443.jpg.resized.jpg (80KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x500px

>American thread when something goes wrong
FUCKIN SLAVBOOS CAN'T U SEE THAT ITS NEW TECH AND IT DOESN'T WORK

UR ALL JUST JEALOUS LOL UR USIN COLD WAR TECH. MURICA STRONK WE HAVE A BIG NAVY AND WE DIDN'T LOSE VIETNAM

HURR DURR FUCK VATNIKS F22 SUPREME

>Russian thread with a viable conversation topic; 2 posts in
LOL FUCKIN SLAVBOOS ALL UR TECH SUKS LOL. WHY U DISAGREEING WITH ME R U A VATNIK LOL

STOP HAVING A DISCUSSION LOL PAY ATTENTION TO ME. FUCKEN CHINA SHILLS LOL L2 MAKE REAL STEALTH KKKKKK

And then the thread is shit up and no conversation actually takes place. Americans confirmed for shittest demographic on /k/

>>34290077
FUCK OFF AMERICA WON IN VIETNAM BUT LOST AT HOME FROM HIPPIES
WE ALSO WON IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN YOU FUCKING VATNIK THERE IS NO SADDAM OR TALIBAN

>>34274135
>bonk some louts on the head outside the local tavern.

Sailing to Australia are we chaps? Hurry up, I wanna be back to 'ol blighty for Christmas 1779

>>34290115

America failed in it's goal of stopping comunism spreading in asia

America failed to remove the taliban from Afganistan - they know control huge swathes of the country

America may have removed Saddam but his Baathist officers and officials took their skills to the organisation that became ISIS.

>>34290550
You would be absolutely wrong to believe the US ever tried to stop the spread of communism
Hell most US presidents of the last while have been communists. Exceptions are Nixon and possibly Reagan

US was never trying to remove the Taliban, it was just about restarting the opium trade.
These neo-cons start wars to harm the US, not to accomplish goals or improve things.

>>34289906

QE class is designed to be able to become CATOBAR if it is ever needed.

That conversion would result in a drop in sortie rate.

>>34289746
>Stop using a Ford/Nimitz as a reference point for this.
Stop using the most common example of the type instead of a one-off? You're a fucking idiot.

The most common of the type can run a sustained sortie rate higher than the QE can surge, and can surge at a rate more than twice that of the QE.

>>34290733
>Theory based on your bullshit opinion

>>34291326
>Stop using the most common example of the type instead of a one-off? You're a fucking idiot.

No. Read what is said in the thread. None of the carriers are built to the same requirements. So of course they won't have similar sortie rates. However, if you were to built two cartiers of the exact same specification one with STOVL and one with CATOBAR. The one with STOVL will have superior sortie rate.

>>34291429

What's bullshit about it? There's a study right here in the thread that says this very thing.

>>34291519
>I'm going to keep doubling down on my nonsense!

>>34291547

Not my problem if you cannot accept what the studies say. Feel free to browse dtic and read & weep.
>>34286534

>>34291429

>The size is due to the need to potentially refit for cats and traps if necessary.

>Commodore Jerry Kyd Royal Navy

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/navy-queen-elizabeth-warship

Fuck I love this thread, amerilards throwing insults and getting BTFO by facts at every turn.

>>34291584
>>34291616
>In real world use CATOBAR generates far more sorties
>Hurno it duddnt!

>>34291616

This is nothing to do with "btfoing" "americans", this is about dispelling conventional wisdom in regards to carriers.

>>34291616

Would you stop being such a flaming autist?

The carriers are just fine. I've been up and seen them myself. I've been following them for literally years at this point.

But for all the occasional facts you're making, you're burying it under a tidal wave of you being a complete asshole. You'll never convince anyone of anything with the attitude you take. Every time amongst your overblown statements you DO make an actual proven point, you always spoil it for yourself by trying to be all HURR I BTFO OUT THEM ON EVERYTHING despite only some of what you're stating being true and massively over simplified.

File: CATOBAR-STORVL.jpg (80KB, 960x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x568px

>>34291632

>comparing larger carriers with more aircraft sortie rates to smaller carriers with a ramp

The RN selected STOVL because it launches and recovers aircraft faster

If QE was fitted with two cats like the alternate plans desacribe then this would require a drop in sortie rate in return for aircraft having a longer range.

You can't get it into your head that this is a comparison between two options on one ship, not two different systems of different sized ship.

If Ford or Nimitz had two ramps instead of 4 cats, it could launch and recover aircraft faster.

This has been said like 5-6 times and you still can't comprehend it.

>>34291656

I think you'll find they started the shit slinging.

funny how we never heard back from >>34283703 or >>34283693 or >>34283685

>>34291664

All right, let me stop you right there. Because you're talking utter horse shit.

>The RN selected STOVL because it launches and recovers aircraft faster

Because the original order anticipated the B being a more economical one to get two carriers worth out of it. Labour picked the cheaper option. When the Tories came in, they wanted to change to the more effective one, and realised for a multitude of reasons that this would cost a whole lot more than it would have originally as it would be in breach of contract, and would delay the ships till 2023 rather than 2017 for first of ship entry into fleet trials.

>If QE was fitted with two cats like the alternate plans desacribe then this would require a drop in sortie rate in return for aircraft having a longer range.

There has never been an official release of information on the speed of QE with cats. The reason QE has such a higher sortie rate to the CdG is due to its automated munitions, larger deck, double the lift capacity from hanger and greater aircraft storage. It's not inherantly "because" of the ramp. In fact CdG and QE's launch times are not all that different. It's landing in which QE outstrips CdG because CdG has a very small flight deck for rotation of queues to elevators and the launch/landing areas.

If QE had cats, the same advantages that put it ahead of CdG with a ramp would still be present. There's every chance that it would be the same or greater. We simply don't know because EVERY CARRIER IS DIFFERENT, you can't simplify it down to just "cat and ramp is the only difference between two completely different ships hurr hurr". Thats one of the LEAST influencial parts of design for sortie rate.

>If Ford or Nimitz had two ramps instead of 4 cats, it could launch and recover aircraft faster.

And here you go again making utterly bullshit statements on MASSIVELY oversimplified things. Do all us Brits a favour and shut up because you're just giving all of us a bad name at this point.

>>34276725
>Any time the shit hits the fan you have months of time to warm up/mobilize

not in the wars that truely matter you don't

british cold war plans for example expected less than week advance warning of a conventional or nuclear war in europe and length of a war in west germany would be measured in weeks not months

>>34271195
Come back when your countrys' navy have 13 billion to spend on an aircraft carrier.

>>34275324

Mostly square cube law. The electromagnets can't have a significant amount of force beyond a few feet, which means you just use non-magnetic/mag-protected components in the main mechanism and ignore the rest.

>>34291987
US is trillions of dollars in debt. You don't have any money either to spend on it either. You're just devaluing currency.

File: 1473901978088.png (453KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 803x688px

>>34294136

>>34294155
>MUH RUSSIANS MEME
retarded Tyrone,. educate yourself. I know US schools are absolutely worst and full of low IQ retards but even you can read this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

File: 3050266_1350905561051.42res_300_168.jpg (16KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x168px

>>34294136
>He thinks government debt works the same way as personal
>He thinks the US' ration of debt to GDP is bad
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

>>34294246
you're retarded. that debt will come crushing down as importance of oil lessens and pricing of oil in USD ends.

>>34294286
>Implying the US economy is that dependent on oil
It's your economy that was crashed by oil prices dropping, Vatnik, not ours.