What does everyone think of the new British aircraft carriers?
They're almost as big as a Nimitz, need far less manpower, but for some reason aren't nuclear powered.
What does everyone think of the new British aircraft carriers?
They're almost as big as a Nimitz, need far less manpower, but for some reason aren't nuclear powered.
Other urls found in this thread:
They lack catapults and therefore suck.
>ramp
A
> but for some reason aren't nuclear powered.
Neither is China's new aircraft carriers, and they too lack catapults. What's going on?
ramp
>Your mom lacks a catapult
>She sucked me this morning
His logic checks out, people
You guys don't know how bad nuclear powered carriers are.
They're constantly breaking down and needing to be repaired, costing a substantial amount of money in maintenance.
As for the ramps, we chose them because they suited our needs more than catapults.
Having two islands is dumb as fuck too. Takes up valuable space, adds a second massive obstruction.
>we chose them because they suited our needs more than catapults
Do your needs include looking ridiculous?
>2 islands
>no catapult or arresting wires
>not nuclear
>ramp
There was a time when the British knew how to build ships. What the hell happened?
Ramps aren't going to need a maintenance break in the middle of the second battle of midway.
Nuclear power = higher lifetime cost + being stuck in port for longer
Escorts will need to be refuelled at some point anyway so there's no reason you can't do the carrier as well. The ramp is there because the US can't get EMALS to work properly, it's better to have the ship operating at a reduced capacity than sitting in drydock for 8 years waiting to be finished. It's fine for what the poms want
Lad, the military is not Apple releasing a new iphone, they don't build ships with aesthetics in mind so some autist can enjoy them.
>what happened
they realized they could just make us carry
Nobody wants to fight looking like a clown on the battlefield. Then again if the enemy is too busy laughing at you then I guess you can get the jump on them.
Ramp. End of discussion.
ramps don't actually make much physical sense either except for landing. the height you gain from a ramp is offset by the speed you lose going up it (conservation of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy). that speed is what gives airfoils their lift
They are 2/3 the size of a Nimitz, carry half as many aircraft and have a ramp.
And they are still better than every other non American carrier afloat.
>The absolute state of you
What you look like is utterly irrelevant. American carriers are constantly docked getting their nuclear engines repaired or their catapults repaired.
We may have only 2, and they may be reduced in capacity, but those 2 will be significantly less likely to break down mid combat, because losing the ability to launch fighter jets and bombers during the middle of a naval battle would be fucking catastrophic.
We chose ramps because the catapult system you Americans have is constantly breaking down and needing refits etc.
...
carriers are nothing without airplanes
FLOATING MOSQUE
M
O
S
Q
U
E
>a fucking ramp
Let me get me hat from a kitchen
limey i've worked on two carriers and i can count on one hand the number of times a catapult system has malfunctioned in four years
even when it does fuck up, the actual combat craft can take off without it. only the EWR plane really needs the boost these days
You don't actually go up, the ramp. It's there to provide additional upper lift for a Harrier, on take off.
>tfw
>I'm so high I thought everyone was talking about mid evil catapults
Fucking this Americunts
there are certain waters in which the owners do not allow nuclear powered vessels to traverse
RAMPS FOR CHAMPS
That Electromagnetic catapult on the the Ford Class really does suck, compared to a conventional steam catapult.
>Nuclear power = higher lifetime cost
The lifetime cost is only higher with nuclear if your conventional engined carrier spends most of its time in port and not using fuel.
>+ being stuck in port for longer
The space needed to store the ships fuel can be allocated to aviation fuel, munitions and other supplies on a nuclear carrier. This greatly increases the amount of time they can spend at sea.
>Escorts will need to be refuelled at some point anyway so there's no reason you can't do the carrier as well.
See above.
>The ramp is there because the US can't get EMALS to work properly, it's better to have the ship operating at a reduced capacity than sitting in drydock for 8 years waiting to be finished. It's fine for what the poms want
The ramp is there because it is cheaper and allowed the UK to afford 2 carriers. The kinks have been worked out of EMALS for a while now.
Are they going to apply nonskid to that deck?
Truth check
By suck you mean have a 25% faster sortie rate while being able to handle a wider range of aircraft weights.
it's also the first of its kind. shit's not gonna be perfect at the start which is why we don't replace everything at once lol.
KEK
If that were true then the hundreds of engineers working on it would of mentioned something regarding it and it wouldn't have one, but it and many other carriers have a ramp because they work....
You have a poor grasp on the subject and should stop embarrassing yourself.
that's an appeal to authority fallacy if ever i've seen one. i'm a fucking engineer and i don't think they work
Strange I'm also a mechanical engineer and I know that they do. I also have a whole bunch of real life examples of carriers with ramps to back up my claim that they work, whats more I can't think of a carrier sans catapult that doesn't have a ramp.
>butthurt muslim bongistanis pretend like their toy boat will be used for anything besides fanning the balls of their mullahs
Not even funny at this point desu. Just sad.
..... we need to add one
i remember lots of people in this board laughing at a 60 year old diesel powered Russian carrier
now you're telling me the Brits are building 2 from scratch and are gonna be diesel?
ha ha ha
>whats more I can't think of a carrier sans catapult that doesn't have a ramp.
