Elizabeth II Aircraft Carrier.

fuck, we almost made it a week without another "MUH RAMP!!!!!" tread....

England and France need to build more carriers more quickly, to accommodate China's rise and America's decline.

They really should have just shelled out for CATOBAR rather than settling for STOVL.

>>34353914

A

>>34353947
FUCKING

>>34353978
RAMP

>>34353914
>CURVED DECKS

>>34353914

They're our only ally building big carriers at the moment and are going to throw a bunch of F-35s on them. That counts for a lot.

Wish a lot more "allies" could put in the same level of effort.

File: t3v.png (396KB, 512x768px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 512x768px

>>34353914
A F U C K I N G R A M P

>>34353914

Just a little polite correction from a Bong here who's followed them for a long time, it's not the "Elizabeth II" carrier. It's just HMS Queen Elizabeth, as in QE1, the name from the LAST Queen by that name, the same ship name from 1913. It's that same name. They're not named after the current Queen.

"QEII" has her name on a cruiser liner.

>>34353914

She should be heading out for sea trials this Monday, but STOVL was the right option for the RN at this stage.

>>34353992
What's funny though is their airwing is going to be US Marines and their F-35B's until the UK can get all the planes they need to fill out their own.

>ameripoors get upset at an uncircumsized carrier

lol

>>34354019
Really?

>>34353992
The Spanish and the Italians.

>>34354044

But that's wrong, why would you go tell lies on the internet anon?

>>34354052

They're not big carriers. No where near the same level of capability.

>>34354044

>their airwing is going to be US Marines and their F-35B's until the UK can get all the planes

They're going to be using their own planes. USMC are just going to be regular visits to let them train with greater quantities of aircraft until more have arrived. It's not "USMC are the airwing", they're only going to be part of it, likely the minority.

>>34354052

>The Spanish and the Italians.

What ship over 50,000 tons are they building?

File: 1487933413938.jpg (612KB, 2048x1339px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 2048x1339px

>>34353914
1. not CATOBAR
2. two F-ing islands that i don't understand (to balance the weight?)
3. like harrier, RAF has to share F-35B with Royal Navy due to lack of fund.
(in short, no F-35C on UK carriers)

better than nothing but urgh

>random pic

>>34354069
>>34354067
>no other allies building carriers
>"what about these ones"
>yeah but those don't count

>>34354137

Except he never said "building carriers"

He said "building big carriers".

Spain and Italy's ones are just light carriers that don't even reach 30k.

>>34354121
>1. not CATOBAR

Because it best matches requirements.

>2. two F-ing islands that i don't understand (to balance the weight?)

It's to do with the engine layout. Conventional carriers need funnels for their diesel and gas turbines, meaning that you either have a stretched tower or two shorter ones.

For the QEs they've got two separated engine rooms for redundancy.

>3. like harrier, RAF has to share F-35B with Royal Navy due to lack of fund.

that's some pretty poor history dude, RAF got the carrier for their STOVL/VOL because the soviets would have destroyed air bases meaning you need something that could take-off from almost anywhere.

It makes sense for a combined fleet because of the nature of STOVL jets being easy(ier) to surge so you can boost your numbers both on land and sea.

>>34354067
>>34354069
>They're not big carriers. No where near the same level of capability.
>What ship over 50,000 tons are they building?
Oh, I thought you meant potential 35B operators.

File: RFA_Argus_off_the_coast_of_Devonport.jpg (113KB, 1024x668px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x668px

>>34353947
>>34353978
>>34353981
>>34354010
Memetards, they could get either two Stovl or one Catobar, and we all know that CATOBAR carriers spend half their time in port or out of use

>>34353936
> England & not the UK
> Build more
How they going to afford to build more?

Besides QE class are fitted for catapult systems but not with, making a Retrofit later on almost inevitable.

>>34354121
As Above two Stovl or one catobar.

One for navigation & one for Flight ops, best of both worlds

Its part of the new military,
Army Pilots have regularly flown from navy carrier for a while now
RAF harriers were used on previous carriers
Joint lift command in an incredible feat in all arms transport cooperation.

