Aircraft carriers are necessary for the security of a global power

Because the runway is short.

Stunts, stunts with Spitfire.

>>131677377
What the americans have are supercarriers, smaller carriers require some adjustment to help planes take off on a shorter runway.

File: F-35B-on-Royal-Navy-carrier-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-45157052.jpg (75KB, 1024x574px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x574px

>>131677377

Coz catapults break down, plus BAE and Rolls Royce invested a lot of money in the F-35b

Plus its super cheep

>>131678366
The F-35C can take off and land vertically.

File: Formation_of_F-35_Aircraft_MOD_45157750.jpg (442KB, 979x714px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 979x714px

>>131678901

No It can't, you're thinking of the F35-B

File: Capture.jpg (20KB, 216x295px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 216x295px

reminder that modern jet fighters are big league

>>131678366

In other words they need a cuck ramp because they are too poor to build a read carrier.

>>131680685
Basically yes, but that's not the reason. It's more than large enough to accomodate cats and traps. It's not nuclear and has a ramp because it was around 2008 when these things were being decided, and the government was severely tight for cash.

>>131680685
basically

not only do catapults add costs, complexity, and maintenance to the ship, they put a lot of stress on the aircraft used with them, which have to be designed with catapults in mind

>>131677377
well argentina and britain are the only countries that have experience in modern naval warfare, so maybe they have pretty good reasons

File: aircraft-carrier.jpg (142KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 499x374px

>>131680685
You have a big mouth but pic is canada's aircraft carrier.

>>131677377
The ramp lets the jets take off with considerably more load. Something like 2500lbs for Harriers IIRC. We can carry more ordnance because of our ramp thank you very much.

>>131681427
Mainly money. It was a choice between nuclear power and catobar, but we could only afford one, or a ramp and conventional power, but get 2.

>>131681495
>We can carry more ordnance because of our ramp thank you very much.

WRONG

>>131680685
I will never tire of the phrase "Cuck Ramp"

>>131681495
More load vs no ramp or vertical takeoff, not more load vs a catapult.

>>131681624
No it's correct and self evident to anyone with even a smidge of physical insight. The jets can carry more with the ramp than if the ship didn't have a ramp. Why do you think we do it?

File: lmao.gif (2MB, 279x327px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 279x327px

>>131677377
>there are countries in this world that have less than 10 aircraft carriers

File: 1187.png (58KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x450px

>>131681495
>The ramp lets the jets take off with considerably more load.
This is objectively correct. We tried it ourselves. No ramp and the rockets came down immediately. With ramp they went straight for London!

File: USSliberty.jpg (46KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x463px

>>131681829
>have best navy in the world
>get attacked by your sand jew "allies"
>apologise to them
>sue own naval personnel for talking about it

>>131681813
>Why do you think we do it?
You do it because you don't have the political will to install a fucking proper catapult because you're a cuck European nation that lost its will to survive during WW2, you complete faggot.

Ramp-launched aircraft are only able to carry 1/3rd of CATOBAR-launched aircraft, and pay attention here----

DEFEATING THE FUCKING PURPOSE OF HAVING AN AIRCRAFT-CARRIER IN THE GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING FIRST PLACE

>>131682219
hard to hear you over the sound of your fucking europoor ramps

File: 1487813852425.png (138KB, 349x415px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 349x415px

>>131681829
>there are countries without supercarriers right now that claim to be important

>>131682302
>DEFEATING THE FUCKING PURPOSE OF HAVING AN AIRCRAFT-CARRIER IN THE GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING FIRST PLACE

Steady on there Hank. It's still a floating airfield no matter how it lauches its aircraft.

>>131682124
Exactly. You'd think, with all those Nazi scientists that went to the US after the war, they might have picked up that ramps were a good idea. But no, the Americans are stuck with their pre-WW2 aircraft carrier design philosophy.

