You can only post in this thread if your country has a proper aircraft carrier
Ramptards (pic related) need not apply
You can only post in this thread if your country has a proper aircraft carrier
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>Our carriers don't have ramps
>therefor ramps are bad.
That is why you never made friends on the playground.
>A RAMP
A
FUCKING
RAMP
Luv the feel to rock either way here.
munki b great
THICCCC DECK
Look at those curves
Real carriers have cuves, OP needs to stop rampshaming
Ramps are sexy and practical faggots.
AWACS can be launced by ramps, so dont even mention that, the Russians intended to launch them from ramps.
>be brit
>get RAMP'D
ABSOLUTELY BTFO
Hello yes
We had one (HMCS Bonaventure) until le weedman's dad scrapped it
...
Looks tiny anyway.
What's the deal with ramps? Is it an aircraft issue or a carrier issue?
Fuck off m8 we're getting two of these sexy ramp bastards
ramps are neither sexy nor practical, but you probably think 400 pound somali girls are sexy and practical too
>56m
carrierlets, when will they learn?
>yfw trump wants a 350 ship Navy
What do we need all those ships for
Why not?
>not having a ramp for sweet jumps into the ocean
Why even have a military?
>the rest of NATO needs to spend atleast 2% so that we dont need to defend them
>We should not go around the globe beeing world police
>I want more ships
I really don see the logic here
because the roar of a steam catapult is much sexier and much more practical since you can lanuch all sorts of shit easily without having to rely on poorfag ramps
wow i never knew there was an INSIDE plane storage in carriers
>AWACS can be launced by ramps
The United States is the only western nation that produces navalized carrier based AWACS fix winged aircraft.
We don't build them ramp capable
Our military is for enforcing our will and destroying small countries, not for saving shitty yuropoors
we only have two combat ships lmao
Instead you have to rely on steam.
Yeah because we're not poorfags
Soon it will be magnets
>western
That doesnt matter all nations powerfull enough to have a carrier can buy from whoever they want.
Steam (or magnets for that matter) isnt practical on non-nuclear carriers, and for the price of a single nimitz or ford you can probably get two or more rampcarriers
>The UK will purchase Chinese carrier AWACS
Yes this will happen
>not having nuclear carriers
why would anyone do this
>have nuclear-powered ships
>can't even bring them into new zealand ports
>be new zealand
>ports get destroyed by earthquake
>STILL off limits to the united states """"navy""""
>two bridges
reddit tier vessel 2bh
Three flight decks
>be new zealand
>cuck yourselves out of be able to use the future of power
Fun fact, some traitorous fuck tried to sell some of the blueprints of these bad boys to muslims and got abso-fucking-lutely kekk'd by the law. That lady is probably still being tortured in Guantanamo lel
I'd find the source but I'm too scared to google search for it.
That sure is a nice ship
It would be a shame if it was forced to be scuttled
It all makes sense once you realize Putin and Trump are jacking each other off behind closed doors in the Kremlin
>US pulls out of NATO
>Yurop has no army left
>partitioningofgermany.png
>except applied to the entire continent
you can do nothing about it
>The nuclear-free zone Act does not prohibit nuclear power plants, nuclear research facilities, the use of radioactive isotopes, or other land-based nuclear activities.[5]
Stay jelly of our ramp and numerous bridges.
how about you build yourselves a nuclear plant then
nuclear power is for nerds
What are you too stupid to understand electromagnetics? C'mon fuccboi
>tfw I'm taking Emag II in the spring
A british carrier with two con towers is like having two dicks except neither of them work properly
I believe one is for navigating the ship, the other for the planes and flight control.
youtube.com
the english navy in action, this carrier was due to intense front line combat. The only surviving record is an audio recording from a nearby german coast guard
If you need two con towers to do that then your crew might be retarded
Better views for both their respected purposes.
>brit's can't have Anti-Ship missiles
WTF is going on m8s?
you are literally arguing with an american about the relative merits of different aircraft carriers
what exactly are you hoping to accomplish?
>tfw
Except the front view of the flight control tower is obstructed by the driving tower and the rear view of the driving tower is obstructed by the flight control tower
...
post carrier not hotel
You're a thicko.
Does this ship... run on Diesel? Look at that fucking smoke. They really still make non-nuclear ships of this size?
>tfw sold ours to argentina
Whatever, ramp or not ramp... The real point is to have a nuclear aircraft carrier.
Our entire 'army' cant afford a ramp, not even with 6 year of saving.
No ramp masterrace reporting in
At least he's made it way through to destination point.
You blew them all up lol
>submarine reactors that have to be overhauled every 10 minutes
>Diesel powered.
>Spends most of it's time being fixed.
Still, we're part of the club.
Pity the only planes it can launch are archaic.
What's wrong with the ramps?
P.S. I take it as my right to post in this thread because we are larping carrier action by performing cable landings at road bases.
For now. Sea Gripens are likely in the way.
But hey, Brazil has no enemies so we can use the money on our politicians instead.
Sigh.
Carrier with ramps cannot launch fully fueled, fully loaded aircraft. They are just too heavy to take off, so it's a compromise of range/fire power.
Those with catapults don't have this problem.
Don't tease Ivans. The smoke is intented to provide cover, like smoke grenades.
>joined Navy
>studying to be aviator
>carrier to be ready in 2019 according to them
Pls got at least once let me fly off it.
And only yanks can afford catapults?
>we are larping carrier action by performing cable landings at road bases
I wonder which country has enough carriers to go around that even finns could get a chance to land on one :^)
But they can you just need ok engines
B-but I poop from there senpai
americucks carriers are terrible
Apparently since ryssä and brits can only afford ramps
What about à catapult + à ramp ?
u wot
Flag?
The French use it as well.
Our carrier was bough from france, so it has it too! :^)
Does a helipad at sea count as an aircraft carrier?
No, I mean, why can't ramps have catapults built under them ? That way it's double efficient
A amphibious assault ship?
I think it depends, we have one but i don't think it counts since it can only land 4 helis on it.
You'd send your plane into orbit, and no one wants that.
Why, isnt the goal of aircarriers to launch planes very fast ?
Juncker, go to sleep please.
ich ficke deine mutter hurhensohn
>Russians Rolling Coal
If you don't have ramps you need to instal a catapult
We can run our gasoturbines with ok fuel but for what purpose? It will be just more expensive.
>Steam (or magnets for that matter) isnt practical on non-nuclear carriers
Hmmm that must be why conventional U.S.N carriers used steam catapults then.
The Ford class will have electromagnetic catapults.
...
We don't have a navy.
We don't have a military.
We don't have a state.
I heard we have a CV on most of our female population so fine.
Nicht, wenn du vorher hängst :^)
>Your engineers might not be retarded
Thing that matters most.
>Fission is for nerds
Fusion is for?