Are the QE class Supercarriers?

File: 20286734_1505062042873839_8724679662982293031_o.jpg (45KB, 1152x748px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1152x748px

>>34667028
>no photon torpedos

>>34667028
Yes according to the definition, now to commence shitposting.

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

80KB, 960x568px

>>34667028

>better automation than current and future carriers

>superior combat aircraft to anything used by current supercarriers.

>larger displacement than previous super carriers

>higher sortie rate than previous supercarriers

If you don't accept that QE is a supercarrier your ass mad.

By whose standards? Lards? Chicoms? Vatniks?

File: X-47B.jpg (57KB, 800x490px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x490px

>>34667141
>superior combat aircraft to anything used by current supercarriers
Uhm no sweetie

>>34667141
STOVL F-35s? Good, but won't be superior to F-35Cs when both are in service.

>>34667028
is....is that a fucking
R A M P
A
M
P
??

>>34667141
>larger displacement than previous super carriers
On what fucking planet and what fucking time line?

File: E-2_01[1].jpg (126KB, 1500x984px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1500x984px

>supercarrier
>no fixed wing awacs

pick one.

>>34667028

Super Carriers are defined by size of air wing, not displacement. QE's have a compliment air wing size *smaller* than some WWII Era British Carriers. They are not super carriers. No more than an Assault Ship is a Super Carrier despite displacing similar mass as early super carriers.

>>34668641
It's not in service yet.

>>34669048
Fixed wing awacs is not a requirement to fill the criteria, though. Next you're going to claim that to qualify as a supercarrier, you need to have cats and traps too, right?

>>34669068
incorrect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

>>34669092
but that is a requirement

>>34667028
A

It is a rather small super carrier though. Compare it to China's super carrier and the quality and efficiency is glaring.

>>34669068
Technically at max it can carry a somewhat comparable number of fighter aircraft to the amount a Nimitz technically carries. Course, a Nimitz can carry more than that in a pinch, and the QE can only do that by not having all the auxiliary aircraft the Nimitz employs.

>>34669126
>Compare it to China's super carrier and the quality and efficiency is glaring.
How, China's carries significantly less aircraft, which are also less advanced.

>>34669094

That's a flawed argument and therefore facile and therefore incorrect. By that same logic, the light assault ships employed by the Japanese Self Defense Navy, as being both heavier than WWII Era Fleet Carriers, the largest Carriers currently employed by that force, and some of the largest carriers afloat (especially if you discount the USN).

>>34667028
the skijump and conventional propulsion make it a 70,000 ton escort carrier for all practical purposes

File: 1298828004448.jpg (421KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1920x1200px

>only 70 aircraft

>>34667028
the most important thing.

HOWS THE FOOD

they'll be no takeaway kebab boxes on these beautys i hope.

Just brown windsor soup, spotted dick, and eel pies for all the blokes.

>>34669112
Incorrect.
>>34669180
That's gibberish.

>>34669235
and warm flat ale

File: Queen Elizabeth class diagram.jpg (1MB, 2000x990px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x990px

>>34667028
Not by the traditional definition, as I understand it. They lack CATOBAR and nuclear propulsion. But that doesn't preclude the QE class being an effective force projection platform.

>>34669253
Nuclear isn't a requirement for a super carrier

>>34669180
>That's a flawed argument and therefore facile and therefore incorrect.
No it isn't.
>By that same logic, the light assault ships employed by the Japanese Self Defense Navy, as being both heavier than WWII Era Fleet Carriers, the largest Carriers currently employed by that force, and some of the largest carriers afloat (especially if you discount the USN).
It's a helicopter destroyer, the Japanese Navy has classified it as such. You might not think it warrants that, but whatever.
The QEs are super carriers by displacement. Also, they can carry over 50 aircraft in a pinch just like current US carriers can carry over 90-100 if they need to.

>>34669192
Neither is necessary to be defined as a supercarrier. Here, let me simplify it for you:
>is it a carrier
>does it have a displacement of over 64000 metric tons
If yes to both, it is a supercarrier. Ramps, size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.

>>34669249
>9249 ▶
> >>34669235 (You)
> and warm flat ale
yes british ales.

>>34669253
>>34669270
neither is CATOBAR

>>34669126
China doesnt ahve a super carrier yet

File: steak_kidney_pie.jpg (61KB, 630x354px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 630x354px

>>34669235
>steak and kidney pie
>Wellington
>fish and chips
>bubble and squeak
>toad in the hole
>bacon and brown sauce sandwich
>beans and toast with breakfast sausages
>Cornish Pasty
>10% of combat load is tea leaves

>>34669431
But where the fuck is the LAMB SAUCE

They have loos mate. That's disgusting and xenophobic. A slap to the face of humanity.

File: British_army.jpg (266KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 640x427px

>>34669448

I'm not British. I'm just listing the stuff I know, which is too much because British food is garbage compared to French cuisine.

>>34669080
yeah, it is.

>>34669235
>>34669431
so a bunch of stuff that's edible, but disgusting, and like 5 things that are actually good.

>>34667141
>all that reddit spacing

>>34669471
>yeah, it is.
Not, it isn't. They actually phased them out of flying. They were a tech demonstrator.

>>34669483
I was told a couple of days ago in /a/ that reddit spacing is actually a double space between paragraphs, because apparently you need to do that to get a single space in lebbit. So that anon's post wouldn't be reddit spacing.

>>34669301
sad

>>34669567
That it is, when idiot make up definitions and then try to use them as an argument.

File: CVFnimitzDeckComparo.gif (100KB, 710x361px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 710x361px

>>34667028
>>34667141
stop posting obvious bait, britbong

File: 34375.jpg (60KB, 384x300px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 384x300px

>>34669688
>mfw this "super carrier" is the same length as an Iowa BB

>R A M P
>A
>M
>P

File: 1501070141494.jpg (29KB, 285x325px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 285x325px

>CV with a fucking RAMP

>>34667028
>ramp
>tiny air wing
>diesel
more like a glorified LHD than a supercarrier :^)

>>34667141
I quite like the look of that CATOBAR QE, actually

File: 1486741816072.jpg (17KB, 542x540px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 542x540px

>he's a carrierlet

The ramp is literally the equivalent of manlets spiking their hair

Do they have urinals? Then yes, they are super carriers.

>>34669301
Then it is a shit super carrier

>>34667028

I think for it to be a supercarrier it needs to be nuclear powered and cats/traps.

>>34670011
no, its displacement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

>>34669995
That you can freely argue. I'm of the opinion that bongs made pretty smart calls with their allocated funds.

>>34670184
building expensive show boats that can't actually project when your navy is crumbling. seems tin-pot dictator tier.

>>34670434
That's just a bad opinion, anon.

