What makes a supercarrier?

>>34816590
Technically all three are. Displacement over 70,000 tons.

>>34816590
>Kuznetsov?
coal powered is an auto exclusion

>>34816596
actually disregard the Kutz, it's a baby super or a heavy medium sized carrier
i messed up

>>34816590
Lineage

Only those with empires can make super carriers.

>>34816590
what makes super car a super car?

take most up date, well know super car and look at its features then apply them to other cars, if other cars meet or exceed those requirements (within reason) then they are indeed a super cars, you same reasoning for historical stuff as well :

if car 1970 got all features of what was considered super car at that time - its a super car, if todays car got features of 1970 super car its most likely 2 seat vw golf

so what are most prominent features of ford class ?

>size
~100k tons, QE is ~65, lets say this good enough

> nuclear power
kitty hawk fuel would only last for 3 days in hi intensity operations, nuclear power seems to be rather important feature that shows off capability of ships

QE - no

> cats and traps
simple, you have those you can have huge variety of aircraft, better payloads, more fuel

QE - ramp no traps, probably the least capable way of air operations, f-35b saves QE a bit tho

>air wing
~ 70 to 100

QE ~30 to ~ 70

>endurance
fucking amazing

QE - fairly good

>escort
most likely the best there is

QE - most likely the best there is if bongs will not star slashing again


lets be generous here QE is a super carrier (if you live in 1960)

>>34816590
Can't have A FUCKING RAMP.

>>34816590
>Kuznetsov

Its fixed wing aircraft capacity is about half that of the QE.

>>34816590
The QE has roughly the same role as the Nimitz and Ford even if the capabilities are different. The role the Kuz was designed for is very different (and the fact that they're trying to suddenly use it as a Western carrier and failing hilariously at it doesn't change that).

>>34816596
>>34816590

Till the Elizabeth gets planes, it won't count. Much in the same way a container ship doesn't count as a super carrier.

>>34816794
Not really. That's like saying if you don't have any bullets your gun isn't a gun.

>>34816752

This.

/thread.

>>34816768
Also hopefully the QE won't throw planes into the ocean as often.

>>34816794
So ford isn't a super carrier either?

>>34816590
Plot the displacements of all carriers of all nations since WWII on a bell curve. Anything exceeding 2 s.d. on the positive value side is a super carrier.

>>34816590
>What makes a supercarrier
Having a candy dispenser in it and toilets that dont reek of death and sadness.
Also a large number of planes that can fit

>>34817453
Ford has planes.

The real cutoff should be nuclear power, so all fuel is avgas and there's that much more self-sufficiency. Also cats with a heavy launch. Maybe Enterprise should be the cutoff don't know about CDG.

>>34816794
>This is the level of retardation that you have to suffer through if you want to read /k/

sad

>>34816794

What the fuck kind of logic is that? Does that mean that any Nimitz in refit gets delisted a super carrier because its air wing is not on the carrier?

File: QE GW.jpg (131KB, 1021x580px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1021x580px

Supercarrier 60,000+ tonnes
Fleet carrier 30,000 - 60,000 tonnes
Light carrier/ Aircraft carrying cruiser < 30,000 tonnes.

It has nothing to do with Number of planes, Method of launch and recovery, or propulsion.

Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

>>34818266
>Stuff a cruiser full of lead until it's barely buoyant and strap a Cessna to the deck
Guys, call the Pentagon. This will revolutionize the Navy!

>>34816823
>>>/reddit/
fuck off with your degenerate spacing

File: RFA Argus Apache Ops Jan 17.jpg (77KB, 596x447px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 596x447px

>>34818306
Most destroyers of today carry helicopters, want to count them? No.

Its primary duty has to be the deployment of strike aircraft.
Anything in limbo leads to Commando carrier, Helicopter carrying cruiser, seaplane tender, helicopter carrier, Amphibious warfare ship or Aviation training ship

File: 1497119270450.jpg (100KB, 678x678px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 678x678px

>>34816794
>your submarine isn't a submarine because it hasn't got any torpedo's
>your stealth fighting jet isn't a stealth fighting jet because it hasn't got any AAM's
>your rifle isn't a rifle because it hasn't got any rounds in it
>your chevrolet isn't a chevrolet because it hasn't got any gas in the tank

QE class is kind of between a LHD and a CVF. And that's fine. Ford class ships aren't designed to ferry 250 marines, the QE is. It's a multirole ship.