>>131677377
It increases the attack angle and also removes the necessity of counter-rotating after takeoff as with traditional catapult launches

/thread

File: f22.jpg (4MB, 2736x1822px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2736x1822px

>>131682431
Indeed it is, but we're limited because space. How many aircraft can we carry?
45?
ok, oh boy, I think we should take those 45, and launch them with 1/3rd of their capability. Because we paid a shit-ton for this floating airfield, and the last THING WE'D WANT TO DO IS LIMIT OUR MOTHERFUCKING CAPABILITY

File: ski-jump.jpg (45KB, 1168x657px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1168x657px

The F-35B has STOVL (Short Take Off and
Vertical Landing) capability. What they do is angle their rear thrust nozzle at 45 degrees which gives them enough forward acceleration to take off while both engines (mid section turbine and main engine thrust) allow it to take off quite normally. They're already equipped to do this because they've been flying the Harrier for 51 years? So, they don't have to change anything on the flight deck to accommodate the F-35B.

>>131682521
PAY ATTENTION BRITKEKS--
>/thread
I rest my case.

File: 1466128081580.jpg (315KB, 940x626px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 940x626px

>>131682461
We don't need cuck ramps because we have actual ships, not fucking canoes. Nuclear powerplants, steam/em catapaults, and the balls to operate a real fucking navy. All things you'll never have again.

>>131682389
>deflecting this hard

That's pretty weak, Hank.

>>131681482
He's really gonna have to pop the clutch to get that thing up

>>131682725
Having the 4th best navy in the world out of the 200 something countries there are in the world isn't bad at all lardtard

>>131677377
Who cares? The UK hasn't got much longer left anyway.

File: 1498499684597.jpg (102KB, 876x493px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 876x493px

>>131682725
Yeah great navy fatty, you guys can't even drive ship

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-warship-collision-warning-ignored-japan-tokyo-bay-uss-fitzgerald-acx-crystal-cargo-ship-a7809646.html

Aircraft carriers are inefficient and quite awful in armed conflict between advanced militaries

They're not even particularly good for bombing middle eastern shitholes.

File: 08736a282ef474a7c595d95cde4672e4758e1b8a.jpg (10KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 251x251px

>>131682753
>He's really gonna have to pop the clutch to get that thing up
Just needs a treadmill for the takeoff, mate.

File: smug_anime_face.jpg (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

>>131677377
Do you even have an aircraft carrier?

File: 1485983333065.png (390KB, 498x710px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 498x710px

>>131682752
>changes topic because he's getting btfo about ramps
>subject change is rejected hard
>"lol why u deflect"

Only a Eurocuck could be this deep in denial.

>>131682752
nonono, you're right, my cousin. We're owned by the kikes. But what about the serious amount of backlash? Let me tell you something--there's a group here who fucking memed a half-baked shitnugget into office. You have nothing like this. We have hundreds in the streets burning torches. Show me where the Brits are standing up...

oh,oh,oh, you got an assasinatable Nigel into office to do Brexit? Excuse me while we implement a fucking Muslim ban...

File: Ups-Kylie-Jenner-laesst-ihr-Hoeschen-blitzen-Tiefe-Einblicke-story-575889_630x356px_b79eabcc1a3c1c0611691488f42c74ce__unbenannt_3_jpg.jpg (151KB, 630x356px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 630x356px

>>131683049
>They're not even particularly good for bombing middle eastern shitholes.

Turkey just kicked our planes out of Turkey. We had to relocate our soldiers and planes to Jordan. If Jordan had refused, where would we have gone to fight ISIS?

You need aircraft carriers to project power in areas where there are no bases for you.

>>131682921
if yew aint first yer last

File: 1476600020953.jpg (100KB, 772x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 772x960px

>>131680685

>>131682639
We could have built it with catobar, nuclear and all the rest, but we would only be able to afford 1 given the govt's finances after the global financial crisis.

Probably still could have if we didn't get roped into the F-35 money sink.

>come join our super duper new plane project
>It'll be really cheap because we're ordering so many :D
>10+ years on
>Most expensive plane ever built and so late that we have to launch a carrier without aircraft to go on it

>>131683269
i wonder how many foreskins worth of makeup she has on in that pic

>>131683043
I think we'll manage

holy shit the size of our navy.jpg

>>131677377
the ramp reduces the need for the launch cables, which are steam powered, and require time to build up presser. The lag time between pressures reduces the number of aircraft a carrier can launch. This is why the US navy is working on magnetic launch capabilities. Its like the world found it self with a broken sidewalk. Europe china UK and Russia decided to path the crack. The USA built a suspension bridge over it. Our superiority is unchallengeable.

