We've finally got our new chief negotiator for the Brexit talks

We've finally got our new chief negotiator for the Brexit talks

Other urls found in this thread:

janes.com/article/73080/uk-launches-externally-loaded-f-35b-from-ski-jump-for-first-time
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour
savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/
savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/
archive.is/H170M
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>diesel engines

The main engines are Rolls Royce gas turbines

A few diesel engines for when it only needs to move slowly + back up for emergencies

>gas turbines

RULE

...

JAPANIA

>it isnt nuclearly propelled

>a fucking ramp

>ramp

...

You will have to fire a nuclear warning shot at Brussels.

sounds like fun

Hell yeah.

You Americans liked our gas turbines so much that you bought British engines for your new class of $7.5 billion super destroyers. Pic related it has the same engines as our carriers.

a fucking ramp

>A FUCKING KEKRAMP

Real aircraft carriers have curves

I guess you can use it as collateral for a *part* of the money you will owe.

>bradleyposting

>bulgaria

I am Greek

americans can't even land on their carriers lmao

There is a Japanese term for the tongue sticking out of a corner of the mouth. How is it called again?

Nice. Missile """test""" launches over Europe when?

Is that a ramp?

Soon

janes.com/article/73080/uk-launches-externally-loaded-f-35b-from-ski-jump-for-first-time

Yes sweetie

>70k tonnes
>not nuclear
>no catapult

The Virgin Catapult vs The Chad Ramp

t. Repubblica "be gentle daddy I'm only 30k tonnes" Italiana

Repubblica italiana

Btw the QE Class at full load is 76k tonnes

Middle line should have been this link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour

>all the maintenance costs to keep those extra moving parts in working order on a Lockmart meme plane
>on a Brexit budget

>Other than disaster relief, the carrier's few other departures from port are for a single training day per month, and transportation of the Royal Family of Thailand, leading to claims by some naval commentators that the ship is merely an oversized royal yacht.[1][5]

>that deflecting

JAPANIA RULES THE WAVES

NIPPONS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES

>b-but the plane has moving parts, surely Based Britain will never be able to handle machines that having lots of moving parts

Give it a rest ladyboy

You built a supercarrier with the constraints of a light carrier.

>someone points out your overpriced and obsolete missile magnet will bankrupt your fragile economy
>"B-BUT AT LEAST WE DON'T HAVE A SMALLER AND CHEAPER CARRIER THAT WON'T BANKRUPT OUR FRAGILE ECONOMY"

holy kek

Really want to continue but I have to go sorry

>supercarrier with the constraints of a light carrier
This one made me kek tho

It's probably a fairer description of the Charles de Gaulle. Idk about you but I'd rather have the extra planes, range and at-sea time.

>constraining your military with budget concerns
I don't know this feel tbqh

Fuck off ugly looking mongrel Anglocuck

the whole computing system runs on windows XP

>Idk about you but I'd rather have the extra planes
The air wing was the same when it was supposed to have a catapult, and i'm pretty sure it still FFBNW so the space isn't used as hangar space.
>range
Are you drunk?

This is the third time I've seen you use the word "mongrel", are you trying to be the next Ikibey?

why? because i sincerely despise anglo people?

And here you are on an English-language board, pull your head in mate.

> Tfw I will never serve in Her Majesty's royal navy

Are you offering it as collateral?

Success breeds obsession

>Are you drunk?
Range of the carrier you mong

France has a nuclear powered carrier and it's CATOBAR.

Indeed, but you'd be hard pressed to argue having two carriers vs one without getting into the specifics of capability.

you can transfer from the NZ navy to the royal navy I think

Doesn't Spain and Italy has some as well?

Indeed they do.

Italy is currently in the process of designing their new carrier.

>tfw I woke up one day in 1812 on Her Majesty's Royal Navy
>but I didn't want to be there, so my country started a war over it
>instead of rescuing me, my country invaded Canada and said "we'll get you later"

Cool.

But then still, not enough for "pressure" on talks.

I'm not the OP, but carriers do provide some level of diplomatic leverage.

BIG

just park it next to hamburg while the talks are going on. we'll get a decent deal

Spends most of its time in dry dock servicing its nuclear plant, and during that time they don't have another one to replace it. Meanwhile the UK will have two very large carriers, meaning one will continuously be at sea while costing less to operate and maintain.

Some nice shots tbqh.

Good read on why they decided not to go for nuclear power.

savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/

What's the point of this ship?

...

really wish we had somewhere nice to put our ships. portsmouth is a shithole
t. lives near portsmouth

Banter.

order more pls
[spoiler]yes I know why militarily we don't need any more D class and the new GCS are supposed to be bought instead but there's literally no guarentee given that we'll get the contract because of you jewish fucks[/spoiler]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.