It's like a super-duper-America class.

>>34819410

>It's like a super-duper-America class.

That can also be converted for cats & traps, for what it's worth.

I could also see some kind of STVOL AWACs getting developed.

>>34817814
no, it doesn't. It won't be ready for deployment till 2022 - a year after qe.

>>34816737
>kitty hawk fuel would only last for 3 days in hi intensity operations, nuclear power seems to be rather important feature that shows off capability of ships

Nuclear carriers also need to be refueled. Jet planes dont fly with nuclear propulsion.

>>34819420
>I could also see some kind of STVOL AWACs getting developed.
MOD, Is very, very interested in V22

Boeing went as far as developing the EV22 for them for AEW for the RN. Issue is RN just dished out on Crowsnest which can be converted back to transport in a matter of minutes.

Really what the RN wants and needs is a tanker for F35.

>>34819530
Thats one of the arguements was that if you have to send a tanker for refuel the jets and escorts then why not make QE conventional powered?

Its not like theres a royal navy base further than 3000 miles anyway.
This way you can stop in any damn port you want and use the suez canal without having to negotiate for months beforehand

>>34816794
This is such a vatnik tier "arguement".

>>34816807
A gun without bullets is a paper weight

>>34816737

> ramp no traps, probably the least capable way of air operations,

STOBAR is a world worse than STOVL. Look at the shit the Indians and Russians are suffering using it, and why China wants the hell away from it.

Not the best way, but STOVL sure isn't the worst way.

>>34819580
The V22 also has a tanker option which should hit IOC in 2019. It's specifically made to work with the Marine's F-35Bs.

>>34816737
Idk if I like this.
Really what did the old NSX give you? You can't limit to horsepower or torque because all of the super cars are different, and you can't limit to an aesthetics style because it's way different from say a Lamborghini of the time.

I see what you want out of that, but it's flawed.
Under that reasoning, Ford mustang = suupah car

>>34817916
>AVGAS
>Not Jet-A

>>34819410
I guess like a Flight I America. Next Flight will have a well deck, which is a different sort of capability.

>>34819580
There are very few nations that refuse nuclear powered or armed vessels. New Zealand is the only one that comes to mind.

>>34820326
Officially Suez is, it takes months of preparation and negotiation to send a nuclear carrier through there. Anglo-Egyptian relations have never been more than timid following suez, and deny any and all british nuclear vessels through suez.

China refuses any nuclear vessels that aren't theirs.

Some other ports have it as a policy, quite a few in south america

>>34816590
>>34816596
>>34816737 oh god the autism
>>34818266 oh god the super autism

So let me get this straight.

Things like having catapults, hosting E2C hawkeyes, being equipped with a nuclear reactor, being able to produce 75% of the sorties of a 100,000 tons super carrier with half the planes and less than half the weight, or sending relevant aircrafts armed with relevant weapons on relevant missions against relevant targets during relevant wars, then getting to become flagship of a relevant task force as well as serving as command post for the conducting of relevant naval operations during their duration, then get a navy Meritorious Unit Award for it doesn't count as being "super" because you're not above 70,000 tons ?
Ok then.
So I guess it totally obliterates the relevance of such a ship right ? Because it's only 42,000 tons.

Oh wait... The US navy (these amateurs) thinks otherwise.
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/23/cno-awards-charles-de-gaulle

in b4
>B BUH MUH SOOPAHCAWWIAHZ
>REEEE IT'S NOT TRUE REEEE
>AHAH U R BUTTHURT BRO
>REEE MODS MODS SOMEONE INVADED MY SAFE SPACE

[ ] /k/, a logical place ?
[ ] /k/, a knowledgeable place ?
[ √ ] /k/, a tragical place ?
yep, this last one, thank you.

>>34820492
CDG may be a superb ship (even if it spends a third of its time in drydock) but it is not a supercarrier.
She's a fleet carrier. and a shit one at that.

File: huh.jpg (645KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1920x1080px

>>34820492

>>34820492
>>34820492

assblasted frog detected.

cdg will be your last aircraft carrier.

>>34820492
>An award is proof of a definition

What?

Any source on the CdG's max sortie rate being 75% that of a Nimitz?

Also only having 2 Hawkeyes available is pretty fucking limiting in terms of coverage. If one goes down for a lengthy period they're fucked.

>>34819984

Try buying that "paperweight" without a background check then.