>In the period between handover and the restoration of operational Royal Navy fixed-wing capability Mark Urban speculated on the BBC programme Newsnight that both ships could 'host' USMC VSTOL aircraft.[102] This became true in December 2016 with a deal between Secretaries Fallon and Carter allowing USMC F-35Bs to fly off HMS Queen Elizabeth

So let me get this strait. The brits use our aircraft, our helicopters, and soon they'll have our marines stationed on their ships?

kek

>>34669041
They displace 10K tonnes more than a Forrestal.

>>34670931
Ten Kelvin tonnes?

>>34671000
does that make a very cold ton? or a ton of cold?

>>34667141
>automation
I thought I filtered this word

>>34671000
10,000

they're also 30°K cooler because God invented AC

>>34671083
>"30°K" cooler than 10K
>"°" when using K
>-20K
>colder than literally absolute 0
are you retarded?

>>34669068
This is really wrong. A Nimitz is without a doubt a supercarrier, and it carries less aircraft at standard config than an Essex did in WW2.

>>34669516
I would consider it reddit spacing, as traditional greentext usage is single spaced.

File: 19905217_1482818175089700_2562315208620731927_n.jpg (55KB, 480x617px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 480x617px

>>34667028
pic related is the absolute state of the british meme navy

>>34671438
Hmm. Well, I suppose you have a point there.

>>34671456

Those numbers make sense if you apply the 1/3 rule.
>six active
>six workup
>seven maintenance

>>34669431
you forgot the real British national food: Curry.

>>34669483
>>34669516
>>34671438
>>34671764
I've been here for more than my fair share of years and I've never heard about this "reddit spacing" accusation until this year. It's got to be some stupid joke some oldfag came up with to piss off newfags.

Greentexts are always single spaced though.

I'll never understand the shitposting associated with these things.

We asked our allies in Europe to step up their game.

The UK then went and created the most powerful carrier that isn't a US 100k tonner, and then built two of the damn things, and 5th gen aircraft to go on them.

Somehow this is a bad thing now that an ally is actually getting their finger out?

>>34669688
so...the front fell of?

>>34668641
How does it compare to the euro ucav?

>>34667028
A. All naval ship classifications have about a dozen definitions, especially across nations and epochs.
B. It's a propaganda term.
C. It's not even an official propaganda term.

Brits have called it a supercarrier, but I think that the term should be used a superlative to refer to the current top of the line carriers anywhere in the world. QE does not even come close to comparing to the capabilities of the current or previous generation of US supes.

>>34669253
1600 crew vs 5700? Sure theres twice the aircraft, but the qe has 1000 "fighting troops"?

>>34669253
>speed in mph
utterly useless

>>34673757
It's completely irrelevant when we don't actually have any fucking planes to put on them. The harriers were fine.

>>34673613
>Brits love curry
>Japs love curry

truly, the sun never sets on the hindu empire

>>34667046
>QE doesn't have a teleportation device
wtf britbongs your ship is shit

File: 14773210980620.jpg (268KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x850px

>>34669092
OK, I'm a super-carrier now. Also, super-missiles make me super-super-carrier.

>>34673762
The British tend to employ one individual to do the job of three USN sailors.

This is not a critique of either Navy, but the British are far more comfortable with giving more than one responsibility to one guy.

>>34673858
>we don't actually have any fucking planes to put on them.

yes we do you moron. go back to reading the daily mail

>>34673945
And what planes are those, pray tell, you telegraph reading prick?

>>34668641

>combat aicraft

>posts a tanker

>>34673908

Well no, because Kuznetsov is a aircraft-cruiser, and a poor one at that if we're to take the recent performance in Syria as a benchmark.

Arguably, you could call it an aircraft-ferry-crusier given it wasn't launching combat sorties. But merely acting as a platform to move aircraft across to land.

>>34673908
Tonnage is basically the only requirement, and thats about 15,000t short.

>>34673961

By the end of 2017, the UK will have 16 F-35s. As it stands, I believe there are 10 of them so far.

>>34673990
Don't enter service until 2020. Keep trying.

>>34674014
>10 already in service
are you braindead?

>>34673961

We already own 17 or so F35's, flight trials start next year, and the first deployment will be in 2021 to the south china sea with a full air wing of 24 UK F35's, 12 USMC F35's and supporting helicopters.

>>34674014
QE won't enter service until 2020 either. Jesus you're thick

>>34674014

This is different to what you've said. You said the UK has no planes to put on them. This is patently false given the UK does own some F-35s.

However, you aren't even right on that point. The first operational unit will be in 2019.

>>34674041
>>34674030
>>34674023

Why do britcucks waste all their money on the F-35s which are known to be terrible when the wars they're fighting will be over by the time they get to use them.

For now you've got an aircraft carrier with no planes and an army with a rifle that falls apart for no reason.You'd think Blighty could do better.

@34674061

Shan't be giving you a (You).

>>34674061

>get BTFO by facts

>resorts to meme posting

get rekt

>>34674075
You can't greentext away the truth, buddy. Face it, you're fading into irrelevance.

>>34674091

>keeps posting despite the utter humiliation of making a claim that gets torn apart

>keeps getting more upset when no one takes his bait

>>34674061
>when the wars they're fighting will be over by the time they get to use them


This might be the most retarded thing i've seen on /k/

Most military procurement occurs without the gov having a clue who they're actually going to use the weapons against (if anyone at all). Given the timescales involved, it's fair to presume once something as big as an aircraft carrier of the F-35 program is completed, you won't be expecting to fight in the same war.

>>34673676
take normal /k/ shitposting and multiply it by summer and this is what happens. Most of 'em will be either be gone or sufficiently assimilated by September.

>>34667028
Guy from last thread with this picture
>they're the same sizzzeeeee
>can clearly see the QE sitting further forqard, but still smaller, at an advantageous as fuck camera angle

File: 1378537661319.jpg (97KB, 811x680px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 811x680px

>>34667141
Two words bong, curved. Deck.

>>34674097
Why would I need anyone else to take the bait when I've got you, buddy?

File: 1500015431260.jpg (217KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x800px

>>34674143
He's got you there, mate.

>>34674170
Read the first letter of every second word in my posts.

>>34669301
>makes an argument based on a technicality rather than practicality.
>somehow this makes the ship any better than it actually is.

Go ahead and argue all day long what it "acshuallly" is called. Its still a shit ship compared to what it could have been. No one cares if it passes some shit requirement for your arbitrary definition. You're too dumb to realize this and people have already pointed it out.>>34669180

File: 1399389386743.jpg (2MB, 3657x2434px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3657x2434px

>>34673757
> I think that the term should be used a superlative to refer to the current top of the line carriers anywhere in the world.
best post. Sums up what I was thinking.