>>131683104
Well alright then

Cost of two QEC carriers: £6bn
Cost of one US carrier: $13bn

QEC crew: 700
Nimitz class crew: 5000

Seriously, US Navy sailors are so deficient it takes 5000 of them to sail their boat around. Five thousand!

File: muslims-praying-westminster.jpg (68KB, 760x427px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 760x427px

YAY! An aircraft carrier! The Empire lives on!

>>131683269
>Turkey just kicked our planes out of Turkey.
meanwhile, T*rk citizens are voting your elections!

File: here-are-all-the-ships-in-the-german-navy.png (1MB, 6000x4500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6000x4500px

>>131683098
>Do you even have an aircraft carrier?
We got a sail ship, does this count? It is sort of an air-craft ship, no?

File: F-35.jpg (882KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 2100x1500px

>>131683373
but F-35chan is so cute. How can you say no to her?

>>131683373
>after the global financial crisi
You guys are still in that? srs question

>>Most expensive plane ever built and so late
Why do you hate Solar General so much?

protip, that's where the money's going

>>131683067
Nope, there is no air pressure below the wings for a lift off.

>>131683269
>If Jordan had refused
>If

90% of the bombs dropped on the middle east will continue to come from ground based runways. Because they're cheaper, easier to maintain and resupply.

If there isn't a runway available, one will be made available.

Carriers literally only have one advantage over regular runways, compared to the many disadvantages - which is that they allow for faster initial responses.

>>131683564
>The lag time between pressures reduces the number of aircraft a carrier can launch.
you are now aware that CATOBAR launches at twice the rate as ramp-equipped carriers.

Now apologize.

>>131677377

WE WOULDN'T FUCKING NEED A RUNWAY IF THEY HAD JUST KEPT MAKING THE HARRIER JUMP JET!
FUCK!

The thing could have been a floating fucking castle with jets vertically coming out of it!

>>131683847
>You guys are still in that? srs question

No, but that's when money was being allocated and decisions made on the project.

>>131683857
>Nope, there is no air pressure below the wings for a lift off.
This does not matter. The thing is tilted, so it is literally a ramp. Ramps help with takeoff.

>>131684010
we are completely out of that dip and are riding high, ready for the next one. wee! thanks heebs!

doesn't matter what carriers you have anyway, because I think we'd come to england's defense before israels.

File: 1485393363449.jpg (9KB, 268x284px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 268x284px

>>131683639
>we can't afford large ships
>this is somehow an advantage

I guess we're... ramping up our protection.

File: download (21).jpg (8KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 318x159px

>>131683213

File: lololol.png (51KB, 378x275px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 378x275px

>>131684098
>This does not matter. The thing is tilted, so it is literally a ramp. Ramps help with takeoff.

kraut education, everyone

File: p4-red-arrows-credit-jamie-hunter.jpg (725KB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 3600x2400px

I wish all of our planes were red. Would look pretty cool.

>>131677377
seems to me everyone failed to read more than just ramp ...
that ramp saves +/-13% fuel consumption on takeoff
if it does that i'll ramp it up, if i can send my birds that one more time more than a regular carrier thanks to saved fuel.
if i need to transport less fuel thus less mass to move around and make my ship faster, gimme that ramp.
in war you can have all the tanks and the planes in the world, but no fuel it makes them all scrap iron
because laughing about ramps is funny

>>131683968
youre comparing carriers to carriers. Im just comparing the launch cables to the ramp.

>>131679236
My man, 20% more wing surface variant for more lift at slower speeds, (carrier landing)

Go Navy

>>131677377
no reason, they will never have to get many off the ship quickly or carry too many (runway area); They have you for that. A nice reliable and present ship is better for this case for the brits

>>131684441but are carriers are nuclear? and the wars are over the gas.

File: 1465323429988.jpg (15KB, 425x282px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 425x282px

>>131677377
>Why a ramp?

You'll figure out next time your catapult breaks down mid-battle and all your planes go down with the carrier.

>>131684644
With all the usual bants i thought OP was a burger. Consider it, also nice dublins, me

>>131684781
>You'll figure out next time your catapult breaks down mid-battle and all your planes go down with the carrier.
When has this ever happened?

>>131684562
I'm comparing launches to launches per carrier. Amerijews can do it 2x as fast.