>>34820842
I guarantee you if by some miracle of god all the bullets in the world vanished and people couldn't make more no one would give a fuck about guns

>>34820891
They would if they got hit upside the head with them for making stupid comments.

File: turcia-va-trimite-un-avion-cisterna-care-va-opera-cu-aeronavele-awacs-deasupra-romaniei-si-poloniei-18479237[1].jpg (39KB, 638x424px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 638x424px

Bong and Commie carriers can't operate fixed wing awacs.

>>34820993
No matter where the QE goes it will always Br in range of an E3

French E2s are usually broken sine they only ave 3

>>34820993
>>34820492
> having only one carrier

>>34820993

And all major surface combatants in the RN - and even auxiliary ships can operate AEW aircraft that still give several minutes warning of hypersonic weapons.

Picket ships hundreds of miles away from the fleet can have their own AEW.

The low cost of merlin Crowsnest also allows multiple simultaneous patrols giving a larger area coverage than a single E2.

>>34820787
>Any source on the CdG's max sortie rate being 75% that of a Nimitz?
the CdG can generate 100 sorties per day with 24 planes. The Nimitz can do 125, and 200 in emergencies, yes. I don't know about the emergency capability on the CdG.

During Bois Belleau with the Truman in 2013, the CdG was generating 45 sorties a day for 5 weeks, the Truman 60 a day with twice more planes onboard.

One thing is for sure though, with only 600 tons of ammunition aboard, the CdG will need a resupply way more frequently than a Nimitz with 4000 tons aboard. Not denying that.

>Also only having 2 Hawkeyes available is pretty fucking limiting in terms of coverage. If one goes down for a lengthy period they're fucked.
Absolutely correct. The 4th hawkeye was never bought, and when the french navy had a problem with one, it led to a big clusterfuck. Hopefully, US planes can operate from the CdG. Even if the capability was never used in combat ops.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/super-hornet-et-hawkeye-americains-sur-le-charles-de-gaulle

>>34820765
As much as I hate to say this, it's true. We won't ever build another carrier. the CDG will be our last. Our government hates our armed forces

>>34821138
>the CdG can generate 100 sorties per day with 24 planes.

No it can't. stop lying and provide your source.

100 sorties a day is a figure that has NEVER been obtained by cdg. because it has never had 40 jets and it is incapable of simultaneous launch and landing due to its short length.

Your reference to 2013 sorties is based on the false premise that both carriers were launching a full capacity and not at the capacity required to sustain their assigned missions.

>>34821176
In his defence you can sent the same aircraft out twice.

In the RN the invincible class (with only 30 or so aircraft) could do a sortie rate of 2 per aircraft.

With the QE they're expecting around 3 thanks to automation and palatalised munitions.

or 110 A day at emergency surge
420 over 5 days (ayyy LMAO)
Launch 24 aircraft (don't know whether this is exclusively fixed, Rotary or a mix or both) with 15 mins
Recovery of 24 aircraft in 24 mins

Sauce http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf

>>34821120
>a larger area coverage than a single E2.
There are normally 2 e2s operating.

There are not crownest operating off destroyers because they need their birds for other needs.

>>34821232
>There are not crownest operating off destroyers because they need their birds for other needs.
Not long term, but for a shift or two then its definitely feasible.

During operations in libya one of the frigates or destroyers was used mid way to receive apaches.

>>34821232

There are only 2 e2's in the french navy. And it is cdg v qe that we are debating.

RN destroyers are not ASW escorts, the frigates are, but either way all Merlin MK2's in the RN are being upgraded to carry the search water radar.

That means we have 30 potential operators of the AEW kit (10 kits have been ordered). with the conversion taking less than an hour.

>>34821274
>And it is cdg v qe that we are debating.
Apologies.

>ASW
SAR ranks higher than ASW and AEW my friend.

Still though, if we are talking about the French your base premise is correct.

>>34821251
>but for a shift or two then its definitely feasible.

You need the infrastructure on boards to do the job.

>>34821338
>You need the infrastructure on boards to do the job.
You realise that the destroyers regularly carry merlins anyway?

>>34821232
>There are not crownest operating off destroyers because they need their birds for other needs.

Brits don't follow conventional thinking during conflicts. we'll strap sidewinders onto our MPA's so they can go fight other MPA's. we'll strap sidewinders on backwards to surprise fighters.

We'll add refueling probes to C130's in less than 48 hours.

if we can't reach you we'll launch 12 tankers to make sure we can reach you.