>>34675979
It's not arbitrary, it's the official definition.

File: 1409817821190.gif (3MB, 396x170px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 396x170px

>>34676015
do you have autism or something. Like many have pointed out the definition is just some tonnage that someone chose at a certain point. It tells us basically nothing of capabilities.

No one cares about the "technical" definition except you. You're so set on sperging out and proving you're right or some shit, or whatever it is you're trying to do, that you've lost sight of what normal non socially inept humans are trying to point out to you.

File: IMG_2905.png (928KB, 508x1080px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 508x1080px

>Did you see those carriers from England?
>they had curved decks.
>curved, decks.

>>34676186
>Is the M16 an assault rifle?
Me:
>yes, since it is a rifle, chambered in an intermediate cartridge and has both semi-auto and burst/auto fire modes and feeds from a detachable magazine.
You:
>No since it doesn't use the superior long stroke gas piston, or fire the better 7.62x39 or 7.92x33 or have a folding stock!

Definitions are gonna define. M16 is an assault rifle just like the Queen Elizabeth is a super carrier, and there is nothing arbitrary about it.

>>34676186
>No one cares about the "technical" definition except you.
Him and the US and Royal Navies.

File: 1468553062137.jpg (246KB, 1424x1914px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1424x1914px

>>34676464
>England
>>34677839
>Royal Navies

>>34677839
look aspie stop samefaggin your autistic argument. Its cringey. The military cares about capabilities like the rest of us normal humans do. We already talked about this babe, same with the other anons. The only people who care about some arbitrary line in the sand for tonnage when discussing carriers is yourself. The rest of us are talking about its capabilities and lack thereof. Its cute you think the US navy cares about the tonnage and not the lack or cats, no fixed wing awacs, small crew for damage control, non nuclear, needs to be refueled even in times of emergency unlike the US ones. Keep samefaggin and letting us all know your autism levels are off the chart by digging in with the dumb argument that its technically a supercarrier when its just a big ship thats capable but lacking in many areas. You don't seem to get it. No one cares about what you can call it in some NY times post. What matters are the stats. Thats why we joke about it not being a supercarrier because it lacks what all prior American supercarriers have. It just trys to cling on and join the club by being large. I'm sure your technically a professional artists b/c you once sold a piece of art to your mommy for $5.

File: Osprey_landing_Shimokita.jpg (4MB, 5760x3840px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5760x3840px

>>34678213
if it can get ospreys are maybe something similar but better it can take care of the sensor problem. I see that as one of its biggest downfalls. Some drone platform can maybe take this over in the future. It might be able to launch a AWACS drone like china is experimenting with if all the weight from the personal are dropped. But of course that would make our carriers be able to launch even better and bigger AWACS drones from cats.

>>34677893
Well there are four royal navies, aren't there? UK, Canada, Australia, NZ

>>34678213
You can argue about capabilities all you want, but QE being a super carrier is not arguable.

File: 1500484274254.jpg (22KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x357px

>>34667046
Bump for you brother.

File: 1466487408082.jpg (345KB, 1875x1152px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1875x1152px

>>34678513
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier
>unofficial descriptive term

quit with your autism. Some faggot once said hey, all our huge new nuclear carriers that carry 80 planes, have catapults with fixed winged AWACS happen to be around this tonnage. This is a good simple way to define a carrier in a simple sentece

>There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons

this definition that you falsely claimed as official comes from a two British cunts, one a woman. No military service, but you claimed
>>34677839
>Him and the US and Royal Navies.

thanks for being a fucking lying cunt. You're shit ship is only a carrier because in 1991 some cunts wrote a book and that one sentence I quoted was how it got somehow put on wiki. When you graduate highshcool and look up your own sources, come back to the table and debate with the adults.

>>34678685
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/supercarrier
http://www.yourdictionary.com/supercarrier
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/supercarrier

Most definitions seem to agree that a "supercarrier" is just a large aircraft carrier. How big do you then think a carrier needs to be to qualify?

>>34678685
>>34678213
getting angry

>>34678213
>What matters are the stats.
And the stats say it's a super carrier because of displacement, sorry bro.
>look aspie stop samefaggin your autistic argument. Its cringey.
Being right while being back up by both the Navies of the US and UK is cringey?
>>34677893
>>Royal Navies
It's plural, as in both the US and UK

>this definition that you falsely claimed as official comes from a two British cunts, one a woman.
What does them being British or one being female have to do with it?

>No military service, but you claimed
Neither was Kelly Johnson. See: Skunk Works, SR-71.

>thanks for being a fucking lying cunt. You're shit ship is only a carrier because in 1991 some cunts wrote a book and that one sentence I quoted was how it got somehow put on wiki. When you graduate highshcool and look up your own sources, come back to the table and debate with the adults.
Well, that would hinge on the fact that you're an adult, which you're not (the swearing and atrocious grammar lends credibility to that assumption). At this point, you're getting mad and getting BTFO.

File: 1383081829544.jpg (100KB, 262x303px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 262x303px

>>34678767
>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/supercarrier\
from your source
<A very large aircraft carrier.
>(informal) The largest type of aircraft carrier, usually displacing over 70,000 long tons.
Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/supercarrier#D2TW0YZHjHwsTfZI.99
from your source
>(informal) The largest type of aircraft carrier, usually displacing over 70,000 long tons.
>(informal)
>(informal)
>https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/supercarrier
from your source
>a large aircraft carrier


how about you shut the fuck up already? Cringey, its just a shit cringey argument and your garbage retort makes you look even more retarded.

The original argument you used was some arbitrary line in the sand you claimed was official from wikipedia. I called you out child. This is all now just damage control. One of the things you "super carrier" can't handle with its shit crew load. Your source wasn't even correct if it came from an admiral b/c it states
>There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons

He and she are just saying that the current (written in 1991) US super carriers happen to be this tonnage. Not that this is the definition of a super carrier. I propose someone go change the wiki b/c its false and disingenuous.

again you got rekt now shut the fuck up and sit down on the gay ass ramp on this fake ass super carrier.

>>34678808
stats are from 2 British civilians. Argument discarded. You're only embarrassing yourself by clinging to it as a source to your argument.

>>34678833
So how big do you think a carrier needs to be in order to qualify?

>>34667028
Nimitz was nuclear powered and 100,000 tonnes plus. When did Forrestal get promoted to supercarrier status? Catapults is the main difference between Forrestal and Shinano, - when Forrestal was commissioned she had eight 5" guns. Forrestal needed refuelling logistics too.

I have a suspicion sneaky Bongs are trying to pare down the definition of supercarrier (on Wikipedia among other places), until it fits their new thing.

>>34678845
You're arguing with two people, dear, and if you don't accept any definition of a supercarrier, then this discussion is pointless. If no definition for a supercarrier exists, then neither do supercarriers.