File: 1478996470914.gif (78KB, 367x451px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 367x451px

>>131683639
>his ships are so small they don't even have a 4 figure crew

>>131684783
17 words to say
>checked

>>131678901
Are they just using F-35Cs? This may just so that they can launch legacy aircraft.

File: Yamaha_RMAX_Flight_Demonstration.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>131682687
it has one engine, as there is one exaust. The lift fan behind the cockpit is driven by a torque shaft from that single engine.

>>131684928
and also to acknowledge that when i said

>they got you for that
i meant burgers, not krauts

File: HS_harrier_1.jpg (183KB, 1200x692px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1200x692px

>>131681427
and back then we had planes that could take off and land straight up and down
having an aircraft carrier with a big deck feels like progress is going in reverse
by now we should have planes that can manoeuvre like TIE fighters

>>131678366
Kek

Cant even compete!

File: 1497834930955.jpg (387KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 785x757px

>>131684840
>When has this ever happened?

Forget about the brexit divorce bill and it won't have to happen Jurgen.

File: 1496451893523.jpg (71KB, 800x514px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x514px

>>131683043
>Survived being hit by a ship ten times it size.
I think we are fine thank you.

>>131682302
>DEFEATING THE FUCKING PURPOSE OF HAVING AN AIRCRAFT-CARRIER IN THE GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING FIRST PLACE

I am certain Americans get less intelligent with each day passing by

>>131682302
jesus fuck
americans must have some sort of genetic defect that means they are unable to type or speak a single sentence without yelling or adding faggot at the end

>>131684890
thats not because of the cables though thats because of the overall smartcar size they built everything on the ship in.

Ramps are cheaper to operate but have a bunch of restrictions.

The UK couldn't justify spending money on catapults with the QE is just going to be a support carrier and not a true super carrier.

>>131684441
Master of naval tactics with certification from the internet university of military armchair studies here, in a real battle the goal is to get all your birds in the air as quickly as possible so that when the ASCM spam comes in they can fight rather that just blow up on the deck and sink with the carrier. For that reason you want catapults, with a design that can launch as many as possible all at the same time.

If you're worried about fuel the air force can just do some in-flight refueling from ground bases if need be.

>>131682521
Why are you threading your own post?

>>131684242
Typical American: Heavier is better. HOW CAN WE PUT TO SEE WITHOUT AN ONBOARD MCDONALDS AND AN ICECREAM STATION?!!?!

>>131681427
I wouldn't call a 3 month conflict experience when you didn't have any chance to compete at all.

>>131685307
>passing day

FTFY

Whn youe insult some ones grammer youe shuld exrta time tak too due it corectly, less youe to look dum

File: Burial Cremation or...jpg (97KB, 1311x640px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1311x640px

>>131684781
We just go to the other three catapults that are still working.

How else are you gonna do sick BMX jumps OP?

File: French is a funny word if you think about.jpg (89KB, 1257x681px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1257x681px

>>131678366
So are you saying is that either French also have a supercarrier or those are some weird looking helicopters

File: argument-typo.jpg (32KB, 735x541px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 735x541px

>>131685639

>>131677377
It's cheaper. They can't even afford enough F-35s to fill the spots originally planned for the carrier.

>>131685489
wasn't it the HMS queen's bum serving shrimps and stakes with a night cap that all the US pilots were laughing about a few months back

>it was like a resort

File: 1498344240931.png (2MB, 1931x1146px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1931x1146px

>>131683213
>We're owned by the kikes

Well US society worships them. Especially "Conservative" evangelicals who are very rare outside the US. The US has one of the highest Jewish populations especially among economic elite, who are worshiped by kosher conservatives. The USA is like 5% redpilled 60% Butterpilled and 55% bluepilled and the UK is like 10% redpilled, 80% bluepilled and 10% currypilled

>>131684840
Catapults ARE maintenance intensive and do have a chance of breaking down while in use. But when you have F O U R (4) Catapults on deck lose of one or even two isn't a mission kill.

Now if you're dependent on ONE (1) ramp and something happens to it... mission kill.

File: 1498353672650.jpg (7KB, 275x184px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x184px

>>131684098
>>131683067

>>131683857
honestly really such an insignificant detail you pedant

>>131683067
The practical answer is “yes”. A 747’s engines produce a quarter of a million pounds of thrust. That is, each engine is powerful enough to launch a brachiosaurus straight up (see diagram). With that kind of force, no matter what’s happening to the treadmill and wheels, the plane is going to move forward and take off.