If you invade us on Friday we'll take up hundreds of merchant navy vessels over the weekend, refit them with military equipment, fill them with supplies and soldiers to fight an entire war, then on Monday launch an armada of more than 100 vessels with enough supplies to sail around the world with no logistics support and win a war.

If you have a new secret towed sonar array, we will literally sail an SSN right up to it, cut it off and take it home to look at it.

if we wan't to know what your propellers look like we'll sail an SSN 12 feet from you while you're sailing and take photos of the screw without the periscope breaching the surface.

we'll literally break all the rules and come up with some bizarre shit to try and gain an advantage.

>>34821158
They're not alone in that.

Pretty much the entire world hates your armed forces.

File: stormshadow nimrod.jpg (35KB, 960x548px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x548px

>>34821359
>Brits don't follow conventional thinking during conflicts
Stormshadow nimrod as stand in for bomber

>>34821357
>You realise that the destroyers regularly carry merlins anyway?
Of course, but do they regularly carry the crowsnest? Of course not.

>>34821359
I have no doubt that the brits are crafty but you have to go into conversations assuming SOP

>>34819518
That doesn't mean it doesn't have a complement of planes on board, or that it can't be deployed in an emergency as-is.

>>34821366
I'm the guy who said cdg will be their last carrier, but you're just being mean.

I have a lot of time for the French (brit), but their stubbornness continues to be their downfall.

>>34821390
>Of course, but do they regularly carry the crowsnest? Of course not.
Its plug and play, you can remove it in less than an hour and have a regular merlin

>>34819518
Being ready for deployment and actually going on deployment are two entirely different things.

There are planes on the Ford, right now.

https://youtu.be/ZwgEMTtElSY

>>34821414
There was one. It landed and took off again to test systems.

And only one as far as we know.

>>34821399
It may be mean but I am telling the truth.

The West hates your armed forces because you've had shithead politicians in charge of it since before WW1, and it has been largely useless due to their meddling and incompetence.

Africa hates your armed forces because your shithead politicians are trying to hold on to their colonial ties without doing much politically and you're seen as thugs.

Eastern Europe and China hate your armed forces due to your kinda-sorta-but-not-really membership in NATO and generally siding with the West.

Japan and SEA hate your armed forces because you fucked up Vietnam and aren't America-the-saviour.

>>34821431
That's still more than the QE will have for the next 2 years.

>>34821405
>Its plug and play, you can remove it in less than an hour and have a regular merlin

Irrelevant. If the supply/infrastructure does not exist for it, you can't state that as a valid scenario. RAMICS can be put on any seahawk, that does not mean I would state that every burke has one.

>>34821471
> Put Crowsnest on merlin,
> Fly it out to destroyer
> Bring original back to QE for fix
Have a nice day

>>34821390
But it's not exactly hard to equip them for an expected role. They might sail around with two wildcat or a single merlin in ASW role. but if they though they were going up against a modern ASM threat then it's not too hard to swap an standard mk2 with a crowsnest MK2 with the carrier or whatever ship is carrying the kit.

Extra kits could be flown out from the UK to an airfield then COD with a MK4 to the fleet. If it was really needed then an airdrop into the sea like we did in the Falklands.

>>34821458

12-18 months, QE starts fixed wing flight trials next year.

Which will still be 18-24 months before F35C reaches IOC.

>>34821492
That's clearly not SOP.

>>34821513
Again, what's hard is not what's standard.

>>34821471

The crew requirement for the helicopter does not change between ASW and AEW, the radar picture is datalinked back to the flagship for operators there to kake use of. The operators on board are not deciphering and relying on like in Hawkeye - although Hawkeye will use the same system for relaying it's data.

>>34821525
So you admit that the US started flight trials far earlier?

File: merlin QE.jpg (81KB, 559x447px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 559x447px

>>34821458
>>34821557
really?

>>34821539
>That's clearly not SOP.
> Britain
> SOP
uh-huh

>>34821554
The issue is the destroyer is most likely not going to have the crowsnest in the first place.

>>34821580
>really
I see a helicopter?

Ford has had helis on its deck since it has been commissioned.

File: steve.jpg (40KB, 660x439px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 660x439px

>>34821539
>That's clearly not SOP.

You wouldn't like it on a RN vessel. Everyone just wings it.

>>34821580
>Britain is magic and can just will equipment into place

Not how it works.