>>34354181
This, the RFA argus is twice as heavy as Guiseppe Garibaldi and slighltly heavier than the juan carlos

>>34354320

>and we all know that CATOBAR carriers spend half their time in port or out of use

That has nothing to do with Cats or not. Thats down to them being nuclear and having longer refit/refuelling times in port.

>>34354256

>Oh, I thought you meant potential 35B operators.

No problem.

>>34354320
>How they going to afford to build more

Double per capita military spending.

>>34354355
>That has nothing to do with Cats or not. Thats down to them being nuclear and having longer refit/refuelling times in port.
Arresting Tethers have to be replaced pretty frequently out of routine.

>>34354390
>Double per capita military spending.
How they going to do that? Pull a vatnick and buy 15billion dollars worth of tanks and turn round and say no one can have a pension now?

>>34354401
Raise taxes, deport Pakis, buy ships.

>>34354426

Doesn't work like that. Same way USN has to cut submarines being build to bring other stuff in the budget.

>>34354426
>Raise taxes, deport Pakis,
> 20 % income tax and 15% national insurance
> reduced tax income from paki deportation

>>34353914
curious about the bong chow hall and why females are allowed in the male berthing.

Also how are those 25 year navy contracts m8?

>>34354426
>implying that Paki don't pay taxes

/pol/tards are confused

File: QE-aircraft-carriers-infographic-food.jpg (131KB, 1000x681px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1000x681px

>>34354452

There's four big chow halls.

idk about the two other things

>>34354446
Well, the United States currently spends 3.6% of their GDP on the military with no problems, Britain currently spends two.

It would be completely viable to double the UK military with a small increase in income tax. Their military is tiny on a per capita basis.

>>34354493

Can, but won't, not at any serious rate. Entering into this year the UK would have the third highest defence spending in the world.

You are singing to the choir, everyone would love a larger budget, but it isn't happening.

>>34354493
>It would be completely viable to double the UK military with a small increase in income tax. Their military is tiny on a per capita basis.
> 20 % incpme tax and 15% national insurance
thats criminal already

You'll also find that the brits spend considerably more on training & selection than we do, so require less staff as they hire better.

They also don't have to pay out for VA centres because of the health service

>>34354452
>Also how are those 25 year navy contracts m8?
You can hand your notice in with a years notice as long as you have served for 3 years, this means you can leave after 4 years service.

>>34354517
It seems impossible now, but if the US continues on it's downward trajectory, 10 Downing might develop more interest in keeping their asses alive.

File: 1362991702656.png (587KB, 680x497px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 680x497px

>>34354534
>thats criminal already

You don't know the meaning of those words yet.

Wait until you're the USA and you have government spending of 40% of GDP, combined with no social services.

>>34354019
Elizabeth 1st was more /k/ick ass than Elizabeth II. Though, in fairness QE1 had more political/authorative freedom compared to the current era.

>>34354561
yeah but we have some of the cheapest taxes in the world.

Could you imagine more than a third of our money given in tax?

>>34354545

More budget isn't what's exactly needed, only better spending of what's being budget..

>>34354467
Implying they do...
>Back to r9k

>>34354451

Muslims are the poorest part of the nation in terms of tax.

Brits
Poles/EU
Indians
Caribbeans/Africans
Pakis/muslims

We should be removing the 3rd worlders, not the developing worlders.

>>34354586
If you want to go on the ride, you have to pay for the ticket.

Efficiency is always good, but you're going to need quantity as well.

Like at least 2-4%

>>34354613
>>34354592

Please keep it on topic guys, we're here to talk about warships and warship accessories.

>>34354618

I'd rather keep a steady budget that will remain exact (in real terms) with trickle growth than a budget uplift. That's the best way to do it.

>>34354320
>This, the RFA argus is twice as heavy as Guiseppe Garibaldi and slighltly heavier than the juan carlos

Still not a carrier.

>tfw they put a ramp on Gerald Ford because the em cat has failed

File: 1472489963224.jpg (230KB, 2000x1346px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 2000x1346px

>>34353914
Bonglad here. I like it. CATOBAR would have been nice but it was a choice between one CATOBAR or two VSTOL carriers, so I think we made the right decision, especially since the F-35 seems to be doing well now. Hopefully either Lizzy or PoW or both get retrofitted with CATOBAR equipment at some point in the 2030s

>>34354047
Ramps contain 90% of a carrier's nerve endings. Amerilads LITERALLY remove their poor ships' ability to feel pleasure.

