L O L

>>34376445
I doubt whatever systems are using XP are connected to the internet. Can't just change this kind of stuff, you fucking morons.

File: US_Navy_100210-N-2953W-016_Sailors_use_computers_in_the_Learning_Media_Resource_Center_to_check_personal_email_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN_70).jpg (246KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1280x914px

Hilarious. Although..

A reminder that ramp F-35Bs have longer range than catapult Super Hornets.

Continue with your shitposting

>>34376480
Enjoy your shit sortie rate. I hope you never have to mass launch against an American carrier.

File: Cap 2017-06-27 21-52-21-007.jpg (147KB, 810x882px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 810x882px

>>34376445
i assumed you are a memetarded burger

File: Admiral-Kuznetsov-696x464.jpg (63KB, 696x464px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 696x464px

>>34376516
Not at all

>>34376492
>UK attack the US

I sure as shit hope not.

File: 1490708469319.jpg (57KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x960px

Oh look, a copied /g/ thread. Time to copy a post from /g/ too.

>turns out the guardian article is total shit

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warships_not_on_queen_elizabeth_class_aircraft_carriers/

>“The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the ship becomes operational,” the spokesman added. “This also applies to HMS Prince of Wales.”

TL;DR total bollocks

>>34376555

The MoD might be lying to spare embarrassment.

>>34376555
I'm amazed they're going to upgrade all systems.

>>34376532
Can't be cyber attacked if you can't afford computers.

File: 1493964265390.png (718KB, 1291x845px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1291x845px

>>34376445
They are making sure they can blame the Russian hackers when this shitheap fails catastrophically

>>34376445
i hate yellow journalism

File: teahupooWaveski.jpg (157KB, 2048x1058px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 2048x1058px

RAMP
A
M
P


50% Combat / fuel loads at take off.

GG

>>34376492
>Enjoy your shit sortie rate
The sortie rate on the QE is higher than catapult carriers as the ramp can roll jets off like a runway.

Catapults on the other hand have to be set up then reset every 5 mins.

>>34376676
>50% Combat / fuel loads at take off.
yeah the 35B can carry a full load on ramp, which is only tonnes less than the A model

It isn't a problem unless you're carrying more than 5 Bombs.

>>34376449
Someone recently leaked a CIA toolkit for attacking air gapped networks. I'm sure other spy agencies have similar tools.

>>34376445
I run machinery all day long that runs xp.

Go read up on what an embedded system is.

>>34377693
Those probably work better if you aren't under 24/7 armed surveillance. Either way, validation is more important than that.

>>34376696

>The sortie rate on the QE is higher than catapult carriers as the ramp can roll jets off like a runway.

This is the sort of bullshit that gets you (and it's ALWAYS you) called out into making every thread turn to shit. Actually state your statements, rather than making overly vague retard claims that contain no detail.

You don't need to compare to anything. QE can do 110 sorties a day with its standard airwing. Up to 200 in a maximum surge condition with even more F-35's on board.

Thats good numbers for a ship in its size class, and very effective. Nimitz and Ford can do more, around about 70-90 more per day, which given they have about a third (or more) more planes and displacement is about fitting. CdG for example tops out at about 100-105 per day.

So stop with your THIS VS THIS shitposting in response to other people's ignorance. You do no-one any favours. Stick to numbers. They speak for themselves.

>>34377841
>So stop with your THIS VS THIS shitposting in response to other people's ignorance. You do no-one any favours. Stick to numbers. They speak for themselves.
All these numbers are wrong

So stop with your THIS VS THIS shitposting in response to other people's ignorance. You do no-one any favours. Stick to numbers. They speak for themselves.

>>34376555

yeah they said they're going to use Windows Millenium cause is more stable

>>34377866

>All these numbers are wrong

He's right. The QE's sortie rate is around 108-110 on the first day or so (sources differ), then sustained at 72 per day after that for 10 days and then after the alpha strike period is over, can settle into 36 a day (effectively, one aircraft per day, which is pretty standard carrier ops when not at high intensity). Given the CdG when it had 40 aircraft with the Super Etendards did around 100 at its maximum surge for the first day (It'll be a bit less by dropping to max 30 Rafale) that is both a good display of what the F-35's easier maintenance and the QE's rapid rearmament systems can do. That 4 less aircraft equates to slightly greater sorties a day.

However since then, the captain himself has said they can fit a lot more fixed wing on it than had previously been considered the maximum (36). So yes, upwards of 110 is easily possible in maximum surge conditions if they put 48 or more aircraft on there. (Which is already known to be physically capable of fitting and fits the Royal Navy's requirement of 4 squadrons for full deployment).

One way or the other, these are not small numbers. It's a very capable ship in tgerms of sortie generation.

Stupid question: why not ramp + catobar?
Wouldn't it allow even more load by plane?