>>34821582
there is nothing on a T45 that would prevent it from having it. It's merlin will be upgraded to have the option. If the capability is needed then the kit can be provided.

at the moment there is certainly no need. but if the need arises there are no barriers to prevent it being used in that way.

>>34821610
Seems it can see>>34818339
Funniest thing is they're army helicopters with army crew

>>34821625
>there is nothing on a T45 that would prevent it from having it.
Again, there is nothing preventing every seahawk from carrying RAMICS. That does not mean it's logical to expect it to be anything but niche.

>>34821649
See: https://youtu.be/4ACdprJc1OM

Using naval ships as seabasing is not new. But if your argument is "yes, Brit magic IZ real guise" I guess we are done.

>>34821610

Mate come on.

We're simply saying that there are no barriers to prevent that use.

There are 30 helicopters and currently 10 kits that are desgined to be plug and play.

If a QE needs to send one of its crowsnest equipped aircraft to an escort, so that escort can go an perform a duty, then it's not like a huge hurdle.

If a flotilla without a carrier expects to need AEW for whatever reason then it can be supplied with a kit before sailing, or the kit/equipped helicopter can be flown out to them in a transport aircraft, assembled and flown to ship.

File: main-qimg-1655c268dd9e9dc84bdf30a1063a2f4e-c.jpg (33KB, 602x308px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 602x308px

>>34821539
>>34821610
>>34821710


>That's clearly not SOP.
> british
> SOP
the british are magic

Not enough troop transports?
> Steal some yachts and luxury liners for style points
Not enough Material ships?
> Steal some ferrys
Not enough Carriers?
> Steal a flat top container ship
Not enough infantry?
> use artillery soldiers
You need sea mines?
> Here i made this out of condoms and candy
Need a bomb that can destroy dams?
> heres one that bounces
Need a sight that determines true height of aircraft?
> here i made this out of two flashlights
You need beer in afghanistan?
> Here i made beer out of yeast and apple juice from ration packs
You need a COIN planes?
> i found some liaison planes we weren't using so put some hardpoints on them
You need to bomb an airfield out of range?
> I set up 8 refuelling points will that do?

You must be fucking nuts, the brits i met in afghanistan were downright weird and could pull shit out of their ass, and pride themselves on it.

Impossible is not a word in their dictionary

According to a brit i was speaking to british ships have a manufacturing facility on them

File: 5f1448a23a449a18829d003546f962c5.jpg (83KB, 720x694px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x694px

>>34821539
>That's clearly not SOP.
>Again, what's hard is not what's standard.

Anyone else hearing an echo from 1914 here? "This is how we do it, and we shall do it no other way. Now towards that machine-gun, advance at a trot!"

>>34816590
Because the Elizabeth and Ford can manage to get more than 7 planes in the air at any given moment, also coal, also the kuznetsov's kinks never fuggin got worked out and the boilers break on it all the goddamn time.

>>34821802
Most warships have some form of fabrication capability, and have dating all the way back to the Greeks' triremes.

Hell even Coast Guard cutters, sub-corvette-sized, have a machine shop.

>>34821802
>According to a brit i was speaking to british ships have a manufacturing facility on them

Don't everyone's ships have workshops for making spares? I've only been aboard RN ships.

I can't remember where I read it or if it was fact or fiction, but there was something about using helicopters to fly GMLRS in out to warships then use them for naval gunfire support from sea in the iraq invasion.

The Egyptians strapping Avengers to the deck of their mistrals strikes a chord with me.

>>34821837
>>34821841
I wouldn't know i've never read about parts fabrication on any other warships other than the RNs.

The dude was telling me they fashioned some Golf clubs for use by the crew out of CNC'd tungsten

Regardless i was very impress with the brits in afghanistan by just pulling shit out of their ass, namely the moonshine they gave us at christmas

>>34821911
>namely the moonshine they gave us at christmas

it was probably just non american beer mate

>>34821932
haha

No they were taking yeast and apple juice out of their ration packs and putting it into thermos flasks.

Tasted like dried buzzard blood, but when you haven't drank in 10 months you don't care.

>>34821138
They should just buy a used Hawkeye right now. The E-2D is coming in so buying an older E-2C couldn't be that expensive.

>>34821176
>"No it can't. stop lying and provide your source."
Ok. What about the french MoD ?