>>34678845
>stats are from 2 British civilians.
So civilians can't comment on military matters? Even if they know what they're talking about?

>>34678833
>The original argument you used was some arbitrary line in the sand you claimed was official from wikipedia.
If the US military uses it as a line in the sand also, it must have some credibility.
Gettin' madder

>>34678833
<A very large aircraft carrier.
>a large aircraft carrier
That displaces a certain amount

>>34678926
I can't speak for anyone else. But i've made my opinion clear already. If you want, go back and read everyone's posts. It hasn't much to do with the size directly, but indirectly. The size comes from the large aircraft compliment and nuclear reactor, the capabilities of the ship. None of which the QE has on modern super carriers. The QE has one thing that is better and that is the automation. But they take this and destroy its crew size.

I'd say that its a modern carrier. Everything else out is garbage and old and doesn't matter. The only other nations competing right now are China and India. India's program is crap so it doesn't count. I'd say that its a capable ship, but not a super carrier. If you classify that as one, then what do we classify the much more capable Ford? I understand you want to join the big boys club but its not really a big deal. Its only a buzz term like 5th gen. Its useful in discussions when describing things. If I describe both these ships as supercarriers, then the obviously real one gets diminished by association.

>>34678963
<A very large aircraft carrier.
>a large aircraft carrier

this was his source you retard. I quoted it. If you don't like his source, call him out on it. You're quoting me giving the actual definition he used as a source. If your not capable of a simple google or source check, go away. You're not worth arguing with if you're going to be disingenuous.

>So civilians can't comment on military matters? Even if they know what they're talking about?

his argument's premise was based on official terminology from wiki. He stated it was official terminology and that one could not argue against the definition. I called him out as lying, just as you are.

>>34678991
>The size comes from the large aircraft compliment and nuclear reactor, the capabilities of the ship.
>large aircraft compliment
Which they can surge to higher than 70s nuclear power fleet carriers from the USN.
>nuclear reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier
Both considered supercarriers anon.
>then what do we classify the much more capable Ford?
As a supercarrier. Or a DUPERcarrier if you want...
>Its only a buzz term like 5th gen.
Oh, you're an idiot.

>>34678991
>It hasn't much to do with the size directly, but indirectly.
Well, if that's your opinion, then you'd be wrong. Size is the only thing that matters, not cats, not traps, not propulsion, not power generation, not cat type, not size of air wing, not presence of fixed wing awacs, not colour, not the amount of islands, or anything else. Size.

What size do you think a carrier needs to be in order to qualify? I think 250k tons would be sufficient. There are no super carriers yet, but maybe we'll see one in 50 years. Hyper carriers are more than a million tons.

>>34669253
>will land a maneuvre perfected by UK pilots

holy fuck, did Tai Lopez make this?

>>34679068
>As a supercarrier. Or a DUPERcarrier if you want...
the term originated not as some official term as you and your friend lie about, but as a way to differentiate between different classes of ships.

hey but you're kind of getting it now. As I already called you guys out for which was lying. There is no official term for this. This is what I was originally pointing out. Unlike you guys, I wasn't arguing some shit line in the sand. I was saying its bs to call a much less capable ship similar to other less capable ships in the same class as a Ford and Nimitz. Don't strawman me into some "technically" bs. I only started debating the ridiculousness of why a carrier is only classified as super at a certain tonnage and nothing else considered. This is the premise of what the original guy I was debating with was talking about before you butted yourself in and is now complaining that I don't understand what you are about. If you want to take his argument under his wing, then disassociate yourself from what you disagree with or take it all as your own. I can't know what you're thinking kid. State what your on about.

>>34679213
>Don't strawman me into some "technically" bs.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct, anon.
>State what your on about.
That the QE class of ships coming into service with be supercarriers by definition of all modern Navies (regardless if it's informal or not, as it hits the proverbial pistol).

>>34679213
A term doesn't need to be official to be valid. We just need to agree on the specifics on how to use said term.

>>34667028
I don't have a problem calling QEs supercarriers, it's a malleable definition anyway. That said, I do have some problems with the QE itself, namely it's lack of defensive armament. 3 Phalanx simply isn't effective enough for a modern vessel by any means. Sure it'll have have escorts, but every other nation operating carriers has escorts as well and seems to think a greater level of personal air defense is still called for. I'm not saying go full Kirov, but a block of Aster 15 like the CdG has (or shit, maybe CAMM) or at least a couple RAM systems (the Bongs don't use this, but it's basically a drop-in, especially SeaRAM) seems like an option they should have considered.

>>34679259
>Technically correct is the best kind of correct, anon.
you're technically wrong though. It isn't a super carrier based on anything but a wiki article that misquotes the author as meaning all 70k+ ton carriers are super. So no, you don't even have that for you lol. Let me quote it for you again since your covering your ears metaphorically speaking.
>There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons

He is using descriptive language. Not defining anything.

You're claim to fame is taking a quote from Wikipedia that misquoted two unknown British civilian authors out of context to claim that your carrier can be in the super carrier club.

It must be sad being British.

>>34679339
>It must be sad being British.
Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't know, because I'm not British.

>It isn't a super carrier based on anything but a wiki article that misquotes the author as meaning all 70k+ ton carriers are super.
It is because it displaces over 70k tons.

>Not defining anything.
Except defining what a supercarrier is, which is displacing over 70k tons, which the British carriers do (barely).
>carrier can be in the super carrier club.
It is.

>>34679401
>I'm not British.
lol k kid.
>It is because it displaces over 70k tons.

are you trolling or just dumb? The wiki says that this is a definition but is based on a sentence taken out of context from two British civilians in 1991. You're banking your argument on two peoples opinions that have nothing to do with the US Navy? This is truly a sad rhetoric on your part.

>>34679339
He wrote "There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons; the U.S. Navy currently has fourteen, the Soviet Navy one."

If we go strictly as written, he is saying that the largest super carriers are over 70 000 tons. If the largest super carriers are over 70 00 tons, it also follows that there are smaller super carriers.

>>34679434
>The wiki says that this is a definition but is based on a sentence taken out of context from two British civilians in 1991.
Well they seemed to define it fairly well.

>You're banking your argument on two peoples opinions that have nothing to do with the US Navy?
Except when the Navy (and others) consider it a good definition. Do you consider the Kitty Hawk or Forrestal classes super carrier?

>lol k kid.
Believe what you want, manny.

File: 435.png (246KB, 500x413px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 500x413px

A FUCKING RAMP

>>34679454
>If we go strictly as written, he is saying that the largest super carriers are over 70 000 tons

yes they are, its a description of one of these four classes.