>>34354390
I wish, m8. Best we have is the Tories' 1.5% real terms increase promise, and I'm starting to doubt whether their government will last long enough for that to have meaningful effect

>>34354426
nah lad we need the Pakis in the galley working the oars for operating in stealth mode

>>34353990
You see those warriors from the UK they've got curved decks.

>>34353914
>ed to build more carriers more quickly, to accommodate China's rise and America's decline.
>They really should have just shelled out for CATOBAR rather
Will the brits be able to sell this design to all the Sea Harrier users that are upgrading to F-35B?

>>34354470
Who the fuck makes these cringe tier infographs?

File: russian.lavina.slavboosBTFO.jpg (102KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x600px

I recently read a website where a Soviet white paper on carrier operations was discussed. They said that they view carriers as one of 3 types

>0-20,000 tons displacement
>20-60,000 tons
>60-120,000 tons

They said that 20-60 would be the most cost effective but would not be able to support the operational tempo of an actual war, which only a full sized carrier with catapults would be able to do.

>>34358133
She is a beautiful ship.
We'd all love a trio of Nuclear CATOBAR supercarriers, but after years without any and only the Invincibles since Hermes went in '84 it just feels good to have full fleet carriers again.

Can never forgive the short term thinking traitors who cancelled the CVAs (original QE class) back in the 60s.

>>34358167

The MoD and Carrier Alliance (joint venure of the shipyards).

>>34358167
a media outlet specifically aimed for children to read

>>34354019
Also because it's built in Scotland, they never had a Queen Elizabeth before this current one, maybe they're being petty.

It's getting launched for sea trials tomorrow, should be sailing under the Forth bridges midday, both bridges closed during it.

File: 28922145931_4cc13a156c_k.jpg (502KB, 2048x1150px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 2048x1150px

>>34358167

Are you telling me there's no hype around seeing the laundry machines being tested for the first time?

File: 35094847456_7a5b11807d_k.jpg (757KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 2048x1365px

>>34358167
>>34358268
Or the first time the Uckers board game being played in the air crew mess deck?

>>34358250
Because they're built in Scotland doesn't make them scottish submarines

>>34358285
Subs are built in barrow which is in England. They're based there though

File: 34324292783_5d527e948e_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1641px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1641px

>>34358167
>>34358268
>>34358284

No? What about the ship's single facebook computer that doesn't have the keyboard plugged into anything despite the girl typing?

>>34354121
Lol. Good ol cvn 77

>>34358250

They're not "built" in Scotland. They're assembled in Scotland.

They were built all over the UK then shipped to Rosyth in modules. Scotland, England, Wales, NI; they all built something for it. It's part of why they're such an amazing bit of engineering. They were built in sections all around a country, and the joining up of it all went completely within a hitch. When I went up to visit it, the Chief Assembly Officer (while standing in the drydock underneath it with us, a disconcerting feeling with 65,000 tonnes of steel a foot above your head) pointed out one of the joins and said they got it on their second try, only a couple hours delay on the whole thing.

The first try was 2mm out.

ACA are god tier engineers on this project.

>>34358331
>NI

I didn't know any yards in NI were involved.

>>34358348

Not yards, just some components. Just making a point that their constructrion was everywhere.

>>34353914
Gee QE carrier, how come your mother lets you have two islands?

>>34354470

they fucking forgot the clock tower with a huge bong inside it

>>34358377

God dammit I knew we forgot something.

How else are we going to announce the time of sorties to begin now?

>>34358389

also the tea

File: yE5wZna.jpg (219KB, 1024x605px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1024x605px

Hope the road bridge is open for pedestrians, would be great to see it pass underneath

>>34358410

Is there going to be any live streaming for the push off?

>>34358410

Road bridge is expected to be closed to pedestrians during it, unfortunately. But there's numerous pubs on the coasts you can go to.

>>34354320
A F U C K I N G R A M P

>>34354470
>1000 loaves if bread baked daily
>1600 crew

That's a lot of carbs

>>34354067
If it's just about levels of capability then only America is operating carriers now. Don't be a picky faggot
>>34358152
The fuck you mean "China's rise and America's decline"? China has 1 shitty carrier and we are working on modernising our fleet

>>34358437
>If it's just about levels of capability then only America is operating carriers now. Don't be a picky faggot

What?

