UK's new carrier

R A M P
A
M
P

File: 8K.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>>34367856
>supercarrier

>>34367877
I was going to put it I quotes

Shitposting aside, this ship is the product of political red tape at its finest. It was originally designed with a flat top and catapult system, but they deemed it to be too expensive so they had to re-design it to use a ramp instead. The redesign ended up costing around the same price as if they had just gone with the original design, so they essentially gimped their ship for nothing in return.

The ramp meme isn't just a meme. It limits the kind of aircraft you can launch compared to a catapult system. Also, its flight wing is relatively small compared to other "super carriers".

It's not a bad ship, but it certainly isn't the shining example of a modern day carrier. England doesn't have a vast empire to control these days, so since it's mainly just for patrolling its own waters and making token trips to 3rd world shitholes, it'll do fine.

>>34367914
Well technically the greentext is a quote...

Remind me, how does this ship launch its aircraft?

>>34367856
Wouldn't it make more sense to use something similar to the America-class when the QE has no catapults and uses F-35B anyway? They would need more of the Americas, but already 3 carriers would mean that you'd have at least 1 ready at all time, while you can't guarantee that with only 2. Also operating smaller carriers is more economic for the MSO and COIN missions they do during peacetime. And in a war, you can use 2 small carriers to subsitute for 1 medium carrier which also increases survivability.

>>34367856
>isn't nuclear powered
Isn't that what makes "super" in supercarrier ?

>>34367856
>it isn't nuclear powered

navy discarded

>>34368008
Kitty Hawk and JFK were considered supercarriers

>>34368023
We have nuclear powered subs if that counts

>>34368068
>We have nuclear powered subs if that counts

making a carrier with a diesel engine is like a car with a Wood gas generator in 2017. it's obsolete trash.

File: 1487712896594.jpg (30KB, 203x345px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 203x345px

>>34367856
>supercarrier
>ramp

>super carrier
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

Nice to see the Arabs keeping up with the times.

>ITT, americunts getting uppity again

Fuck off burgers. Can we just call all your carrier "super-duper USAUSAUSA number 1" carriers and get you to leave the rest of us alone forever?

The QE class is still leaps and bounds beyond every non-US carrier in the world, including the flat-top, nucleared powered CDG.

>>34368152
>having circumsized carriers

lol americuts

>>34367856
My dad just got a job at babcock down at the docks. If I get on board do you guys want pics? He starts in a few weeks and I'm off so I can go any day. Do you guys want me to larp as anything if I can get on?

>>34368223
larp as an american and shit yourself.

>>34367856

You could keep the Falklands safe with harsh language and a cricket bat at this point. Modern Argentina couldn't beat 1980s Argentina let alone Britain.

>>34368200
>The QE class is still leaps and bounds beyond every non-US carrier in the world, including the flat-top, nucleared powered CDG.

ohh, well is it ?
just few days ago bongs paraded QE projected sortie rates (if anyone got link go ahead and post it ) that were somewhat better than Charles de Gaulle

in the end you pay 20k tons, ewac and other full air wing elements, payload and range on you fighters for slightly better sortie rate

well good job

>>34367864
> replacing ramp with ramp

>>34367877
> Heavier than any other countries carrier bar the US's.

>>34367923
>originally designed with a flat top and catapult system,
> England
> Token trips
It still is, there's a 9 foot voidspace beneath the deck for a retrofit.


>patrolling its own waters and making token trips to 3rd world shitholes,
You have no idea of the territorial commitments the Uk has to make, it has to patrol everything from the faroe islands down to the acrtic, and from Pitcairn to the indian ocean, in addition to having to support Singapore & Australia.

>>34367978
by not having to turn into the wind.

>>34367988
>America-class when the QE has no catapults and uses F-35B anyway
not enough tonnage,
not enough deck space
Too much crew requirement for the royal navy
well deck not required as we have too many ships with well decks right now>>34367988

>>34367988
>Also operating smaller carriers is more economic
the reason they switched from 3 small carriers to 2 large carriers is to cut down on crew

the QE's use only 30 more crew than the invincible at about 650, the america class requires over 1000 crew

>>34368008
above 50,000 tonnes anything below that is Fleet/Light/Escort/commando carrier

>>34368023
considering the charles de gaulle spends up to 70% of its time in drydock because of its CATOBAR & reactor it may not be the best of ideas.