>If the largest super carriers are over 70 00 tons, it also follows that there are smaller super carriers.

are you drunk? The conclusion you can to doesn't follow whatsoever. He was talking about "four main types of carrier in service today." and that the largest of these, the super carriers are over 70k tons. He did not state a super carrier is defined as over 70k tons. You're taking it out of context. The sentence before it should make it obvious. If he wanted to actually define it, the composition of that sentence would be much different coming from an author talking about carriers.

>There are four main types of race cars in competing today. The fastest of these are the F1, going over 200 mph.

its a description.

He would have said that a super carrier is a carrier capable of A, B,...C and usually over 70k tons. This is an actual book, not some quote from an interview. Authors are deliberate with their language.

You can describe something without it becoming the definition of it. There are plenty of other race cars and cars that can go that fast. They are not F1 race cars.

>>34679588
>He was talking about "four main types of carrier in service today." and that the largest of these, the super carriers are over 70k tons. He did not state a super carrier is defined as over 70k tons.
'The largest of these are the super carriers displacing over 70,000 tons'.

The largest carriers in service are the super carriers that are over 70k tons. It doesn't say that a super carrier has to be over 70k, only that the largest happen to be super carriers.

>>34679588
>He would have said that a super carrier is a carrier capable of A, B,...C and usually over 70k tons


>He would have said that a super carrier is a carrier capable of A, B,...C and usually over 70k tons
Oh, then it's easy. We'll just have to find the common things between the 14 US super carriers and the single Soviet one. Hmm, looks like nuclear power, fixed wing awacs and cats&traps are out.

>>34679782
I find it weird the Kuz isn't nuclear desu. It was designed around the same time as the Kirov, seems like an odd choice.

>>34671886
>SIX
>SHIPS

>>34679782
this is pure autism. Being uncapable of understanding human communication is a sign anon. Maybe get on those neet bucks?
>There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons
If the prior sentence was in the context of super carriers your argument would fly. He instead is talking about different classes of carriers, one of them being the US super carriers displacing over 70k tons. In comparison with Russian, and French and old British carriers.

>>34669124
FUCKIN

SUPER CARRIER

>>34669253
dat chinook hiding in the hanger

File: file.png (421KB, 730x487px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 730x487px

Why big ass windows on the rear superstructure?

>>34667028
Under 100,000 tons, non nuclear, under 60 aircraft, carries 40 typically.

Yea, no, not a supercarrier. Nimitz class beats it.

>>34680055
It also relies on the F-35B heavily, while the Nimitz, Gerald R Ford classes can use the F-35C, which is a better version.

>>34679892
>Being uncapable
You mean incapable.
>He instead is talking about different classes of carriers, one of them being the super carriers displacing over 70k tons
Ohhhh, then I guess it means that any carrier over 70k tons is a super carrier. Which is what was being said from the beginning. Glad we sorted that out! (The article specifically says US and Soviet super carriers, not just US)

>>34667028
No
>not nuclear
>between 12 and 24 jets (US supercarriers carry ~50)
>a fucking ramp (lower payloads)
>no dedicated AWACS
It's a meme. Brits could've made 1 proper supercarrier instead of the 2 fucking overgloryfied amph. assault ships they will get.

>>34680221
>(The article specifically says US and Soviet super carriers, not just US)

not an article kid. This is from a book and it doesn't say any of that. You are trying to use an argument from authority but you don't even know your own source. Pathetic and I fart all over your shit argument.

>There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons; the U.S. Navy currently has fourteen, the Soviet Navy one."

again a lying brit. You are a worthless piece of shit and I can't wait until highschool starts again. The mention of soviets has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

> then I guess it means that any carrier over 70k tons is a super carrier

bad guess. At least you admit to guessing and being knowledgeable about even your own sources.. The current super carriers of the US Navy in 1991 were over 70k tons. So when the two British civilian authors were talking about it, they described them as being over 70k tons. Only autismo bot can infer the shit you are.

And again, these are two british civilians from 1991 that no one knows about that you are using for your logical fallacy (from authority) to conduct your argument. It doesn't get more pathetic than this. Oh wait, but i've pointed this out multiple times and you ignore it every time.
So you have stooped lower than what I expected form some dumb child.

>>34680336
Supercarriers are based on displacement.
>>not nuclear
Doesn't need to be, Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes prove this.
>>between 12 and 24 jets (US supercarriers carry ~50)
It can surge 60 if it needs to.
>a fucking ramp (lower payloads)
>no dedicated AWACS
Not a requirement for a SC.

>>34680337
>not an article kid. This is from a book and it doesn't say any of that. You are trying to use an argument from authority but you don't even know your own source
>>"There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons; the U.S. Navy currently has fourteen, the Soviet Navy one."
You can read, right? Are you ok anon?
>The mention of soviets has nothing to do with what you're talking about
It has everything to do with what I'm talking about. US had fourteen such carriers, the soviets one.
>The current super carriers of the US Navy in 1991 were over 70k tons. So when the two British civilian authors were talking about it, they described them as being over 70k tons. Only autismo bot can infer the shit you are.
So which is it, super carrier is any carrier that exceeds 70k tons, or any carrier that fills the unkonown criteria that happen to be over 70k tons; of which the US navy had 14 and the Soviets 1? Because the latter would mean that smaller super carriers can also exist, which you denied earlier.

>>34680737
>which you denied earlier.
Never said this. I said that the claim the the QE is a super carrier due to your claim that 70k plus tons makes it one is false. I then debunked you sorry argument and source because you were to dumb to look it up yourself.

Wasn't it YOU claiming based on your argument from authority from 2 BRITISH CIVILIANS IN 1991 that the QE is a super carrier based on 2 unknown civilian authors(at the time a wiki post you couldn't even look up). You didn't even know the source before I gave it to you. you were quoting the wiki article saying
>>34678513

So now that I called you out on your shit source you back track and pretend that the original source, wiki, that you quoted doesn't matter?
The only thing I said was
>>34675979
I don't care what the source said. I've been telling you and doing YOUR RESEARCH into the source on why your original definition of 70k plus tons makes the QE a super carrier is dumb. You move the goal posts into some other shit so you don't sound as autistic. I don't care what definition you define it as. I stated originally to your shitpost that you can't classify your carrier as a super carrier due to only tonnage. I can't write a fucking paper ever response because your too drunk to remember the prior statements.
heres another post
>>34679032
>>34679213

stop pretending we are talking about some imaginary shit you are.

Let me make it clear again barbecue we know you are a lair.

>And again, these are two british civilians from 1991 that no one knows about that you are using for your logical fallacy (from authority) to conduct your argument. It doesn't get more pathetic than this. Oh wait, but i've pointed this out multiple times and you ignore it every time.


this is one of the many times I mention this. You ignore it every time to fit whatever autistic argument you are having in your own head. What are you goalposts. Where have they moved at this point in time.