>>34354451
>pakis
>paying taxes
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 1497009882498.jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>34353914
Why does the catapult and the angle deck elude and perplex bongs so much?

Is it simply out of their scope of engineering and technical sphere?

>>34358578

Given they've built them before and were at the time the only other ones looking into EMALS technology, no.

It was simply a matter of time and expense. If they had gone catapults it would have cost a lot more, and the first ship wouldn't have even been in trials until 2023, in addition to waiting for the much later C variant. The extra cost would have meant the first ship was the only ship. They didn't want to wait another 6 years.

STOVL let them get 2 ships, starting in 2017, with the second best maritime fighter in the world, exceeded only by the C, which is only owned by a single ally anyway.

It was a logical, pragmatic decision, especially given they can fit cats anytime they want.

Does HMS mean its russian? This thing couldnt carry a lada without sinking. What a piece of trash. In a war with the US, one look from Mattis would cause it to sink.

NVM, just read that its british. That means its not quite as good as the US aircraft carriers, but is still 100000000000X better than any other country. These are the facts

>>34358601
donald trump pls fuck off back to twitter

>>34353914
>supposedly a capacity of 70 aircraft
>will carry about 40 max
>will actually deploy with only 12

Is this a joke? How are they gonna maintain surge readyness?

File: UK Standard CSG.jpg (138KB, 1200x909px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1200x909px

>>34358632

The planes are shared between RAF and FAA. A standard deployment will be between 12-24 F-35B's, plus 16+ Merlins and other helos. The number is dependant on two factors.

What year it is (as F-35Bs grow in number, so will the amount on ship more often) and what kind of deployment it will be. If they're going on a full deployment it'll likely be 24. Having 12 is just the functional minimum likely to stay permenantly between squadron rotations.

They also want to do rotations with the USMC to train up cross deck ops. So the 24 figure is more to allow them space to work as well. Joint ops are a very very important thing to have, and the US is too important a partner to not allow them space to train up on it for a while too.

The surge is a permenantly readied group to fly out to the carrier up to 36 or greater aircraft. They did a lovely big talk about it at the Paris Air Show recently. Maximum F-35B quantity is expected to be around 48 or so, with the remainder of the space being used by helos to bring it up to the "70" number thats been bandied about. It's definintely not 70 F-35B, there's numerically not enough space for that on board.

So what about catapults? Steam catapults are out of production since USN goes fulls EMALS, but EMALS has still some problems that keeps it from being a useful asset until god knows when. Other allies that would like to go CATOBAR have to build their own catapults now and even if EMALS becomes a viable option they would need a massive powerplant. This means nobody in the west will ever build a CATOBAR carrier unless they are willing to shell out billions for a huge ship.

>>34358649

Any idea how much was lost when they decided to shave 10m off the ship?

>>34358653

Lots of CATABAR options were consider, including a UK design called EMCAT that was similar to EMALS.

The navy, RAF and MoD all wanted to stick with the STOVL option.

>>34358715

>Any idea how much was lost when they decided to shave 10m off the ship?

I've been following this for some time, and I've never heard of such a thing. It's likely any confusion is just old pre-build documents stating the wrong numbers. She's been 280m for as long as I can remember.

>The navy, RAF and MoD all wanted to stick with the STOVL option.

They knew damn well that the budget wouldn't cover two cats enabled ships, and chose accordingly.

File: 1f74f3ecdeba8d2e210c40572619e.jpg (253KB, 1172x1168px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1172x1168px

>non-nuclear on a modern carrier

File: 1497562996212.jpg (25KB, 337x367px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 337x367px

>>34358305
What keyboard do you have that has a connection like that?

Steam catapults are difficult to use if you don't have a reactor to build up sufficient pressure. 39,000 pounds (18,000 kg) @ 136 knots per shot essentially.

>>34358739
>I've been following this for some time, and I've never heard of such a thing. It's likely any confusion is just old pre-build documents stating the wrong numbers. She's been 280m for as long as I can remember.