>>34368085
>making a carrier with a diesel engine is like a car with a Wood gas generator in 2017. it's obsolete trash.
Nuclear restricts which ports you can visit, which means gunship diplomacy isn't doable in some countries
You can't use the suez canal which would make Gibraltar, Cyprus & bahrain
Cyprus to bahrain run is just over 4000 miles with the suez (6 and a half days)
if you can't use the suez then it takes you 25,000 miles (41 and a half Days)

>>34368200
The ramp and conventional power cuts the manpower by 75%

>>34368231
Well I mean I would shit myself but my da would get shafted. Do you want me to do full american tourist larp (floral shirt, cargo shorts, boonie hat and a camera)?

File: carrier.jpg (67KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x768px

tight

>>34367856
I am of the opinion that the QE is not a proper 'supercarrier' as it lacks both nuclear propulsion and CATOBAR.

File: carrier2.jpg (93KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x768px

>>34368265

>>34368253
i'm just cool with pics. I was on the Rail bridge as it was slowly wandering out of Rosyth, and the view was a bit shit. Once we were at the North Queensferry side the views were lovely.

File: carrier3.jpg (127KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x900px

>>34368277

File: carrier4.jpg (395KB, 2047x1361px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 2047x1361px

>>34368286

>>34368253

Go dressed as an imam and when you get stopped , tell them you were sent by the Muslim parliament to make sure the ships being Islamic enough.

You will either get shot, or be allowed access all areas of the ship.

File: 1384131441924300430.gif (2MB, 800x362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x362px

>>34368248
You can't use the suez canal which would make Gibraltar, Cyprus & bahrain

you entire post is so full of bs, but this one takes the cake

here you go, a real super carrier crossing suez

>>34368277
Lucky fucker getting to be there! I will try to provide pics but if I cant get into the carrier I will try to get exterior pics for you if you want.

>>34368248
>You can't use the suez canal which would make Gibraltar, Cyprus & bahrain
wut

>>34368299
Hahaha yeah I would but my dad would probably either knock the fuck out of me for buying muzzie clothes (violent english nationalist ex squaddie). I would willingly larp american, russian, ww2 german navy officer, napolionic era royal navy officer, chav, tacticool, ss officer.

File: 3454.jpg (423KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1920x1280px

She's a big ship

>>34368355
It sure is a Large Carrier.

>>34368265
>tight

Dredger here.

1.5m is not tight at all.
It's a computer system which takes over from you, and it can fit your ship through less than 50cm of spare room if need be.
Worst we ever did was 10cm on each side. Not a single scrape. Suck it, bitches.

>>34368367
How does this stuff work?

>>34368244
Meanwhile both QE's will be at sea while most US Carriers and the CDG sits in drydock undergoing repairs, refits or restocks.

lol

>>34368365
for you.

>>34368403
ameriships are too scared of filipino cargo ships lol

>>34368373
>How does this stuff work?

Depends on the ship, but basically types of radar (or also sonar in some cases). You just put proximity systems all around the ship & give the computer a heading, it'll figure out how to keep the ship from running into something.

Obviously a costly thing to implement, but if you need to make tight maneuvers, it's a must.

(Quality) dredging ships tend to be very maneuverable for their size and have thrusters for shorter turns and lateral movement, so it's easier for us than for most ships.

>>34368244
but there will be two QEs and only one, increasingly ageing CDG

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

396KB, 512x768px

>>34367856
A F U C K I N G R A M P

File: 1487418842580.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>34368410
>yfw the Gerald R. Ford sinks because it was hit by some indonisian trawler

american engineering

you're going to need more of them if you want to face china/russia

>>34368202
>he thinks a dick flinging apparatus is a circumcision
Enjoying your vagina and your carriers with the tit-shaped ramp?
Go girl power :D

File: america15.jpg (68KB, 684x609px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 684x609px

>>34368477
>he thinks mutilation is normal

good amerigoy

>>34368008

No, it's the size of the ship.

>>34368403
The QE's wont leave their dry docks for fear of sandbars.

>>34368244
> ewac
Crowsnest merlins are a thing & easily dismountable to be used for transport.

> payload and range on you fighters
Payload reduction has been debunked as myth, even with a full load of fuel it still can carry 6 Tons of weapons (only 2 tons less than A model) which isn't a problem unless you're entire loadout is bombs.