>>34680899
>>Never said this.
Oh, okay, so super carriers with less than 70k displacement can exist.

Yes, that was me. If we're going by the commonly accepted definition that 64k+ equals super carrier, then it is inarguable. If you deny that definition, then it also is inarguable since we can all make up our own definitions. You cannot argue unless you subscribe to the same terminology.

>So now that I called you out on your shit source you back track and pretend that the original source, wiki, that you quoted doesn't matter?
Where did I say it didn't matter? I've always held up to the definition I used from the beginning.

>I don't care what the source said. I've been telling you and doing YOUR RESEARCH into the source on why your original definition of 70k plus tons makes the QE a super carrier is dumb.
It's the only definition we have, though. The rest is your made-up snowflake defintions.

Do you want to have a discussion about how you think we should redefine the term "supercarrier"?

Oh and I'm ignoring it, because it's not an appeal to authority.

>>34681067
>Oh, okay, so super carriers with less than 70k displacement can exist.

let me get a source so that I can debunk it like your 70k plus one.

>Where did I say it didn't matter? I've always held up to the definition I used from the beginning.

so you contradict yourself already in one post. You're obviously not retarded.

You claim its 70k plus while saying unsourced its 64k plus.

>>34681103
>let me get a source so that I can debunk it like your 70k plus one.
But you're the one who said it.

>You claim its 70k plus while saying unsourced its 64k plus.
But it's the same thing. 70k short tons equals about 63.5k metric tons, which rounds up to 64k.

>>34681119
>But you're the one who said it.
>But it's the same thing. 70k short tons equals about 63.5k metric tons, which rounds up to 64k.

But you it was 70k plus. This is how this all started....

i'm done, it's obvious you're a troll. Enjoy the attention your parents never gave you.

>>34681137
The original source which wikipedia used was in short tons (70k), which was converted to metric tons (64k) in wiki, since it's the international standard.

File: 1460350513132.png (643KB, 1022x731px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1022x731px

>>34679032
>>34678833
>>34678767
>>34678685
gonna sum it up like this;

you can be a man, or you can be a woman.

You can be a man, dress like a woman, and cut off your dick. You can take hormone therapy. You can even call yourself a woman if you want. but you arent. And next to a real woman, you arent.

The QE class can be called a damn 12 fleet formation, you can call it a starship, fuck. Call it a constellation for all that it matters.

Compare it, contrast it, draw parallels, compliment it for what it is and how good it does it, almost as good at whatever the cost and however the numbers are spun, but the iron truth remains;

At the end of the day, stick it next to any american nuclear carrier in service, and you will see it for what it is. Not a peer. Not a contemporary.

>>34681193
Sure, not all super carriers are created equal.

>>34680629
>can surge 60 if it needs to.
Yes, and Nimitz can 130, what's your point? The standard carrier wing is still 2 times smaller than an US supercarrier one.
>Doesn't need to be, Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes prove this.
Those were built in the 50s. Glad to see bongs are 60 years behind Ford and Nimitz are the only true supercarrier classes.
>Not a requirement for a SC.
It pretty much is. Even the french mini-supercarrier de Gaule has fucking awacs. Otherwise, it's not better than the Invincible-class.

What's the point of defending this fucking brick when it has half the operational efficiency of a real supercarrier and nowhere near the range and endurance.

>>34681343
Like i said. Call it whatever you want. The US Has carriers. They come in two flavors. one is nuclear, the other is not.

Tell me, what does the AR stand for?

>>34681482
Augmented Reality.

>>34681464
>what's your point?
That it can carry more than your claim of 24.
>It pretty much is.
It pretty much isn't as the def of a SC is displacement over 70k. It's being discussed in this thread.
>Those were built in the 50s.
Forrestal, yes. Kitty Hawks, no.
>Ford and Nimitz are the only true supercarrier classes
So the aforementioned classes and their ships were not supercarriers?

Couldn't you Ameritards just leave QE alone and let us have a bit of something to be proud of?

You have fucking 13 supercarriers. Let us have this one. Shit on the LOLning and Cuntnetsov instead.

>>34681464
>Even the french mini-supercarrier de Gaule has fucking awacs.
That's not a supercarrier, man

>>34681561
That would depend on your definition. Some people in this thread have suggested that the definitions of a supercarrier is fixed wing awacs, nuclear power and cats&traps. By that definition, CdG is a supercarrier.

Others have indirectly said that a carrier needs to be made in USA to qualify as a supercarrier.

>>34681597
>Some people in this thread have suggested that the definitions of a supercarrier is fixed wing awacs, nuclear power and cats&traps.
And they would be wrong, as it's defined by displacement.

>>34681464
>>34681561
I also wouldn't really consider French awacs to be all that stable. They have 3 Hawkeyes, only two of which are actually carried on the CdG. If one goes down for maintenance or is shot down, they lose the ability to maintain consistent coverage (and I doubt their ability to do so even with both operational).

>>34681609
I agree, but I was talking about their definition, not mine, or the quasi-official one.

>>34681609
>>34681537
>>34681614
>I agree, but I was talking about their definition, not mine, or the quasi-official one.
>And they would be wrong, as it's defined by displacement.
but this was already debunked earlier. A definition that fits a narrative for your confirmation bias isn't any more quasi than one based on capabilities such as cats, power, and AWACS. The later at least has some ground to stand on although the CDG isn't one either at least IMO.

>>34681720
>but this was already debunked earlier.
Nothing has been debunked, anon has only sperged about with his fingers in his ears, yelling that his super special snowflake definition is better than the established one.

>>34681726
it was established that the definition that was being used for super carriers came from nobodies and was therefore worthless. Go read the thread. There is literal links somewhere above to the source coming from an article on the internet making this claim and that was the source. There is no official definition. Only confirmation bias from people who desperately want to claim that it is as capable as a super carrier.

File: 9929625655_08b8723b90_k.jpg (399KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 960x640px

Spam with Merlins

File: 1468624441854.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

Its amazing you brainlets have decided to have a nearly 200 post thread about the definition of supercarrier, considering it is a completely pointless term that changes nothing

File: sauce.jpg (15KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 447x444px

>>34681759\
>n addition to its anti-submarine role, the HM2 will be able to carry an airborne early warning (AEW) pod under procurement through the Crowsnest programme to replace the Sea King
>rotatory winged AWACS
>Supercarrier

>>34681753
>it was established that the definition that was being used for super carriers came from nobodies and was therefore worthless.
No it wasn't. It was accepted by anons in this thread and Navies around the world.
>Only confirmation bias from people who desperately want to claim that it is as capable as a super carrier.
We're not saying it's as capable, but if it could be defined as a SC, which it does, as it meets the weight displacement req that everybody in the Naval world has come to agree on.
Established definition=weight displacement.