But there’s a problem. Let’s take a look at the statement “The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels”. What does that mean?

>>131685837
Stop being a faggot and proofread your posts. Post quality matters here. If you're not going to ensure your posts are correct, why should we assume you know what the fuck you're talking about? git gud

File: 30009D4C-90D3-431F-AF2D-27B771D479F9-10408-000011AAF0976453_tmp.jpg (40KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1280x720px

>>131677377
I think the ramp is cool...

Why does no one mention how Americans need a sling shot to launch aircraft? Our fat Clapistani planes can't take off on their own.

>>131686291
>>131685837

>>131683373
>Most expensive plane
>Cheaper then Typhoon and F-35 production is still in LRIP
:relly meks you fink:

>>131686247
Well, as I see it, there are three possible interpretations.

1. vB=vC: The belt always moves at the same speed as the bottom of the wheel. This is always true if the wheels aren’t sliding, and could simply describe a treadmill with no motor. I haven’t seen many people subscribe to this interpretation.

2. vC=vW: That is, if the axle is moving forward (relative to the ground, not the treadmill) at 5 m/s, the treadmill moves backward at 5 m/s. This is physically plausible. All it means is that the wheels will spin twice as fast as normal, but that won’t stop the plane from taking off. People who subscribe to this interpretation tend to assume the people who disagree with them think airplanes are powered by their wheels.

3. vC=vW+vB: What if we hook up a speedometer to the wheel, and make the treadmill spin backward as fast as the speedometer says the plane is going forward? Then the “speedometer speed” would be vW+vB — the relative speed of the wheel over the treadmill. This is, for example, how a car-on–a-treadmill setup would work. This is the assumption that most of the ‘stationary plane’ people subscribe to. The problem with this is that it’s an ill-defined system. For non-slip tires, vB=vC. So vC=vW+vC. If we make vW positive, there is no value vC can take to make the equation true. (For those stubbornly clinging to vestiges of reality, in a system where the treadmill responds via a PID controller, the result would be the treadmill quickly spinning up to infinity.) So, in this system, the plane cannot have a nonzero speed. (We’ll call this the “JetBlue” scenario.)

>>131684781
We happen to have ways to handle this, but if I told you, I'd have to take away your tea.

Permanently.
>>131685059
Those planes were so handicapped tho. Carried something like 2000 gallons of water for heat dissipation
>>131685307
Why? it's hard as hell to build a floating airfield. Me pointing out that it cripples the planes that fly orr from it isn't indicative of idiocy. The only people who disagree with me are too poor to buy in. soooooo, there's that. Y-you're not p-poor are you?
>>131685330
>americans must have some sort of genetic defect that means they are unable to type or speak a single sentence without yelling or adding faggot at the end
This is 4chan. This is an essentially American board. You can disagree, but if you spend any time here you will have to eventually accept this face for all the good/bad/indifferent it matters. Faggot.

>>131685816
It's CATOBAR and the only non-American carrier rated for American Naval Aircraft.

File: I+can+see+a+lot+of+steak+knifes+and+butter+_cc5f3e37b720f808f533a93a5c04d0a1[1].jpg (136KB, 560x570px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 560x570px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNyQvhsQE8

>>131686574
But if we push with the engines, what happens? The terms of the problem tell us that the plane cannot have a nonzero speed, but there’s no physical mechanism that would plausibly make this happen. The treadmill could spin the wheels, but the acceleration would destroy them before it stopped the plane. The problem is basically asking “what happens if you take a plane that can’t move and move it?” It might intrigue literary critics, but it’s a poor physics question.

So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.

All in all, it’s a lovely recipe for an internet argument, and it’s been had too many times. So let’s see if we can avoid that. I suggest posting stories about something that happened to you recently, and post nice things about other peoples’ stories. If you’re desperate to tell me that I’m wrong on the internet, don’t bother. I’ve snuck onto the plane into first class with the #5 crowd and we’re busy finding out how many cocktails they’ll serve while we’re waiting for the treadmill to start. God help us if, after the fourth round of drinks, someone brings up the two envelopes paradox.