Range is still better than the harrier that its replacing.

I do feel however that Osprey VTOLs should be bought for AWAC, transport & refuelling duties

>>34368299
> I can't argue for shit so i retort to fuck your country
> Implying St. brice's day 2 : Electric boogaloo isn't going to be a thing.

>>34368305
>>34368318
Yeah, they let america do it (after months of negotiation) but not britain. Royal navy nuclear subs aren't allowed down the suez thanks to that whole suez crisis thing, which is americas fault.

Plus british ships have called at chinese Hong kong, Whereas american aircraft carrier have been.

Its not even a regular thing, with only a few passages since 1987

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/11/06/us-nuclear-ship-uses-canal/4df3286a-62cc-4bf3-8599-89ed83bd31de/?utm_term=.f9a4e58c1e05

File: 1496505007219.jpg (20KB, 432x352px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 432x352px

>>34368415
What fucking shit are you spouting even the best of multiple independent thrust stabilising systems cant stop a carrier sized ship being moved less that 50 cm in any direction by the wind/waves/fucking whatever other shit.

>>34368244
>projected sortie rates (if anyone got link go ahead and post it ) that were somewhat better than Charles de Gaulle
>projected sortie rates
>projected

proj·ect
verb
past tense: projected; past participle: projected
prəˈjekt/Submit
1.
estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends.
"spending was projected at $72 million"
synonyms: forecast, predict, expect, estimate, calculate, reckon
"profits are projected to rise"

>>34368511
you mean the one that just started sea trials? in filipino cargo ship-infested waters?

can your mutilated carriers do the same?

>>34368511
>picture of OP is QE leaving her drydock

>>34368511
There is only 1 active dry dock big enough in the uk to take it, and it's just left.

>>34368299
Unfortunately, they're onto those wiles. Somebody's already done that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought_hoax

File: 1487258951342.png (2MB, 1857x909px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1857x909px

>>34368200
How can you Britts even afford to have a Mini-Jump_Ramp_Carrier? You have lots of Muslim invaders mouths to feed!

Also - nice 60% Ordnance and Fuel take-off load

>>34367856
With the Falklands it only takes one tomahawk armed sub to take out the remains of their airforce and tiny fleet, the carrier seems like a shit vanity project to me.

>>34368720
>pot calling the kettle black

how's that 56% holding out for you?

File: IMG_4746.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>34368477
>>34368490
Both of you shut the fuck up

>>34368720
> Taking anything from a anime watcher seriously
Payload reduction has been debunked as myth, even with a full load of fuel it still can carry 6 Tons of weapons (only 2 tons less than A model) which isn't a problem unless you're entire loadout is bombs.

File: 1386755815382.jpg (41KB, 388x384px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 388x384px

>>34368490
leave it to the bribong to be a fucking faggot. Noone was talking about cocks until you brought them up

>>34368795
>lets a jewish man touch his penis
>calls other people faggots

lol

>>34368795
>american cant take bants again

shocker

>>34368835
>lets a jewish man touch a CHILDS penis

Say do you know how much a rabbi gets paid per snip?

$9 but they always get a tip...

>Not needing to manage a nuclear power plant also helps achieve a lean crew - a key requirement for the MoD. According to Kyd's figures, the 65,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth will have a crew of 733 (without air group staff - there are 1,600 bunks in total), compared to 726 on the Invincible class (22,000 tonnes) and 3,200 on the nuclear-powered American Ford class carriers (100,000 tonnes). To achieve that figure, the Queen Elizabeth class is pioneering automation: for example, the ship's 3,000 compartments are monitored using visual and thermal cameras, and automated "moles" transport munitions from the magazines to the planes.

It might seem contradictory to commission such big ships despite them having small crews and operating STOVL aircraft which don't need a big flight deck to launch and land. The size is due to the need to potentially refit for cats and traps if necessary. As Kyd says, it also gives the ship greater flexibility, not just in terms of the number of aircraft it can carry - he says it could carry more than 70 F-35Bs - but also the type of operations it supports (helicopters and Royal Marines for example) and potential innovations: "In the future you may see rack-and-stacking of tens, if not hundreds of UAVs," he says.

Doesn't sound so bad. I remember someone talking about the automated munitions system being a game changer.

