What's actually wrong with carrier ramps other than memes?

File: oofua.jpg (117KB, 800x621px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x621px

>>34521250
you cann't launch AWACS with ramp

>>34521250
it is inferior to a catapult

the sole problem is that it prevents the use of US style AWACS aircraft.

other than that, nothing.

the big problem with ramps is that Americans are incapable of conceiving of the idea that other militaries operate under different doctrines and with different preferences of equipment.

>>34521281
Yes you can. You just cant launch an E-2 from it, the Soviets intended to launch AWACS aircraft from theirs until the union collapsed.

>>34521285
Inferior in some aspects, and vastly cheaper

File: crowsnest.jpg (56KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 752x423px

>>34521281
You were saying?

>>34521281
>pic

Bait.

>>34521297
>US style AWACS aircraft

This myth was disproved last thread.

File: 1493260933068.jpg (115KB, 1215x873px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1215x873px

>What's actually wrong with carrier ramps other than memes? What is scientifically and technologically wrong with a ramp?

Aircraft have to carry a lesser payload and cut down on fuel if they want to clear a ramp. Meaning you don't get to carry as many missiles or bombs and you won't be able to reach out as far. So it's always a game of balancing the two for effectiveness in specific scenarios if you are operating off a carrier with a ramp.

Catapults are far superior. Just stop being poor for a moment and invest in something that's actually a good concept.

>>34521371
Sure! That is just as good as a fixed wing aircraft! Just as good range, altitude, and payload!
no, it's shit compared to a real airplane.

>>34521392
>Just stop being poor for a moment and invest in something that's actually a good concept.

Like healthcare?

>>34521395
Its modular, so they can take it off and return it to cargo use in about an hour

the E2 can't do that can it?

>>34521395
>>34521414
Its kinda beside the point they're looking into EV22s anyway for AWAC, refuelling and dry cargo

>>34521392
>Catapults are far superior. Just stop being poor for a moment and invest in something that's actually a good concept.

That's disingenuous to suggest that a STOVL carrier is poor. Carrier capability, regardless of takeoff method is still expensive and manpower intensive. STOVL is a good concept when it suits the requirements, same with CATOBAR.

>>34521414
That's what the COD is for

>>34521414
Why the hell would it ever need to?

>>34521399
>Like healthcare?

careful now. that's veering dangerously close to communism, or being any other developed first-world nation...

>>34521441
Damaged air frame, transfer to destroyer

>>34521395
>no, it's shit compared to a real airplane.

That depends.

You can use that aew&c helicopter with a ship on the picket line, possibly giving you a far greater horizon view than a fixed wing aircraft.

>>34521423
Shouldnt the EV22 be able to work from a ramp carrier?

>>34521399
>leads the world in medical innovation

>>34521250

CATOBAR - The best option, but very expensive. If you're not the US it'll severely restrict your budget and possibly the number of carriers. (See Brazil not being able to run theirs or France only getting a single one and leaving them without any carrier or AEW for most of the year)

STOVL - Still a pretty good option for people who aren't the US, as the modern F-35 STOVL jet is much better optimised to this than the Harrier was. Permits you to get more carriers for your money and thus better coverage year around (See UK). Means you need to use rotary AEW but for ssome countries that may be a more practical option than relying on a single carrier for it. Also useful for amphibious ships like the America or Wasp to get additional fixed wing combat jets out there.

STOBAR - Worst of both worlds. Poor range, unoptimised planes and little potential for growth.

>>34521487
dont see why it shouldn't.

I think the RN should go for it, EV22 would come in right handy

>>34521498
Phage and laser eye surgery and thats about it, but even then your average russian can't get it or afford either.

>>34521516

V-22 is on the shopping list for the RN, but for now crowsnest provides decent enough capability.

>>34521250
Lowers take off weight of aircraft, puts a max size limit on the aircraft, has a slower rate of launching aircraft.

It's only advantage is being slightly cheaper.