>>131686545
>Slightly cheaper (per plane) than another horrifically expensive money sink

Not an achievement. At the price they are we could have built our own damn jets. Our industry could have used the business and we would actually have them to fly too.

>>131686615
>Sao Tome and Principe
RARE. This is the first time I've seen your flag.

>>131686247
I can't find the diagram, use your imagination instead.

>>131678863
not the STEAM catapults. just the fancy newfangled meme magnet catapults

File: Sao Tome and Principe.png (9KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 420x420px

>>131686615

File: amirite.jpg (38KB, 443x447px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 443x447px

Maybe we should call them Ramps instead of Bongs.

File: hgytfsdhbyhf.jpg (24KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 852x480px

>>131682725
>>131683104
>>131684242

All the toys. All the money. All the land. All the attitude. Yet still can't beat the peasent forest gooks or the seed sowing sand niggers. How seriously and actually incompetant must every single individual burger be? How completely embarrassing to have such radically top-end gear, and zero notices on the bed post.

Their lives hang on the existance of ther petro-dollar. The second their currency isn't an automatic global win button they are horribly and monumentally fucked.

But that's none of my business.

>>131684704
no, they do not all use nuclear fuel
the rampboat has 2 gas turbines, 4 diesels and propultion is electrical
>and the wars are over the gas
what do you mean?

>>131685452
well mr armchairman... isn't that the main goal?
what if your planes don't need a catapult?
so much men you could put to other good use somewhere else, how many for one catapult? and how much does it cost to keep that thing operational?

>>131687303
But a bunch of irrelevant navies have ramps.

>>131686812
You do realise our aerospace industry is heavily involved in the F-35 project? From Rolls Royce designing and building the Lift Fan system to Martin Baker making the ejection seat

File: cnnothingburger.jpg (30KB, 450x332px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x332px

>>131687514
Oh. Right. Never mind.

>>131687324
>>131683104
>>131684242
>>131681482


The civic nationalist country-larping cringe is real...

. >>>/int/

>>131687739
I am aware. If they were building the entire plane they would have a lot more now wouldn't they? And, crucially, we would have planes to fly because we would not be taking a back seat to the needs of the US military.

>>131677377
It was cheaper.
Same reason why they are powered by diesel engines instead of nuclear reactors.

We can't afford to fill them up with planes either.
They are basically auxiliaries for the US navy.

Hey, we still send money to 3rd world shitholes so that they can buy F16s from America though.

>>131677377
for their "special forces"

lol cuz they're retarded

>>131677377
brit manlets need a boost yet again

>>131688130
A navy is important, to transport white soldiers off to die abroad in pointless wars and have their widows settle for arab immigrants

File: tfwSomeoneElseBantered.jpg (25KB, 540x376px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 540x376px

>>131682124
crafty aryan catching me out with bantz! curses!

>>131688861
God that's depressing.
Can we just pretend that we're going to use them for retaking Jerusalem and Constantinople?

>>131686836
>This is the first time I've seen your flag.
NEW

>>131689018
don't forget cyprus..
Limasol is key if you want jerusalem

>>131688007
> If they were building the entire plane they would have a lot more now wouldn't they?
No.
Up to 3,000 F-35 of all variants will be built based on current contracts, 2,200 for the US alone. A 5th Gen plane built by the UK only would have far less orders then the F-35, from our recent dealings I can only think of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries buying our shit, but nowhere near the scale of the US buying F-35s alone.

>And, crucially, we would have planes to fly
Our government cocked up and binned the Nimrod modernization leading us having nearly a decade without an ASW Maritime patrol aircraft which is unacceptable for an island nation. Who is to say they would of not done the same to an indigenous 5th Gen UK fighter. At least the F-35 seems to have the institutional inertia of the US Government who seem pretty keen at keeping it pushing, and it's safety record is pretty good with only 1 class A failure due to an engine fire a few years back.

>>131677377

I remember reading the ramp is so when the aircraft leaves the deck, it falls from a greater height and has more time to build speed to gain altitude. if the aircraft can't stop and overshoot the runway they have time to become airborne again

something like that don't quote me

>>131682124
>>131682461
exactly lol
>>131688957

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83q-r5DZJko
amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy03UVxfxqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0EE5ZGKJyE

File: seawolf_nuclear_submarine_launch_ssn_21_us_navy.jpg (41KB, 770x352px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 770x352px

This is now a Seawolf thread. I know they're fucking wasteful, but I still wished we had more.