BUY THE FUCKING SHIPS YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO BUY
I know you're fucking buying some type 26 GCS' but not as many as you said you were
and that's on top of cancelling the type 45's
fucking give me the jobs

you work in shipyards m8?

Those are pretty sexy ships desu

Not the government m8

If was in charge the RN would have 32 warships as defined in SDSR98. Besides, you can thank Iraq and Afgan for fucking the budgets.

Gorgeous

>What's the point of this ship?

>have fighter jets in place A
>need them in place B for a
>surface of Earth is mostly covered in water
>require a device to CARRY the AIRCRAFT from A to B
Hmmm... really makes you think...

>need them in place B for a
..while

No, just an enthusiast. I care about our navy and the few skilled engineering jobs we have left.

>two towers
this isnt lord of the rings you twats
>A
>FOOKIN
>RAMP

>out of service for 18 months when it needs refuelling (which it does despite being nuclear)
>carries fewer aircraft, launches them more slowly
>aircraft it does carry are not even 5th gen
>costs so much money that they can't afford to build a replacement
>only one carrier, so if it gets damaged or if it's being refuelled/serviced, they have nothing to project air power

Yeah, no, I'll take the 2 big carriers with the ramps and the 19,000km range which can be refuelled at sea anyway, pls

>brits think they will rule the waves
hah no

You should have used the "um, no, sweetie" meme rather than just "hah no".

I do hope you know that won't be built. There's not a chance that Project 23000E and the Lider-class will happen under the current budgets.

The sub fleet will continue to get the lion share of the navy budget.

Why don't more aircraft carriers have ramps?

Seems to me like it's a good design with no real downsides to it.

Tfw grandpa buys a new car and thinks he's a young man again. You ran away from that nice german nursing home can you atleast have the decency to die?

why are totalitarian countries always so obsessed with submarines?

Are submarines the tacticool of navy warfare?

They're cost effective.

Germans make me fucking sick.

Shaped like big cocks.

Having a ramp is generally for non-CATOBAR carriers.

They provide good bang-for-buck. Even the shittiest Nork mini-submarine can provide a threat to a CBG.

>Why don't more aircraft carriers have ramps?
Almost all of them do outside the US

>Seems to me like it's a good design with no real downsides to it.
Only downside is increased cost + fewer different types of aircraft can be launched. Since the USA builds lots of aircraft carriers they get economies of scale, and have a much larger budget anyway. If you have the budget you'd go for catapults

The British aircraft carriers are actually designed to have catapults installed if we have the budget in the future. There is space underneath the deck for an EMALS system and BAE have a British-specific design on the backburner.

Submarines are what you use to sink enemy ships and launch nuclear missiles. In terms of controlling the seas, or at minimum defending your own coast, they're more important than all the other boats.

You're just memeing but lots of people have this view of Britain that we should just stop trying to do stuff, including lots of British people. Really rustles my jimmies, as they say.

>Gorgeous

I thought so too.

Allies are not for bullying.

It has two towers because of the engine layout and creates better airflow compared to one giant tower. It also means the navigation tower is better at navigating, and the flight control tower is better at controlling the planes from where it is too.

savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/

Merchant shipping throughout Europe still heavily depends on the Royal Navy since you refuse to pay for (or even just use) your own.

We definitely need more than the 6 (six) we've currently got.

The fleet is going to shrink further. We could actually be looking at losing another one or two Type 23s post mini-SDSR.

In the long run the frigate fleet won't drastically be reduced with the 8 Type 26 and 6 Type 31.13 frigates isn't enough regardless. We won't be short of auxiliary fleet tonnage at least.

If you're talking about the Scottish shipyard that will be building them, they'll be getting 6 Type 31's on top of the 8 Type 26 so there isn't a reduction in work.

Only if the build schedule for the Type 31 is built concurrently with the Type 26 or the Type 26 gets accelerated.

Yeah, that's great, except we were promised thirteen(13) type 26's to be built
except now we only have the contracts for three(3) and NO GUARANTEE PAST THE WORD OF THE MAN WHO HAS ALREADY CUT EVERY OTHER CONTRACT that we will even get to build the rest of them
they're not going to fucking even start negotiations on the contract for the next five(5) until 2020
which as you may have noticed, doesn't bring us to the thirteen ship figure we were promised
It's not only possible, it's LIKELY that we'll either get paid less for the next five, or we won't build all of it, or we won't built it at all, if they can get it cheaper elsewhere
fuck off you utter cuntwagon
archive.is/H170M
show me where I can find any concrete proof past the word of a known liar that we'll even be allowed to toil over those ships

>contract for 3

That's normal, they usually contract and build ships in batches of 3. I wouldn't worry about it, the 8 and 6 will be built because the carriers need escorts.