>>34367856

Great banter from the British defence minister against the russians and the Kuznetsov.
<iframe width='640' height='480' frameborder='0' allowfullscreen src='//player.ooyala.com/static/v4/stable/4.7.9/skin-plugin/iframe.html?ec=JsY2JpYjE67KaB7kRIvDnSxxNCcBRz7p&pbid=ZTIxYmJjZDM2NWYzZDViZGRiOWJjYzc5&pcode=RvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2'></iframe>

File: cough.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

>>34368957

Oops, wrong link.
It's in the video in this telegraph news article, at around 1:00.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/26/hms-queen-elizabeth-set-leave-dockyard-first-time-sea-trials/#comments

As QE threads go, this is a pretty toxic. I don't understand why the mods won't take advantages of threads like these for ban entrapment. You'd certainly collect up all the trollpol posters fairly fast.

Why hasn't there been a carrier with a Two-Island system before?

>>34369122
Its unnecessary and adds unneeded complexity.

>>34369122
They only have two islands because they need two exhausts due to the engine layout. The alternative would be one looooong island.

>>34369122

Because there's been a historical preference on a longer island. A trend that is changing if you look to other carrier designs.

File: 1489923990223.jpg (32KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 413x395px

>>34368558
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought_hoax

>Bunga! Bunga!
>You and your chums will never seek diversion from study by fooling the Royal Navy by pretending to be Arabs

The sun truly has set on the Empire.

File: 1457561588297.jpg (80KB, 640x539px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x539px

>>34368558
>>34369204
"In 1915 during the First World War, HMS Dreadnought rammed and sank a German submarine—the only battleship ever to do so. Among the telegrams of congratulation was one that read "BUNGA BUNGA""

>>34367856
>""""supercarrier""""

hahahahahah

File: Brits did 9-11.jpg (132KB, 858x990px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 858x990px

>>34369122
americans get upset when 2 towers are involved.

Is it true that nuclear for ships is a meme? I've read on here that the US needs eleven carriers because it can only actually keep two or three in service at one time, because they have to constantly rotate for overhauls.

File: 1498494767744.jpg (200KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1200x900px

>>34368286
noob here. why does the deck of this ship curve upwards?

>>34367856
Literally WHY? What the fuck are they building that shit for when their country's so fucked?

>>34370195
because we don't circumsize our carriers.

It's still sitting in the middle of the river, tide is too high to get under the rail bridge

>>34370156
Having UNLIMITED POWER is a huge boon during war time because you don't have to retreat to safety to refuel.

Altough you still need munitions and jet fuel. They are workin on synth fuel made onboard though.

>>34370156
Most of them are surge ready. They can be deployed. Even overhauls can be postponed if there is a pressing need.

>>34370195
So the pilots can do sick flips during takeof

>>34370284
>>34370275

So are they in reserve to save money and because they aren't needed just at the moment?

>>34370205
they need weapons to defend against any nazis who might try to stop them from filling their country with muslims and destroying their culture and heritage

>>34370346
they've already accomplished that. they just have to wait for demography to work its magic.

>>34370195

It's literally a ramp for the aircraft. It lets a jet fling itself upward to allow it to take off on that short of a runway.

The United States uses steam powered pistons to push an aircraft up to speed off the end of the carrier.

The UKs system allows for a smaller and cheaper carrier but creates an over reliance on VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier because of the small runway.

The USA is able to throw bigger and better outfitted aircraft off its much larger runway but the costs associated with its carriers is vastly higher.

For a nation like the UK which needs localized power projection and helicopter tending capabilities the Queen Elizabeth is a fine carrier solution. For a nation like the USA which needs the ability to power project across the planet to wage never ending war in desert shitholes, the Nimitz and soon the Bush class are what are needed.

File: queen elizabeth class aircraft carrier-355.jpg (430KB, 2048x1448px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 2048x1448px

>>34368286
Looks like a lovely carrier tbqh.

>>34367856
>keep the Falklands safe

Buddy at this point the Argentinians keep that place safe by being fucking shite at their dayjobs.

Good luck, HMS Queen Elizabeth!

File: IMG_20170626_224712.jpg (421KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 2048x1365px

It's got some sweet TVs on the outside of the bridge

>>34368720
What is this image supposed to convey?

File: WP_20170421_16_15_33_Pro (2).jpg (3MB, 3024x5062px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3024x5062px

>>34368223
If it's anything like our work, you're not getting in that yard (unless it's a special occasion open to the public).