>>131689702
We in the UK make about 15% of each F-35. So going off the current UK order of something like 140 that would be the equivalent of about 1000 being built just for us in terms of industrial participation if we were making 100%.

So yes, that's about half of what we would have if not for F-35 (not taking into consideration any export, which you are correct in stating is far from a certainty). However that's still a lot of going work and it would mean uk based practical industial knowledge of how to build an *entire* modern fighter jet, rather than just bits of it, which is near priceless.

File: shrek3.gif (89KB, 282x272px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 282x272px

>>131682219
ye what good does it do them if they can't put out rice farmers and nork gooks with 60's tech humm

CUT MILITARY SPENDING AND INVEST IN EDUCASHIUN!!!

>>131680685
tell me how many carriers we have

t.works for DND

File: admiral_kuznetsov_aircraft_carrier_1.jpg (1MB, 1920x950px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x950px

CHOOO CHOOOO

>I don't know how a russian aircraft carrier sounds like

>>131686708
A real carrier in other words. No cuck ramps as far as the eye can see until a ramp carrier stinks everything up and crossed the horizon.

>>131682302
>1/3
Harrier doesn't weigh 1/3 of a Hornet.
F-35B doesn't weigh 1/3 of a C

>>131691863

if you overshoot the runway of a regular carrier you nosedive straight into the ocean, ramp puts you at correct angle and gives you some idle floating time and a chance to get engines to full power and gain lift before smashing into the water.

>>131692714
?????????
You are completely wrong on this
Ramp allows aircraft to take off on a shorter distance by converting horizontal velocity to vertical velocity while still in contact with the ground. A 13 degree ramp allows a full load Harrier take off in 400ft compared to the US LHA which require 750ft.

Harrier and F-35B are STOVL, they land vertical, hence have no worriers of overshooting on landing.

>>131693268
so a ramp doesn't also aid if the runway is overshot compared to a regular carrier?

>>131693405
No carrier with arrestor wires uses a ramp to help pilots who fail to catch the wire. Ramps are only used to reduce take-off distance.

>>131683874
and power projection across bodies of water, and vast distances

>one will be made available

uhuh

File: skeletor pussy.gif (2MB, 370x456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 370x456px

>>131686615
RARE
Our ancestors foretold your arrival.

>>131693882

what if the wires snaps, a ramp is worse than a regular carrier?

>>131683043
Look out lads

The junior civics club awaketh from nappy time

>>131694691
Pilots on CATOBAR keep the engines at 100% until they come to a complete stop in case the arrestor wire breaks or they miss it so they will be able to go airborne again.

>planes are in the sky
>Ramps point to the sky
?????????

Not exactly rocket appliances is it.

>>131694691
If a wire snaps you pile on the power and hope to god

File: 2017-06-28-16-29-20-.jpg (6KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 275x183px

Drones don't even need run ways to take off. They can be launched with a device that flings them like a rubber band gun

>>131684312
Agreed, would match your ruddy mugs as well

While you remain 2nd best allies, are you pissed at your hillbilly cousins down unda being first best allies?

>Autist suburb north of us need not comment

>>131684441
TLDR: More rapidly deployed payloads of pew pew pew

File: alex jones face.jpg (5KB, 250x248px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x248px

>haha, your tiny island country can only afford the cheaper kind of warship compared to the richest funded military on earth

File: ponder.jpg (6KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x187px

i bet it is really fun to be under the ramp when a jet takes off and scream as loud as you can

>>131684781
And we'll under arm the airframe and take off under aftre burner only

>>131686416
Cats get club chicks

Ramps get hoveround bound walmart fatties reaching for shit with a grippy stick

>>131691651
Ka chunka
Ka chunka
Ka chunka
*fuck, Vlad, call the tugs*
Da

>>131695671

I think you would probably melt from the jet exhaust desu

>>131695619
gold

>>131695015
Predators and Reapers cannot.
There are ISR assets capable of catapult launch and net landings, but larger craft as such pictured need runway space for TO/Landing.
If you've ever been up close to one of those I think you'd be surprised by how large they are.
Same size or larger than manned aircraft.