File: 640-02771183er.jpg (5KB, 133x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 133x200px

>>34681763
ya its still a shit carrier regardless of what it is classified as. As one anon said>>34669995

>>34681778
>as it meets the weight displacement req that everybody in the Naval world has come to agree on.
can I get a source on this anon? Thanks.

>>34681782
No, not really. Not like it matters what people on /k/ say anyway considering most of you couldn't describe good naval tactics if you life depended on it

>>34681753
And the origin of the term being from "nobodies" matters exactly... how?

>>34681789
Sure.
Literally any thing that has every explained aircraft carriers and/or weight displacement for aircraft carrying ships ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier

Also, the French themselves don't even consider the CdG a super, they consider it a medium sized fleet carrier.

File: 20130919ax-1.jpg (54KB, 620x200px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 620x200px

>>34681769

I was on the USS Kearsarge in may and I was talking to a senior officer and it was discussed that the Brits might be purchasing and specialising some V-22's for Awacs.

>>34681824
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier
but where does it say that the weight class is correlated to its status as super carrier? This was the claim you made right. I'm sure you can back it up without throwing links with no back up right?

no, its just a propaganda stunt by England to make themselves seem relevant again.as anon mentions
>>34681763
its just some definition used to diversify old American Carriers from their newer ones. Now the Royal Navy is trying to wedge themselves into a leading position in global affairs again.

>>34681862
>its just some definition used to diversify old American Carriers from their newer ones. Now the Royal Navy is trying to wedge themselves into a leading position in global affairs again.

Thats the most hilarious bullshit I've ever heard. Nimitz aren't going to stop being supercarriers when the Ford comes into service. Won't stop when the next line is built, either.

Go sit in a corner.

>>34681835
>>34681862
You should stop writing the exact same way if you don't want your samefagging to be obvious.

So anyway, since nuclear power is obviously out of the definition of a super carrier, what do you think is necessary for the carrier to be defined as one?

Cats?
The type of AWACS?

>>34681870
I think it should be 70,000 ton carriers and above. That seems to be the only metric by which a super carrier should be measured. These other idiots think things like AWACs and cats matter. Why would we care bout those useless things when they don't fulfill our need for cognitive bias. DESU I don't care if we classify a cargo ship that has one helicopter on it as a super carrier. As long as we can call the QE as a supercarrier and pretend we are the US Navy, i'm happy.

>>34681894
Well, a cargo ship with a helicopter on it wouldn't be a super carrier, since it's not an aircraft carrier, but a cargo ship with a single helicopter on it.

Why do you think AWACS and cats matter for the role of the ship? Provide arguments.

>>34681894
this seems about right. Even >>34681778
this anon gave an amazing response providing us with legit sources to his claim that
>as it meets the weight displacement req that everybody in the Naval world has come to agree on.

He linked two wiki articles to american ships with no mention of tonnage or naval personal mentioning the tonnage. I'm sure he will be scientist one day with that sort of skill in analytical research .

File: 1369243836614.jpg (121KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 400x400px

>>34681902
But I don't think any of the shit matters dude. Only that you have to be 70,000 tons and more.>>34681913
He proved it man. Two wiki links on 50 year old US carriers that mention nothing about tonnage but anon says so and I believe him. The whole AWACS, having catapults is dumb. What matters is that its 70,000 tons dude.

>>34673757

A QE class with 35Bs would beat any previous carriers not equipped with F35B/Cs

>>34681921
So you're basically admitting that you've been just shitposting all along?

File: 258c1e2597303998c2baa9091ee47112.jpg (45KB, 564x417px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 564x417px

>>34681931
sure autismo bot, if you can't detect the sarcasm. The only thing that matters is that its 70,000 tons. The irony is that you call me out for shitposting once I use your arguments. Can't make this up.

The QE is an amazing aircraft supercarrier. It is defined this way b/c as you say
>as it meets the weight displacement req that everybody in the Naval world has come to agree on.
but in the last 100 posts, you seem to keep forgetting to back this up. Its okay I believe you.

>>34681938
The difference is that the definition of a supercarrier is already established as being a "large carrier". The exact tonnage is irrelevant, really. But since smaller vessels have been called super carriers in the past, it should be fine to call the QE a super carrier just based on that.

Now I'm asking you to provide arguments as to why you feel that your super special snowflake of a definition should be preferred over the established one. Surely that is not such a big issue for you.

>>34681835
Bro where is the source you promised me? I thought you were a legitimate anon. Let me get an actual source with a quote though. Don't post some pornhub link claiming it talks about supercarries. You wouldn't lie right?

File: 1449511831074.gif (432KB, 500x394px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 500x394px

You guys are literally arguing over the naval equivalent of assault weapon you fucking cretins

>>34681951
so wait you are back tracking on your claim that its a 70k plus carrier. LOL kikkd.

>>34681957
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the exact tonnage is irrelevant.

Your arguments?

File: 2017-07-28 11_27_37-Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia.png (3KB, 104x263px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 104x263px

>>34681537
>it can carry more
And again, the nimitz class can carry 2 times as many. That's also irrelevan when its carrier wing has 12-24 jets.

>displacement over 70k
Whoa, so you can slap a runway on a heavy commercial tanker and it's a supercarrier.

>Kitty Hawks, no.
You sure?

>So the aforementioned classes and their ships were not supercarriers?
They were by 60s and 70s standards but not by modern. No reactor, no catapults, no awacs = not a supercarrier

>>34681561
It obviously isn't, but has all the characteristics of one, albeit shrunk, unlike the british meme.

>>34681967
>It obviously isn't, but has all the characteristics of one, albeit shrunk, unlike the british meme.

Oh, so the CdG would be a supercarrier if it had


the tonnage? :^)

>>34681960
no that is what I HAVE been saying you dumb cunt.
>>34680899
you have been arguing this plus 70k ton thing. Are you this dense?

you

>It's the only definition we have, though
>then I guess it means that any carrier over 70k tons is a super carrier.]
>he is saying that the largest super carriers are over 70 000 tons
>It is because it displaces over 70k tons.
>Technically correct is the best kind of correct, anon.
>>does it have a displacement of over 64000 metric tons
>If yes to both, it is a supercarrier. Ramps, size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.

wow haven't witnessed some assblassting since the fall of the British empire.

>>34681980
>Oh, so the CdG would be a supercarrier if it had the tonnage? :^)
Yes. It's not a supercarrier and neither is the bongboat.

Also
ability>>>>>>>>>>>tonnage
Anyone saying otherwise is retarded.