>>34521580
>has a slower rate of launching aircraft.
wrong. Do you have any idea how long it takes to set up a cat?

>>34521580

You are about 50% wrong.

>has a slower rate of launching aircraft.
>It's only advantage is being slightly cheaper.

And if you don't know why these are wrong, you should stop posting.

>>34521580
>Lowers take off weight of aircraft, puts a max size limit on the aircraft
not if your aircraft have greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio

File: submarine-complex.jpg (34KB, 300x273px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x273px

carriers in itself are already outdated concepts

>can be sunk with cheap missiles with ease

The Submarine is the Future with its cruise missiles. its hard to detect, its fast and in every way superior to a shitty carrier.

>>34521645
>t. child who doesn't know what a carrier strike group is

>>34521665
>t. retard who thinks his shitty gay carrier group can down 50+ mach 3 going missiles who will maneuver around the target and attack from all directions

lmao

File: u2469qi9.png (154KB, 480x316px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 480x316px

>>34521687
also
>even cheap diesel subs can sneak up to a carrier group and sink it

>>34521687
>50+ missiles

Yeah well good luck Ivan. No to mention that whoever is carrying them will be BTFO by the CAG

>>34521665
>>34521705

hasn't the CDG failed again and again?

I think the swedes, brits and aussies all managed to get checkmate by sinking the carrier without even so much as alerting the rest of the group

>>34521719
Swedes at least did it. Not sure about the others.

>>34521719
oh and the french

>>34521726
and the germans as well managed to do it

>>34521717
they probably won't even need that many

the anti ship missiles can easily be all submarine launched and while you try to evade the sub is already gone.

>>34521399
I'm American and have excellent healthcare. Most people that have developed marketable skills in the US do have excellent healthcare.

>>34521755
Good luck getting those subs out into the open ocean against active countermeasures.

>>34522093
there is constantly at any given time a submarine somewhere, you know the units are rotating all the time.

>against active countermeasures
gotta find it first before it finds you

>>34521399
>This meme

Im a jobless poorfag in Massachusetts and i can assuredly guarantee you that my healthcare plan is better and provides me way more services than id get in most 1st world countries with natl healthcare plans, and especially without waiting. Even the leafs that come to this state begrudgingly admit that the very basic tier of our state healthcare package BTFOs theirs. Even my goddamn cryptography professor (Frenchfag) was shocked that such a thing existed here.

The only bad thing is that politics and institutional momentum has kept the rest of the country from developing and SUCCESSFULLY implementing something similar without controversy.

And that's just the basic, poorfag tier. Like >>34521984 said, its gets better for a small premium.

>>34521399
Healthcare is a bottomless pit that you throw money into. Spending billions of dollars trying to make 80 year old women live a few years longer... all for what? All that effort and money goes down the drain when they die anyway. Most money spent on healthcare isn't invested in the productive members of society, and it isn't invested in the youngest members of our society either. It's spent on the futility of trying to save the elderly from death.

>>34521250
>What's actually wrong with carrier ramps other than memes?

For aircraft like the J-15? Significantly reduced payload weight unless you dedicate substantial amounts of deck space to take off runs.

File: 1305993339067.png (12KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 429x410px

>>34521474
>You can use that aew&c helicopter with a ship on the picket line, possibly giving you a far greater horizon view than a fixed wing aircraft.
So a couple/few km further out provides a greater detection envelope increase than another 10,000ft of altitude that orbits the entire AO of the battle group?
I mean, you do know that the fixed wing AWACS craft launched from an actual carrier don't just sit idle right above the carrier right?
Also you do know that as altitude increases, the distance to the horizon increases as well right?

>>34521639
>not if your aircraft have greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio
I'll sit here and wait for you to list the number of STOVL/STOBAR carrier aircraft that have a >1 T:W ratio when loaded with full fuel and max payload.

>>34521428
I realize now thatyu are trolling. The ONLY advantage a ramphas is lower cost, due to simplicity.