Yeah, during 2003 the Thales/BMT design got snipped for budget reasons and a few goodies were tossed aside like a full ramp (instead of half). Had an impact on sortie rates and total capacity.

>>34358305
>>34358759
Look closer, the keyboard and mouse are plugged in. The RJ connector is for the card reader attached to the keyboard.

>>34358792

Those were never serious designs. Just random CGI mockups of the expected look of it.

The current built vessel is the one based on the actual design blueprints.

There's never been any confirmation that the intended sortie rates and capacity have changed in any way. The original design requirements have been met. Sounds a lot like internet assumptions based on a non-blueprinted bit of artwork.

>>34358819

You are probably right, but I give a fair amount of credibility to Richard Beedall's (now defunct) website. He's ex RNR and had his stuff published in Seaforth World Naval Review.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130103011321/http://navy-matters.beedall.com:80/cvf1-24.htm

>During cost reduction efforts in the second half of 2003, the flight deck arrangements for CVF were considerable simplified, this was partially imposed by the reduced size of the ship. In the Bravo and later Delta designs, the side-by-side launch positions with convergent runs to a large bow ski jump were dropped, and only a single JBD is now fitted on the axial runway, beside the aft island. The bow area was now split, with the ski jump ski jump limited to the port side, this has the significant benefit of allowing additional [although rather exposed] deck parking to starboard. The special landing pads for F-35B VL's also seem to have been dropped. The flight deck has been narrowed aft, making the provision for an angle landing lane very obvious. The Delta flight deck area is about 4 acres (nearly three times that of an Invincible-class).

>>34358752

French tried it and decided to go back to conventional power for a reason.

>>34358873

As far as I've spoken on site, that area beside the ramp is considered quite important to them. No idea if thats the reason why they specifically went with this, but they don't seem to be worrying about it. They will say they met the requirements for sortie rate. It could be something as simple and boring that the benefit of the dual lanes didn't really reduce the time by all that much given the simplistic nature of short take offs and the increased complexity such a layout would give to the deck queuing.

Good read though, that site. Some great rare images.

>>34358919

Makes sense. Though that site is great, full of little nuggets that would be almost impossible to find now.

Does take some playing with the archiver when the pages are missing.

to do what exactly, further bankrupt england?

I fail to see the use of carriers against russia

>>34358268
>Hardhat
>Hi vis vest
>PERMIT REQUIRED on a washing machine
This picture is the most British thing I've ever seen.

>>34358968

When I first visited the ship, one of the builders had a radio on. He was listening to a football game. But the moment we came on board, it went to the national anthems pre-game.

So for all intents and purposes, we came on board to "God Save the Queen" playing at full blast throughout the corridors with no other context.

The UK is a magical land of coincidence sometimes.

No Euro country will significantly increase military spending because all of them are run by traitors who worry about a military coup

>>34359137
nice projection americuck

>>34358268
Oh shit, my university had dryers like that, they were recently replaced. Looks like the RN got them on the cheap.

File: download (7).jpg (8KB, 218x201px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 218x201px

>>34354470
>64800eggs
>Enough for 21600 3 egg omelettes

Who fucking made this I'm dying

>>34358968
Hardhats & hi vis's are a requirement for all building & engineering work

Permit required means that the Washer hasn't had its T&Is (test & inspection) and FAT (Fixed Appliance testing) so it shouldn't be used.

Basically
> Don't touch this as it hasn't been tested and commissioned yet and if you get hurt its your own fault

>>34358954
It's for Argentina my friend

File: artist's impression.png (8KB, 349x282px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 349x282px

>>34358389
>>34358377
SORTIE IN 30 BINGS CHAPS PIP PIP

File: nige being supreme lad.jpg (104KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1200x900px

>>34359404
Tally ho, jolly good, pip pip and bobs the teapots uncle.

Chips and fish for tea.

>>34359404

noice

>>34353914
It will make for a quite powerful regional power projection weapon system once fully operational.

>>34359631

What's regional about it?

>>34359649
Its not nuclear powered. That will make deployment anywhere outside Europe or SW Asia more difficult to support. Then again, the UK doesn't really need to project power anywhere outside of Europe & SW Asia, so the choice of conventional power is a pragmatic one.