It's the best ship they could have got for the money, they got two of them and their crews are good. Is it a Nimitz? No. They couldn't get one based on their budget and they don't have the numbers to crew it.

They've cemented themselves as the world's second navy for the next two decades.

>>34368558
That whole story is amazing.

>>34368876
>It might seem contradictory to commission such big ships despite them having small crews

From what I gather, the RN are happy to have one person doing more than one task. This is not the attitude taken by the USN, who are intent on splitting tasks as many times as possible. Different approach, but it's not as if the workload will be something the RN men aren't used to.

Not even Japanese carriers have ramps

A country cucked by the US builds better ships than Britain lmao

File: izumo.png (1MB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x665px

>>34370861
Pic

File: 1476762323796.jpg (272KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1000x667px

It irks me that the ramp only takes up part of the flight deck's width. On the Admiral Kuznetsov it's one graceful sweep upwards that tapers to its end.
On the QE it's like a flattop that they just bolted a ramp onto one half of the width.
Is there even an angled deck on QE?

>>34370861
>us ship sunk by a banana boat carrying anime

File: zimmer laughs.jpg (156KB, 1800x1325px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1800x1325px

>>34367856
"Supercarrier"

>>34370861
Japan doesn't have carriers!
Clearly >>34370869 is a destroyer capable of launching and recovering helicopters. Nothing more.
That CIWS, that is permanently attached at the end of the flightde- I mean attached to the bow, would hinder any fixed wing aircraft from taking off.

File: uss_kitty_hawk.jpg (95KB, 744x566px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 744x566px

>>34370889
"Race riot"

>>34370883
If it was like the kuznetsov it wouldnt be able to convert to catobar configuration easily. Why would the deck be angled for stovl jets?

File: 1479830088343.jpg (7KB, 135x89px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 135x89px

okay lads I understand that it's banter and all but can you PLEASE stop taking the piss out of our aircraft carrier.

This was a super serious project and we spent a lot of time and money on it and I'd appreciate it you stopped having a dig just because it's got a ramp seriously lads it's not a big deal, stop mugging us off, it's just completely out of order and not something you're supposed to do on your pals

I'm asking yous nicely out of respect but if this continues then I'm gonna tell my mum

>>34370936
But your mum is in my roonm sucking my cocjk

File: 1492635292097.jpg (53KB, 587x587px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 587x587px

>>34370936
>okay lads I understand that it's banter and all but can you PLEASE stop taking the piss out of our aircraft carrier.

lol, that should be a /k/ banner

>>34370914
Are there actual plans to do that conversion?
That would explain why the ramp looks bolted on, because it would be in that case. But I don't think they will ever go through with that. The RN has had ramp carrier before and they worked out mostly fine for what they needed.

>>34370914
All the fixed wings will be F-35s? That's kind of disappointing. I was hoping to see a naval variant of the Eurofighter or something.

>>34370991
There's space under the deck to fit a catobar system if required.

>>34371025
Yes, all f35b's

>>34370777
wait, they have jobs now? shit, things are looking up for them.

File: qcOo8mq.gif (135KB, 1190x1354px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1190x1354px

>>34367856
*yawn*

>>34371055
where is the ford?

>>34371086
Not commissioned yet. Planned for July 22nd.

File: USS_Lexington_(CV-2)_1932.jpg (505KB, 1931x1314px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1931x1314px

Post favorite carriers!
LADY LEX

>>34371096

Split island? Interesting.

>>34370969
Fucking this.

>>34371094
nice

File: battleship-carrier.jpg (199KB, 1024x775px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x775px

>>34371096
The hypothetical battleship carriers that were never built.

File: 60044703_p0.png (666KB, 800x1555px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 800x1555px

>>34371096
I like her sister more.

Interesting finding out it's dockyard was the first place in the uk to get bombed during ww2. Also all the old boomers tied up there, shame.

>>34371149
About as much chance of the pykrete carriers getting built

File: 1498494831594.jpg (595KB, 2047x1361px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 2047x1361px

>>34368291
I thought the russians were the only ones whose carrier could be tracked by smell.

>>34368355
With a small ramp.
Remember kids, roids are bad.

>>34370205
So that the Arabs have carriers to haul "refugees" to America with.

>>34370501
>Bush class

FORD Class, you dunderhead.