>>34681982
>>>does it have a displacement of over 64000 metric tons
>>If yes to both, it is a supercarrier. Ramps, size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.
>Ramps, size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.
>Ramps, size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.
this was your best quote that you conveniently forget any time you back track on you autism.

>>34681982
No, I'm saying that the definition is exactly 70k US tons, or 64k metric tons. But the exact tonnage is also irrelevant. It could as well be, say, 62k metric tons. Or even 66k.

>>34681967
Are you honestly making the argument that "definitions change" and expect to be taken seriously?

>>34681990
I haven't forgotten, and I'm still right. Now I'm asking why you think your super special snowflake definition is better than the established one.

File: REKT+_20d479e2320a7cbf44eb3d804910967b.jpg (165KB, 934x525px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 934x525px

>>34681982
>>34681990
damn thought he was saying that the size was irreverent. Caught in another lie. He was actually saying that everything else BUT the tonnage was irrelevant. That double think though.

File: 1476226184435s.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>34681994
>I haven't forgotten, and I'm still right. Now I'm asking why you think your super special snowflake definition is better than the established one.

dude i've already stated, I agree with you. Only the tonnage matters,

but like man, your also right in that it doesn't even matter dude as well man. Whoah Blowing my mind mayn.

Actually bro, like nothing matters mayn. Like the only thing that matters is that the QE is classified as a super carrier. Namsayin bruh?

70k plus , oh sorry 64k plus, or like w/e our bitch weighs any given time of the week is what makes her a special, shit I mean super carrier.

>>34682013
This is some advanced shitposting, right here.

You can't even provide arguments that would support your opinions, can you?

And yes, a cargo ship with an airstrip strapped on it would be a super carrier if its tonnage exceeds 64k metric tons. Why is this such a hard thing for you to accept?

File: 258c1e2597303998c2baa9091ee47112.jpg (146KB, 851x630px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 851x630px

>>34681994
>Are you honestly making the argument that "definitions change" and expect to be taken seriously?
Whatever, bongybong. Call your floating brick however you like. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Don't forget to take the flotilla of oil tankers and the lolone (1) squadron of american jets.

File: 1372432132423.jpg (60KB, 410x410px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 410x410px

>>34682028
>And yes, a cargo ship with an airstrip strapped on it would be a super carrier if its tonnage exceeds 64k metric tons. Why is this such a hard thing for you to accept?
I agree, argument over. I'm glad we came to a final resolution on this. I rest my case. Everyone has seen it
And yes, a cargo ship with an airstrip strapped on it would be a super carrier if its tonnage exceeds 64k metric tons. Why is this such a hard thing for you to accept?

This guy is right.

>>34682033
>Whatever, bongybong. Call your floating brick however you like.
I'll call it what the established definition says it is, which is a super carrier. Like I would any aircraft carrier that exceeds 64k tons, regardless of ability.

And what makes you think I'm a bong?

>>34682034
Good, I'm glad we can put this behind us. Still kind of interested why you initially thought that your super special snowflake definition was the more important one, though.

I get lost on who is arguing what, but regardless of them being supercarriers or not. The QEs will be a huge benefit to the RN and USN as the owners of the three carriers who can field 5th generation aircaft.

And despite what some may feel about them on here, that is certainly not a feeling shared by the USN/USMC. Who have been very supportive to the RN in gettings these up and running.

>>34682045
lol this guy for real. He really can't detect it even written word lol
autism speaks.

>>34682049
>field 5th generation aircraft.
*in significant numbers

>>34682053
Dear Reddit, you shouldn't use 'lol' on 4chan, people will immediately think that you're an idiot.

>>34682053
>lol

Faget

>>34682058
>*in significant numbers
listen idiot as anon >>34682060 is designated authority on the subject of super carriers and as he previously stated
>>34669301
>does it have a displacement of over 64000 metric tons
>If yes to both, it is a supercarrier. Ramps, size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.

>size of air wing, propulsion, fixed wing awacs, all of that is irrelevant.

size of the airwing is irrelevant you fucking retard.

>>34669235

See >>34669253
>the onboard bakery can produce 1000 loaves of bread a day, plus other baked goods including scones, donuts, and eclairs.
>In addition, HMS Elizabeth will carry the following:
-66,000 sausages (4.2 miles)
-28,800 rashers of bacons (2.1 tons)
-64,800 eggs
-12,000 tins of beans

File: I+would+like+everyone+to+note+that+the+study+he+_7ba92d662bd0ae54873e031f54d94b46.jpg (14KB, 229x377px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 229x377px

>>34682084
>bacons

>>34682066
Anon, play nice, or you'll get no dessert. That poster is talking about capabilities, not definitions. Having a significant number of 5th generation aircraft is obviously a big deal, but it doesn't change what the vessels they land on are called.

>>34682066

I can't tell if you're being snarky to me or him, but don't get me mixed up in this screeching match as I have no horse in this race.

Point is, it suits the RNs requirements and the USN is excited about something that matches those requirements.

>>34681789
>as it meets the weight displacement req that everybody in the Naval world has come to agree on.

hey bro could I get that source. you seem to keep forgetting about it. Its like as if your whole argument is based on a lie you keep diverting away from.
>>34681835
>>34681952

>>34682084
>-66,000 sausages (4.2 miles)
Whats that in London busses per football field?

>>34682092
Like kosher I believe halal actually requires specific methods of slaughtering the animal as well, so a Muslim serviceman who practices halal would probably have to be strictly vegetarian.

>>34682109
>>34682060

still no source. Calling some a reddit poster isn't an argument nor is that posting a source. Thats diverting away from the argument and not proving your claim.(which you can't seem to do)

File: 1455875079544.jpg (24KB, 450x301px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 450x301px

>>34678685
>planes parked with their ass overboard

>>34673709
I get that reference, nice.

>>34679310

Brits are developing a laser CIWS to fit in the same spot (possibly on the same mechanism) as the Phalanx. That's likely their aim.

>>34680023

Flight ops, visibility over the flight deck.

>>34680055

Definition of a supercarrier is over 64,000 metric tons.

Given it weighs 70,600 metric tonnes, that grants it the name.

That's literally all the term "supercarrier" means. It's a definion of size to everyone other than over defensive autists who think the wolrd is somehow attacking them or reducing their standing.

>>34667046

We got rid of our nuclear torps, anon.

We aren't savages like the Federation.

>>34682049

Yes.

Older generation aircraft are getting long in the tooth for sorties in high threat environments.

Cruise missiles (ship, sub or air) and drones are good, but if your common airwing can also operate over land, then you've got more options.

>>34669235
>>they'll be no takeaway kebab boxes on these beautys i hope.
You've just committed hate speech. Cyberpolice have been notified.

>>34681967
The Nimitz can carry 140 aircraft at any given time?

I thought it was limited to 100.