>>34359649
>dragging tankers along to the other side of the world so they can be destroyed by anti ship missiles

>>34359404
That structure is actually a mosque; part and parcel of a modern carrier.

>>34359664
There's literally a NATO country whereever the ship sails so it can refuel there

File: Sith happens.jpg (102KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 2000x1000px

>>34359631
>fully operational
Good...gooood.

>>34359662

You don't buy four 40 000 ton tankers for jerking around in your own backyard. There's already 4(?) carriers that do that in Europe. I think people do downplay the length you can travel under conventional power.

And clearly the brits disagree of where they want/need to be, given the plan is to be sailing around the world in a CSG.

>>34359664
>>dragging tankers along to the other side of the world so they can be destroyed by anti ship missiles
Thats why you keep them outside of the engagement zone duh.

>>34359664

Hey, numbnuts what fuels the escorts? Fucking retard.

>>34354401
>and turn round and say no one can have a pension now?
its about time your society were weaned off the government teat.

>>34359664
its very hard for ships to do in-flight refueling so they do it on the water instead.

File: Carrier_Strike_Group_Twelve.jpg (372KB, 835x482px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 835x482px

>>34359664
You mean like the ones that nuke carriers have as well?

>>34358578

What, like critical thinking seems to be out of your sphere?

>>34359662
The QE has a 12000nm range on it's internal tanks alone (just shy of a full London to Australia trip). On top of that we've got 4 massive blue sea capable fuel tankers to gas it up.

Then on top of that Britain has access to every Commonwealth naval base, American naval bases, plus our own bases, which we still have in ever ocean on the planet.

Back yard my ass, this thing is a go anywhere do anything kind of a boat.

>>34359662

It's hard to start with how moronic this statement is.

>>34360622

To be fair, afatoldman typically doesn't say retarded things. He's just spoken out of term for this one - besides his original comment is praise not criticism.

File: Wave Knight Type 23 refuel.jpg (3MB, 3000x2100px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2100px

>>34360604

>On top of that we've got 4 massive blue sea capable fuel tankers to gas it up.
>we

Dunno why, "we" always makes me cringe when referring to ones own country.

The UK will have 7 tankers to support. 4 Tide class, 2 Wave class and the Maersk Rapier, which is still on lease to the RFA. The Tide's are just the "chosen" ones to sail with the QE, but all are available.

>>34360655
>that massive amount of rust
kek

>>34360711

You don't know a lot about ships, do you?

>>34360622
I didn't say it would be impossible, just more difficult. In addition to tankers to fuel the escorts and jets, you need to account for the carrier itself. To deploy outside Europe/SW Asia, the UK will need a worldwide network of naval bases equipped to refuel/rearm the QEs. Its not impossible, but it does add cost and complexity to worldwide deployments.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the QEs will very effective force projection, but deploying a CSG is a daunting proposition that the UK hasn't had to deal with for several years.

>>34360841

There's UK naval facilities in Singapore, Gibraltar, Falklands, Indian Ocean Territory and Bahrain (which was upgraded particularity with the QEs in mind).

But you are right, the RN has taken on a serious challenge by stepping into big carrier - thankfully the US has been extremely helpful and supportive of this right from the getgo.

>>34361070
*into the big carrier game

>>34353936
>need to build more carriers more quickly
Carriers are expensive. They need all the money they can spare to take care of all the "new Europeans."

>>34353914
You just wanted guaranteed replies. Perhaps you should go to a forum with mainly British people OP.

>>34361519
Twinings.uk?

this
tired of these threads especially when they shitpost about the french carrier for no reason

File: 1498247027002.jpg (810KB, 3000x1800px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 3000x1800px

When /k/ thinks its an aircraft carrier...

Its just for saving lives ^^

>>34361911

The French carrier hasn't even been directly mentioned in the thread.

>>34354470
>you have to eat all these eggs

How does F-35 even work with ramp?

>>34362261

There's three variants of the F-35.

>>34362261
it drives forward and uses the ramp to go up

>>34362261
Gently, but firmly

File: 1469707213813.jpg (283KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x800px

>>34362298
>>34362300
>>34362310
I mean, it should use different regimes and there must be different limitations on payload e.t.c.

>>34362246
Underrated post