>>34521447
What does healthcare have to do with it?
Plus; USA has best and most expensive healthcare. You get what you pay for.

>>34521593
Done during plane respot. Plus, one carrier should have >1 cat.

>>34521639
Even if that was so, you still lose out on takeoff weight

>>34521250
Ramps put a lot of stress on landing gear, which limits the weight of payload you can put on planes that have to take off with a ramp

>>34521705
Nonnuclear subs are just portable minefields.

>>34521474
>You can use that aew&c helicopter with a ship on the picket line, possibly giving you a far greater horizon view than a fixed wing aircraft.
How is it even possible for somebody to be this dumb?

File: efficiency.png (55KB, 593x569px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 593x569px

>>34522192
the only leafs who go down there are boomers who should die already and who get upset because they have to wait to see a doctor for nothing more than a common cold.

File: image_1_0.jpg (47KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x600px

>>34522835
>Unironically defending the Canadian shitcare system
I'm a fucking leaf and if berniebros had to live with what they preach they'd stop liking it real quick

>>34521250
Less payload for your aircraft, less fuel they can take off with.

File: whats_wrong_with_his_face.jpg (36KB, 500x317px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x317px

What if we launched aircraft from giant VLS silos, and they landed with parachutes

>Burst launch rate measured in planes per second
>no need for heavy engine maneuvering gear like a VTOL design

>>34522904
That's stupid
You're stupid

>>34522859
What's wrong with it?

>>34522507
>Plus; USA has best and most expensive healthcare. You get what you pay for.

you really dont.

you have the most expensive healthcare.

you are also the only nation in the developed world where people case bankruptcy, poverty, or a lifetime of debt for healthcare.

your healthcare system is not the best in the world. in fact, in rankings, it doesnt even get into the top ten.

I hate to say it, but on average, americans are being shafted by their healthcare providers in ways that are utterly outlawed in the rest of the developed world.

You simply dont know how badly you have it compared to everywhere else.

>>34521392
>Aircraft have to carry a lesser payload and cut down on fuel if they want to clear a ramp. Meaning you don't get to carry as many missiles or bombs and you won't be able to reach out as far.

I don't see anyone bitching about Harriers and, soon, F-35Bs taking off with even worse payloads from the LHAs. Because these don't even have ramps.

>>34523173
Ignore him, the "usa best at literally everything" crowd have been spewing their bullshit for decades. They're just useful idiot republican voters who think that being in a relevant country with a tremendous military makes their country number one no matter what. There's no use arguing with them. All they do is weaken the conservative pro-freedom cause in the eyes of the libs.

>>34521297
>Americans are incapable of conceiving of the idea that other militaries operate under different doctrines and with different preferences of equipment.
foreigners are wrong and stupid and should be forced to do things our way.

>>34523254
yeah, but I actually feel sorry for these guys.

they really do not know how badly they have it. yeah, you get gun rights far better than most countries, but healthcare in general? maternity rights, for mothers and fathers? quality of education? all those sort of things, the US lags so far behind the rest of the developed world, that its really quite shocking.

but, as I say, the really sad thing is that they dont know how poor the quality of life they have is, compared to the nordic states, or the likes.

its very 4chan-ish to mock and be an asshole, but in all honesty, I have pity for them.

>>34523304
>Why don't you have all these wonderful benefits for brown people that only cost 60% of your income? Now if you'll excuse me i have somali cock to suck.

>>34521250

Catapults do the same thing, but better.

I mean, this is like asking why anyone would want a rifle when you can just have a handgun. Yes they both shoot bullets. One does it better than the other.

>>34521250
>>34521506
Why no CATOBAR + ramp?

>>34522113
Only a submarine cannot fire fifty missiles at on CSG and even if it can it's a waste of ressources on one target that'll take out most of your missiles and by that time you would have given your position away and you'll become food for enemy submarines.

>>34523593
Because it make things even worse, you would put even more pressure on the landing gear and the rest, leading to even less ammunition and fuel to make a successful start.