Gerald R. Ford

File: 1474808374775.jpg (49KB, 400x285px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x285px

>>34371201
>So that the Arabs have carriers to haul "refugees" to America with.

>>34367877
its super to them. let them have their moment.

The ramp isn't the reason it's not a super carrier; the Soviet's use a ramp and their's is definitely a super carrier. The lack of nuclear power isn't the reason its not a super carrier either.

No, it's the air group size. 40 fucking planes. On 65,000 tons. 40 planes. For comparison the Forrestal-class, launched in 1955 at 60,000 tons, also considered the first Super Carrier (not nuclear powered either), carried between 90 and 70 planes depending on the era.

What on earth were they thinking with a 40 plane group size.

>>34371105

That's not a split island, that's a smoke stack.

>>34370817
Love the twin island design.

File: 1415214337993.jpg (202KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x1280px

>>34368853

>>34371239
Considering ancillary vehicles, it essentially amounts to a single squadrons worth of fighters

>>34368248
>implying if shtf someone would or could stop a US Carrier from going through the Suez

File: HMS-Queen-Elizabeth_with_Illustrious.jpg (230KB, 2000x1346px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 2000x1346px

>>34368355
just look at qt Illustrious.

>>34371239
>No, it's the air group size. 40 fucking planes. On 65,000 tons. 40 planes

Stop reading wikipedia. If wanted to she can carry 60+ fixed wing aircraft, and will be well over 70t when fully equipped.

>>34371278

It's ridiculous. 40 planes on 60,000 tons. The god damn Kitty Hawks at 60,000 empty tonnage carried 90 planes. More than double. A carrier has one job; put as many planes in the air. Why waste 60,0000 tons, the heaviest CV England has ever made, and have a smaller air group than the Midway's did on 75% the tonnage. Hell the damn Essex's carried 50 planes when they entered the jet age (Intrepid maxed out at about 52 planes just prior to decommission in 'Nam).

It's so stupid, I mean this is literally a, "You had one job," situation; put as many planes as possible. Different launch systems fine. No angled deck... okay fine, but even the damn Russian CV's carry ~85-90 planes.

>>34371239

Because that's reflexes the golden "36" where you find the sweet spot between capability and concurrency. Look at the sizes of the British air fleets, you think it would be reasonable for 70-90 aircraft to be on board? No exactly. Besides, a Nimitz or a Ford will only typically carry 8 more fighters than a QE with that 36.

>>34371322
>Stop reading wikipedia

NavWeps, and their own press release say 45 max. They lack the facilities for more, including berthing for extra pilots. Hell their Ready room has only 40 chairs plus the CAG podium.

The thing was designed with 40 planes in mind. Which is moronic in the 21st Century.

>>34371339
Nope, 60+ she can carry if they really wanted to. This won't happen anyway.

>>34371328
>>34371339

The captain of the ship has said it can carry over 70. Stop over reacting.

>kay fine, but even the damn Russian CV's carry ~85-90 planes

woof, I'd love to see this claim substantiated.

>>34370912
is this photoshop? what a me§s

>>34368355
For you

File: DDRgZIIWsAAX7fp.jpg (469KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 2048x1366px

I like it.

>>34371395
Would be nice too see the apaches and lynx on it too.

>>34371186
Why are the speed cameras pointing to the water?

>>34368355
That aft tower is pure sex.

File: DDRy_W-XYAEY1Cm.jpg (114KB, 1200x722px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1200x722px

You can see the mast titled at an angle to get her under the Forth bridge.

File: DDSB5n0XcAI1UDK.jpg (83KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1200x675px

>>34371552
Here she is not long going under said bridge.

>>34371559
>night time
Certainly took her time getting to the bridge then

>>34371583
She was anchored for a while when they got out of the dock.

>>34371583
There's only 6ft between to top of it and the middle spans on the Forth Bridge, they needed to wait till low tide.

>>34371559
no, the firth of forth bridge is on the horizon in the picture

>>34371608
The Forth Bridge is the railway bridge.
The Forth Road Bridge is in the middle
The Queensferry Crossing is the new one

>>34368248
Britain doesn't support Australia
America does
America sends destroyers to Australia all the time even the USS blue ridge and carriers visit sometimes
Whilst britbongstan struggles to send a destroyer
The French visit us more often
Also stop exporting your shit servicemen to our country they are fucking garbage and should be deported they are worse than the Chinese at least the Chinese can speak English

>>34368720

Try again when the F35 stops having seizures every time you put it on a catapult.