>http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equipements/batiments-de-combat/porte-avions/charles-de-gaulle-r-91
>100 vols par jour pendant 7 jours
>Capacité de catapultage : 1 avion toutes les 30 secondes et jusqu'à 20 avions en 12 minutes
>Emport d'aéronefs : 40
>Emport de munitions : 550 t
>Emport de carburant : 3 400 t
google translate that

in b4
>REEEE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU HACKED THEIR SITE TO BACK UP YOUR LIE REEEE

The french wiki also requotes it from a book I don't have.
>https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle_(porte-avions)#Groupe_a.C3.A9rien_embarqu.C3.A9_.28GAE.29
>The Charles de Gaulle's capacity of 120 tons and fuel ( 3,400 tons ) gives it 45 days of total autonomy during operation. Its air group can make 100 flights per day for 7 days , that is more than 700 flights in total autonomy. This, Obligation to refuel at sea during long-term missions of several months, which its nuclear propulsion allows it. A tanker-tanker who ensures an additional 30 days of total autonomy is permanently assigned to the GAN TF473 to supply the Charles de Gaulle and the other buildings of the group.
And the source is listed as :
Henri-Pierre Grolleau, LE CHARLES DE GAULLE EN ACTION, MARINES EDITIONS, 2014 (ISBN 978-2-35743-132-4)

other books written by the guy
https://www.amazon.fr/Henri-Pierre-Grolleau/e/B004MNUWUY

here is the CV of Henri Pierre-Grolleau, first journalist allowed to fly aboard a Rafale in backseat. Also flown in the fleet air arm and army. Such an anglophobic amateur right ?
http://www.aerostories.org/~aerobiblio/article2116.html

>>34821231
thanks for saving /k/ today.

What's really fun is that I never ever pretended the CdG was better than everything else. Just that it was as capable as some heavier ships and thus it made little sense to compare them this way. But even this little thing these cunts can't admitt.
And then they say the frogs are arrogant.

>>34822157
except once again you've provided paper statistics that have NEVER been achieved.

>>34816596
That just sounds like moving the goalposts to make the QEs relevant.

>>34822157
>Capacité de catapultage : 1 avion toutes les 30 secondes et jusqu'à 20 avions en 12 minutes

This seems odd, since that would imply a refresh rate of 60 seconds for each catapult, and i'm pretty sure the C13 has a recharge rate of ~90 seconds.

>>34822262
he's quoting paper statistics that are a fairytale, i wouldn't lose sleep over it.

cdc has achieved about 62 sorties a day in reality.

>>34822094
The E2C are supposed to get an overhaul since 2011... In early 2017 they finally settled the schedule to do so.

The fun thing about the 4th E2C is the only spare plane the US could sell to France was non available anymore when the french decided to buy it.

http://www.opex360.com/2011/10/27/la-france-va-moderniser-ses-trois-avions-de-guet-aerien-e2c-hawkeye/
>To have more room for maneuver when these aircraft are in maintenance, used for training purposes or still embarked on board Charles de Gaulle, the French Navy had considered buying a fourth copy. But as indicated in 2010, before the deputies of the Defense Committee and the Armed Forces, the Chief of the Naval Staff (CEMM), who was then Admiral Forissier, The operation had not been possible, as the second-hand aircraft proposed by the United States was no longer for sale.

So instead of getting in another clusterfuck buying the D would make sense. Except France is poor as fuck. Or just doesn't want to spend the bucks.
It's not the US fault if us frogs can't decide on such things. And it's still particularly sad considering the job the french company Latécoère did on the tail design of the E2...

And more fun from the french wiki :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Organisation
> Pilots and crews baptized their aircraft:
> FR1 "Frère Unité" ("Brother Unity"), because this aircraft is considered infallible, it has never betrayed the confidence of its crew;
> FR2 "Arabesque", in reference to the mare of Corporal Blutch, of the comic book "Les Tuniques bleues", because it shines in training, but falls irremediably into breakdown every time it is engaged in real operation.
> FR3 has the name "pas de bol" ("tough luck) ", because of its repeated breakdowns.

TOP FUCKING KEK

File: cuck countries.png (15KB, 592x284px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 592x284px

>>34822372
America is nowhere near as large as the british empire. Fuck off americucks

>>34822372

>using length as a measurement for comparing ships

teenager tier argument

>>34822414
It's sorta relevant for carriers though.

>>34822606

Not for comparing a CATOBAR and STOVL carrier.

And especially if you use the length of a ww2 battleship as the benchmark for being good.

>>34822372
>>34822606

But it's not relevant for what defines the name "supercarrier".

The only thing that defines that term is displacement.