>>34521281
This too, its hard to launch a fixed wing AWACS with a ramp.

Helicopters make for a horrible alternative.

>>34522479

You are retarded. It is certainly not more simple than that.

>>34522611

Only dumb one is you. RN used that tactic during the Falklands, spread a few ships beyond the horizon and used helicopters to fill the gaps.

>>34524289
Ships aren't airborne, that's not an Airborne early warning system when its not airborne.

It's literally in the name.

>>34521399
I invest heavily in my own healthcare. I just don't want to invest in other people's healthcare.

File: 1489208675640.png (515KB, 551x713px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 551x713px

>>34521399
ouch

>>34522835
>18 percent of people bitch about having to do too much paperwork
Honestly that seems low.

>>34523173
>REDDIT

>SPACING

>>34524394
>reddit spacing meme

Learn to format.

File: EA18G Growler (2).jpg (784KB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 4256x2832px

>>34521250
Catapults increase a plane's inertia as it takes off. A ramp only changes the direction of motion. As a result you can launch heavier aircraft with a catapult than you can as a ramp. This has obvious advantages.

>>34524421
Yes

Friend,

I

Too

Like

To

Put

Linebreaks

Every

Fucking

Where.

Isn't

That

Right

Fellow

4chaner?

>>34524488
Can

you

not?

>>34523079
Anything other than emergency medicine has a 3+ month wait. Nonemergency/routine but medically necessary surgeries have a 6+ month wait. Elective (not medically necessary) surgeries have 4+ year waits.

Tax rates are some of the highest in the world, between all the different taxes the government gets upwards of 70% of everything you make.

Truly talented doctors, the ones capable of becoming the researchers or rockstar surgeons, go to the US due to the scheduled and capped wages. This means what Healthcare you do get is meh.

>>34521593
>>34521606
>RAMPS ARE FASTER!!!
>Nimitz sustained launch rate is faster than any ramp carriers surge rate
>Nimitz surge rate is double that

>>34524326

Reread the comment and consider taking reading comprehension classes.

>>34521297
>the big problem with ramps is that Americans are incapable of conceiving of the idea that other militaries operate under different doctrines and with different preferences of equipment.

That is a wordy way of saying you had to choose between cats or two carriers.

>>34524627
Ships

Aren't

Airborne

>>34521250
no real awacs

>>34524637

Again, reread the comment and see what it actually says, not what you think it says.

You have two different objects:
>the ship
>the helicopter

These are not the same thing.

>>34524589
Nimtz sortie rate is about 1.3 launches a day for a single aircraft, and 2.6 sorties per aircraft at surge
QE sortie rate is 3 sorties a day for a single aircraft

For reference
invincible class ramp carrier was 2 sorties / aircraft a day and that was considered pretty low for the RN

>>34524589

Every carrier discussion thread has retards like you, no matter how many times this gets discussed.

Kill yourself.

>>34524675
Nimitz carries more than twice the planes, as a result it does more launches and more recoveries in a day.

The sortie rate is not limited by the catapult.

>>34524674
And guess what, that is no longer an AWACS then, because if you use ships as the main backbone and heliawacs as a stopgap then you have the same situation the RN did and a few jets are going to slip through with anti ship missiles.

An actual AWACS can climb higher, does not require supplemental ships for assistance, and has greater range than a helicopter.

>>34524715
>Nimitz carries more than twice the planes, as a result it does more launches and more recoveries in a day.

A Nimitz is build to an entirely different scale than any other carrier. Of course it will sortie more than any other carrier.

However, STOVL as a form of aircraft/operation will generate proportionately more sorties than CATOBAR. This is non-debatable.

Want to actually have some research behind your opinion?
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/
Read and weep.

>>34524749
>that is no longer an AWACS then

Why?

>because if you use ships as the main backbone and heliawacs as a stopgap then you have the same situation the RN did and a few jets are going to slip through with anti ship missiles.

Not what was suggested. Again, will suggest you take up reading comprehension classes.