File: 452345636.jpg (58KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x680px

>>34371559

>>34369131

>A literal fucking nuclear reactor

Hur dur it's a standard for any carrier, not even a real supercarrier without one

>Changing the superstructure a little bit

It's unesseceraly complicated!!

Congrats britbongs on ur new carrier!
she sure is pretty

>>34370861
>Comparing a helicopter carrier to an aircraft carrier

>>34372031
We can do that when hms ocean berths near it

>>34371583
>I don't know what tides are

>>34367856
"Naval Powers" ain't what they used to be.

>>34368233
Sad and true

File: don't laugh don't laugh don't laugh.gif (2MB, 288x210px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x210px

>building a 70,000 escort carrier
>having the nerve to call it a supercarrier

>>34367856
So what exactly makes it a super carrier? Just gross tonnage?

>>34371373
that's the Kittyhawk, laid down in 1961.

File: 1487442736766.jpg (29KB, 552x389px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 552x389px

>>34368248
Every thread has the token Brit desperately spouting untruths to try and defend everyone's least favorite fallen empire.

>>34368795
This. What is it with the Brits and this odd need to bring penis talk into every goddamn discussion?

File: 1481393964772.jpg (48KB, 600x587px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x587px

>supercarrier

>>34371314
whats the f35 there for at that stage?

>>34372178
Yeah actually

File: 1452739997347.jpg (101KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x600px

>>34371314
>those ramps

Fuck, whoever commissioned and greenlit this whole project is retarded. Even the PLAN is moving away from tard jumps for all their future carriers yet here these geniuses are with a ski-jump launching system in 2017

>>34368521
That article is from 1984. The chances of the Egyptians refusing an American ship passage now is nil. The USER is dead and there is no one they can turn to.

>>34370936
Sorry Nigel :(

>>34370969
MODS, Please.

>>34368355
>If I pulled off that ramp, would you die?

>>34368558
>Stephen wanted to take command of a platoon of German soldiers and lead them across the French frontier to cause an incident.

tfw you will never start a world war as part of a college prank...

>>34368355

What's with the half pipe on the front? Is this some sort of urban youth outreach ship?

>>34368418

You missed the point. There could have been two QEs that were better than the CDG, rather than XBOX sized escort carriers.

>>34376353
Max kek

>>34371494

In case the waves go too fast, Anon.

File: 1489349314842.png (869KB, 986x797px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 986x797px

>>34370936
>okay lads I understand that it's banter and all but can you PLEASE stop taking the piss out of our aircraft carrier.

kek

>>34368248
>Nuclear restricts which ports you can visit, which means gunship diplomacy isn't doable in some countries
>You can't use the suez canal which would make Gibraltar, Cyprus & bahrain
>Cyprus to bahrain run is just over 4000 miles with the suez (6 and a half days)
>if you can't use the suez then it takes you 25,000 miles (41 and a half Days)
You're full of shit. The only country that restricts nuclear powered or armed vessels is New Zealand.

>>34368521
>let america do it
Nobody """""lets""""" America do a God damn thing. We are God's chosen military.

>>34377166
>The only country that restricts nuclear powered or armed vessels is New Zealand.
And they got a limpet mine for their trouble. Fucking hippies.

>>34377266
>>34377166
yeah i doubt they'll ever prevent a US CSG travelling through waters.

But it still takes months f negotiation and the egyptians reluctantly do it.

Chinese ports won't allow Americans in their ports on the basis of being nuclear.

Which is kind of a bad thing as even the brits get to visit hong kong

File: 1498499676027.jpg (290KB, 1024x766px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1024x766px

>>34371096

>>34370529
>artisan radar
What?

>>34368720
13.5 are just deluding themselves.

all this talk of how ehspehnsive steam catapults are and nobody mentions EMALS

>>34367856

> good goy die for some bullshit island

why does it have a twitter?

>>34377734
we're not americans m8, we're not slaves to the kikes that stole our foreskins.

File: Charles_De_Gaulle_(R91)_underway_2009.jpg (301KB, 790x570px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 790x570px

>>34368008
If that was the case pic related would be a supercarrier.