If you want to be technical (and I know you do) helicopter carriers don't have ramps or catapults because they launch helicopters and other VTOL aircraft.
>lob retrovirus infected POW's back at the enemy.
They're also not technically carriers hence Japan being allowed to have them.
Like New Zealand
>catapults
Nigga we don't even use ballistae anymore nigga like we got rocket lawn chairs an shit nigga
>a fucking leaf
People in this thread unironically believe ramps are better than catapults
Enjoy massive aircraft payload limitations.
Can I catapult my dick into your rectum?
Serious question: Are any aircraft carriers armed with trebuchet? Asking for a friend
Low payload > rail failure so no usable payload
That's why they have 4.
Putting serious question in front of something doesn't make it so
...
Countries other than Japan have them and generally designate them as amphibious assault ships if they're capable of disembarking landing forces but the amphibious assault ship is just an evolution of the helicopter carrier. Japan is allowed to have them because it's not in the US' interests to tell them they can't. They're planning on operating F-35Bs off their which would make them definitively light aircraft carriers but no one really cares.
It's always Jews.
It's very quaint.
who else waiting for DCS F-14 and F/A-18 modules?
A Nimitz with 2 of its 4 cats functional has a higher sortie rate than a QE.
And the failure rate is very low.
Good to see Japan planning on taking its self-defence seriously
Again, technically they're not aircraft carriers. When you're dealing with light aircraft like the ones they operate the whole ramp/slingshot debate gets irrelevant.
What does a comparison of a flat deck vs ramp for a Harrier have to do with a comparison of cats vs a ramp?
A fucking ramp
lol deck runs are for fags and poor countries.
That makes a whole lot of sense for an aircraft carrier lel
TWO SCOOPS OF CONTROL TOWER
Japan's 4 ASW helicopter destroyers are not capable of operating F-35B's.
The reason we have Ramps and Diesel Engines is so we could afford two
Japan is now a sovereign nation, the U.S. can take their interests and shove them up their ass now that they are no longer cucked by post WWII bullshit.
F35B's aren't capable of operating.
why is everything you guys do so corny?
what do you mean by Corny? I may need example just woke up so brain is working slow
>Japan and America's interests align
>REEEE FUCK AMERICA
fascinating
Strikingly naive
He's just dick swinging.
Oh..... Thanks Leaf
>he thinks our carriers doesn't have airplanes on them
You're a fucking moron
The fact that your opinions and real life do not align must greatly aggravate you.
Catapults are expensive, heavy and complicated but they allow for significant advantages over the ramp design.
- Simultaneous launch/recover
- Faster launching (you can queue up planes)
- Greater ordnance capability/plane variety
- Better forward visibility
With ramps the plane has to build up it's momentum to take off which means it needs to use the full length of the deck. Since you've got your plane at the back of the deck, you can't have anything infront of said plane for a launch, and you can't recover any planes in the air as your launching plane is there. This also segues into the next issue which is plane ordnance or types of planes. Without the catapult assistance, big planes like AWACS can't gather the needed energy to take off on a ramp, it's too heavy and can't produce the thrust in that short of a distance - but with a catapult you can. Similarly heavy or heavily laden planes (ie. shittons of fuel or bombs) can also struggle without assistance - something the chinese are dealing with in the J-15.
Really the benefits outweigh the costs if you can pay. The angled runway on US super carriers was a serious game changer. US carriers can put more heavily armed, more varied planes in the air at a faster rate, and can send and receive simultaneously.
Also someone made a comment about needing to refuel escorts..... who says we don't have nuclear powered escorts? It's not like you need an aircraft carrier's size to house a nuclear power plant - we can put them in subs. It's less viable in other surface ships simply because they can't as easily store as much of other supplies to be out as long. Thankfully we have supply ships.
the reason you can only afford two is because you would rather spend your gay ass monopoly money on healthcare for pakis instead of your navy
Let's not forget about the ramp. Utter disaster
By that logic the Kiev class weren't aircraft carriers.
They would have needed reinforced landing decks. Apparently they have decided (contrary to speculation) not to purchase them though.
>Implying we aren't building the carriers to give pakis a reason to need healthcare
Cant argue there, wish we spent 4-5% of our GPD on defence instead of a pitiful 2.3%
...
fuck off reddit
What's wrong with ramps, besides looking stupid?
Why would anyone build nuclear powered carriers now that modern armies have the power to deactivate the atoms?
Pill me on how diesel doesn't break where nuclear does.
Dude, catapults have been part of warfare for thousands of years. WTF, why would you not want catapults?
How much suck the British are now, from naming things fucking DREADNOUGHT- and the look! Ships of the line!
To a kid's waterslide on a "warship". Lulz! Your navy BETTER get drunk and hose it down as a waterslide from time to time!
see The UK made the right choice because this lets them have 2 carriers.
>battlegroups
Foreigners are unable to grasp this thing.
all naval vessels of any type need constant and substantial maintenance
Underage b&
Why are the Brits building already redundant ships? Aircraft carriers are so 20 years ago, they can be sunk by a hypersonic missile that costs a small fraction of the ship.
face it bongs the last time your navy was worth a damn was the 1800s. you spend 2 world wars getting trolled by submarines and your only success with surface ships was against the italians and america's leftovers. I know it hurts but it's time to move on.
No.