>actual AWACS

That's your opinion, thus discarded. Rotary AWACS are still AWACS like it or not.

>>34524772
Its no longer an airborne early warning system if you can't use the airborne component.

Thats exactly what you're saying when you use the RN example.

No, its not my opinion, you're describing an AEW not an AWACS.

There is no control provided on the helicopter itself.

>>34524754
Except it doesn't in practice.

>>34524754
>dividing sorties per day by aircraft carried instead of giving the actual number of sorties

>>34521392
>Aircraft have to carry a lesser payload and cut down on fuel if they want to clear a ramp.
who cares when you have su-33?

Carriers with ramp cant project power because they cant fly AWACs. Same reason why russia used their aircraft cruiser for bation strategy instead of challenging usa with it on the high sea. They're good for point defense or coastal missions only with such a limited early warning system. Yes, a helicopter with AEW system is a point defense vehicle.

>>34524833
Well the SU33 is literally the worst flanker, so not sure why you'd want that.

>>34524797
>Its no longer an airborne early warning system if you can't use the airborne component.

But you can. What is this restriction?

>No, its not my opinion, you're describing an AEW not an AWACS.
>There is no control provided on the helicopter itself.

That's platform specific. The platform that's been brought up in this thread can provide control.

>>34524799

Because nobody has built a Nimitz scale STOVL carrier. But look at the F-35 specs if you want an idea of difference between sortie generation rates.

>>34524821

Wasn't me that did that.

>>34524859
No it cant, there is no heliborne platform that provides control. That's an AEW.

Airborne early warning and control, its that and control part you're missing.

>>34521250
>>34521506
Why is CATOBAR so expensive now, yet is was no big deal during WW2? Didn't nearly every non-obsolete carrier then use CATOBAR?

>>34524881

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-surveillance-system-for-future-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-revealed

>he Crowsnest project will act as the Royal Navy’s eyes and ears for its next generation carriers, giving long range air, maritime and land detection, as well as the capability to track potential threats. Crowsnest will also be able to support wider fleet and land operations, replacing the Sea King helicopter’s Airborne Surveillance and *********Control************* capability that has been deployed on regular operations since 1982.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/269m-deal-signed-crowsnest-airborne-early-warning-control-system/

>The deal will see Lockheed Martin start manufacturing Crowsnest, a helicopter-borne airborne early warning and ***********control***** system for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

What prevents a helicopter from proving control?

>>34524945
>What prevents a helicopter from proving control?

its not what the Americans do, so its too complex for them to comprehend.

>>34524945
The Sea King can't provide control by itself you absolute moron, it literally has to regulate control to the Carrier completely.


https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/e3d-sentry.cfm
AWACS

AEW2/5 for the Royal Navy with Searchwater 2000AEW is what you're describing, which funnily enough, is an AEW.

>>34524992
>The Sea King can't provide control by itself you absolute moron, it literally has to regulate control to the Carrier completely.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/aircraft/helicopters/sea-king-mk7
> Sea King MK 7: Airborne Surveillance and Control

>The Sea King Mk7 Airborne Surveillance and Control – known throughout the Navy as Baggers – are the ‘eyes in the sky’ of the Navy, searching for aerial threats to the Fleet – or suspicious movements on the ground in support of land forces.

Why call it control, if it cannot provide control?

>>34525051
>>34525051
>Once enemy units are detected, the helicopter’s observers can direct friendly air, sea or ground forces to intercept – as they did with devastating effect during the fighting in southern Iraq in 2003.

I mean, it literally describes it forming that role. Come on.

>>34525051
>eye in the sky
>looking for threats
>cant provide direct control
>lacks command and control capabilities.
>can literally only relay information

You're joking right?

>>34525061
Not

its

role

And it even cites it as an AEW on the page.

File: 1490624901885.jpg (85KB, 635x466px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 635x466px

>>34525085

Fuck me, you really, really hate the idea of a AEW&C helicopter. IT IS CALLED A AEW&C HELICOPTER AND IS BEING REPLACED WITH A HELICOPTER THAT IS ALSO A AEW&C HELICOPTER UNDER A PROGRAM CALLED 'MARITIME AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL (MASC)'.

