Aircraft carriers are necessary for the security of a global power

But why the fucking ramp, Brits? Why a ramp?

Other urls found in this thread:

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

...

Because the runway is short.

Stunts, stunts with Spitfire.

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

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

Plus its super cheep

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

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

reminder that modern jet fighters are big league

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

WRONG

I will never tire of the phrase "Cuck Ramp"

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

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?

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

>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!

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

>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

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

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

>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.

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.

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

/thread

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

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.

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

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.

>deflecting this hard

That's pretty weak, Hank.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Do you even have an aircraft carrier?

>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.

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...

>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.

if yew aint first yer last

...

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

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

I think we'll manage

holy shit the size of our navy.jpg

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.

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!

YAY! An aircraft carrier! The Empire lives on!

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

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

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

>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

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

>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.

>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.

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!

>You guys are still in that? srs question

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

>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.

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.

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

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

...

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

kraut education, everyone

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

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

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

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

Go Navy

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

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

>Why a ramp?

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

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

>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?

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

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

17 words to say
>checked

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

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.

and also to acknowledge that when i said

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

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

Kek

Cant even compete!

>When has this ever happened?

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

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

>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

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

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.

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.

Why are you threading your own post?

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

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

>passing day

FTFY

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

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

How else are you gonna do sick BMX jumps OP?

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

...

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