Really though, both are normal fleet carriers. QE isn't much bigger than non-US carriers from other countries. The "super" denomination is basically just a way for the RN to hype up their latest toy, nevermind that her nominal plane capacity is less than stellar for her size

>>34372178

Pretty much. The term emerged out of the shipping industry where tankers for called supertankers if they were on the larger end of things.

"Supercarrier" was never anything more than an adopted unofficial term to talk about really big ships. It's just a monikor to mean "this ship is really really big".

Literally the only people in the world who have a different interpretation as to what it means are /k/. Media are the only ones who use it really.

>>34376366

>There could have been two QEs that were better than the CDG

Which they got. The current QE class is substantially more effective than CdG.

> nevermind that her nominal plane capacity is less than stellar for her size

For a 65-70,000 ton vessel, having a capacity in excess of 36 planes in addition to a large helo wing is actually pretty fucking steller.

>The "super" denomination is basically just a way for the RN to hype up their latest toy

See above regarding the "super" term in front of any ship.

>>34377796
>The "super" denomination is basically just a way for the RN to hype up their latest toy

Its literally a designation of displacement, which the QE meets. Thats all the word means.

>nevermind that her nominal plane capacity is less than stellar for her size

Horseshit

File: tribute911.jpg (68KB, 509x509px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 509x509px

>brits constantly making fun of the CDG for only carrying between 24 and 36 Rafales
>QE to carry between 24 and 36 F-35s

>>34371186
well at least what they are burning is not giving off black smoke.

>>34378811
I've literally never seen people make fun of the CdG for that.

Only for it being seaworthy 50% of the time and a bad choice. However, the QE carries more than 36 F35s if it was so required.

>>34379417
>it being seaworthy 50% of the time
All carriers need to spend time in a drydock, there's literally nothing special about that

>>34368558
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought_hoax
Virginia Woolf wearing a beard. Jesus christ how fucking stupid were Royal Navy officers before the World Wars

>>34379447
Correct. Its just poor planning to build 1 and make it nuclear, because you're going to have massive amounts of downtime.

>>34370195
You hard the meme a fucking leaf?
Well A FUCKING RAMP

>>34371314

So it has ALL that fucking deck space and the geometry and yet it can only launch one plane at a time on that puny ramp?

>>34378811

Except CdG carries 30 max, while the QE can carry well over 36 F-35s.

No-body is making fun in this thread. The reason CdG comes up a lot is that it's the opposite side of comparable. You've got Nimitz/Ford above, and the CdG below. So when comparing the QE that sits between them, then it's natural it's going to come up a lot.

>>34379447

>All carriers need to spend time in a drydock

Nuclear ones require much more time, however. CdG's pretty well known issues that require longer refit times don't help either. It's nowhere near as bad as it used to be, but some things still need regular replacement or upkeep that most ships don't.

>>34381015
>Except CdG carries 30 max
Where did you get those numbers?
Either way, it's going to be able to carry more with the next refit, since they're removing all the SEM facilities

>>34381215

30 max IS the post SE refit, I'm afraid. Currently it's only about 24 maximum if you drop all the SEs without removing their facilities.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5119-in-details-french-navy-aircraft-carrier-charles-de-gaulle-mid-life-refit.html

This is why we wanted PA2.

File: Uss Wolverine.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>34371096
USS Wolverine. A side wheel steam carrier.

>>34375716
It would be extremely expensive

>>34377417
Gotta keep them liberal arts degree students employed.

>>34370840
>second navy

I'd probably give UK no. 2 for 10 years tops before China takes that crown for good.

>>34368521
>the suez crisis was america's fault
>Britain, France, and Israel all failing to beat Egypt and embarrassing themselves so thoroughly that the US and Soviet Union -both- told them all to just give it up

>>34371219
>implying we wont have a Bush-class 30 years from now with a permanent "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner attached to the tower

File: john c stennis, port royal, jfk and charles d gualle.jpg (2MB, 3000x1829px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1829px

>>34368200
>Can we just call all your carrier "super-duper USAUSAUSA number 1" carriers and get you to leave the rest of us alone forever?

Personally love Bong forces,same as the Frogs, but your proposal is also acceptable.

>>34371055
>American flags everywhere
>NATO 'n Friends flags everywhere

BLUE TEAM, YES

>>34371182
Would honestly be disappointed if we don't put railgun batteries on U.S. Carriers in the near future.

>>34381751
Technically EM catapults are railguns so...