THE MISSION SYSTEM THAT INTEGRATES BOTH THE SENSORS AND THE DATALINKS IS CALLED CERBERUS.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/isr_cerberus_brochure_2013.pdf

>The Cerberus system:
>A Wide Area surveillance and Control mission system for Air, Land and sea

>sophisticated command and control

>The Cerberus mission system is primarily a mission planning, command and control interface, and can operate independently or as part of a C4I network. Missions are not mutually exclusive, and Cerberus can be re-tasked dynamically while airborne.The mobile airborne Command and Control enables dynamic tasking for mission sorties and mission execution. Cerberus can exploit and disseminate information independently, and can be networked into many different information architect.

You utter outrageous nigger.

>>34525068
see
>>34525171
>>34525061

>>34524365
>anime poster
>not retarded

pick one

>>34523304
>compared to the nordic states

You mean the countries which are currently imitating the US model by reducing taxes and reducing spending on entitlements after realizing that a half century of socialism ruined the economy?

>>34521755
>>34521726
>>34522093
>>34521705
>>34521717
>>34521645
Can someone post the screen cap with the burger explaining how carriers how been built to stop sub missles.

>>34521399
>government investment in X
Invariably has worse outcomes than private investment of any kind

>>34524917
CATOBAR wasn't a think during WW2. Planes took off completely on their own power. You are right though that CATBOAR was popular during the 50s. The answer is that VATOBAR is just as expensive now as it was then, but since the 50s countries have reduced military expenditure in favor of more welfare spending on peasants. It's not that they can't afford it, they just choose not to.

File: image.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>34525299

File: why ramps are gay.jpg (177KB, 1216x305px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1216x305px

>>34521250

>>34522835
>efficiency is based off of paperwork done and not cost of the actual service to effectiveness

What a useless statistic.

>>34522904
Macross zero says hello

File: 1491545028891.png (1MB, 529x761px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 529x761px

>>34523254
>>34523304
Can you libcucks make an actual argument instead of blindly regurgitating memes you heard bernie Sanders spout off on MSNBC like the mindless sheep you are?

>>34525351

You know what's gayer? Screencaping your own post.

>>34521423
I think they decided not to go with them in the end.

>>34521250
>>34521250
>What is scientifically and technologically wrong with a ramp?

requires a lighter plane burning more fuel on take-off. This results in less rage and munitions and a weaker force.

>>34521344
"someone else thought about doing it" doesn't count as "can do it" you fucking idiot

you must be mexican becuase they're totally monkey see- monkey do. "i watched you do it a hundred times so I'm as good as you doing it when ive never actually done it even once"

>>34521399
taxation is theft

>>34526011
>This results in less rage
and if anything, we want MORE rage

>>34526061
no, taxation without representation is theft. what are you, puerto rican?

>>34526061
>I don't want a functioning fire service, roads, schools, FDA, or any other function of government.
Feel free to move to a libertarian paradise such as Somalia were no government will bother you.

>>34526137
Excuse me? Somalia has none of those things because they were all run by the government. Which FAILED. There was no private industry to come in and save the day.

File: 1457718384518.jpg (204KB, 960x567px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 960x567px

>>34521250
Ultimately they're pointless, aren't they?
If the aircraft doesn't have enough lift by the end of the airstrip then it's not likely to manage either way.
I guess the little bit of extra airtime you get it might be neat but it also makes the aircraft lose some of its kinetic energy when it is redirected upwards.

>>34521250
Just 'cause I wanna take my turn at the dead horse:

All planes are at their heaviest at take-off. Fuel usually, but in the case of military planes, weapons as well.

Suspension design, even at it's most robust, has its limits. Thus, suddenly increasing the G load on the plane when it's at it's heaviest is a bad idea if you wanna be able to land it again.