B-britan R-rules the waves

r-r--r-right lads?

Other urls found in this thread:

thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1307983.ece
i.imgur.com/awVKTLr.jpg
youtube.com/watch?v=HtbKSXoueks
youtube.com/watch?v=siwpn14IE7E
youtu.be/bGYs4KS_djg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

We will soon, once Europe wakes up.

my country tis of thee sweet land of liberty of thee i sing

hi colony

They rule the knife bins and TV licenses

We have two large aircraft carriers now.

I hope Britain gets some balls back and starts up some new colonies. Tells the U.S. to move over or fuck off.

We can join together as one and rule the seas in tandem. The eternal Anglo was made to rule the waves. China BTFO

One nuclear submarine and your precious carrier is dead in the water.

A pussy puddle navy is all you have Rory.

Stop acting like you have a chance against...... Anyone!

No

we will rule beneath the waves

thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1307983.ece

The sub did cras in to a trawler and is in dry dock.

...

>Ramp

Why didn't the UK just refit their old Invincible class carriers instead of scrapping them? They weren't that old, carriers usually have a much longer service life. Would've cost less I assume.

>one nuclear submarine

too bad you fucks don't have one of those, eh

R A M P
A
M
P

Carrier Groups would be as useless in a real shooting war as battleships turned out to be in WW2.

The only thing that matters in modern naval warfare is detection capability and how many guided missiles you can get airborne and how effective they are in getting past enemy defences and vice-versa- how sophisticated your own stealth / missile countermeasures are.

Many small and expendable stealth ships / subs would be preferable over a carrier which presents such a huge target and only needs a few good hits on / below the waterline to send it to the bottom.

>implying anything gets within 200 miles

i.imgur.com/awVKTLr.jpg

Put a MAGA hat on the big carrier

>you now vs us half a century ago

inb4 Il est seulement gouaille mon ami

We have no aircraft and the ones that are to be deployed cant carry enough bombs or fuel to be much use.

Still, we saved some money on the procurement so we can have more to give to immigrants and those living off welfare, so thats OK.

The new one looks sexy as fuck.

HMS Queen Elizabeth
70,000 tonnes of pure fucking win for the British.
Lets go back to the 1960's it's the year the labour government smashed the Royal Navy with the white paper, scrapping our next gen super carriers and instead we built the smaller invincible class.
Because of the defence cuts British Innovation had to get their engineering caps on once more and we invented the Harrier jump jet as well as the Ski ramp. This means we can add up carrier innovations as such
>The carrier - British Invention
>The angled flight deck - British Invention
>The steam catapult - British Invention
>The Standard Take off and vertical landing STOVL - British Invention
>The Ski ramp - British Invention
OK great, we're fucking awesome, but we're broke as fuck and the public doesn't support military spending.
Skip forward to present day and the new Queen Elizabeth carriers.
We have a huge naval personnel problem, not enough seamen, this means that if we want to run nuclear powered carriers we can only realistically operate one, which means like the french the thing will be over worked and have a huge downtime of 1-3 years mid life were we wont have a carrier.
Fuck that.
Ok so no nuclear option, well that saves money too so that's good.
Catapults? We could use steam ones for sure on conventional engines.
Let's talk next gen fighters, a carrier is only a good as her planes and our fleet of harriers were out of date as it was when retired so we need new ones.
F-35 5th generation stealth multirole Aircraft to centre stage.
You get three options A, B, C.
The RAF likes the A version, cheapest, largest fuel capacity, largest loadout capacity.
The Navy wants C, equipped for the stresses of carrier catapults and has a good fuel capacity and loadout.
F-35B, it has the smallest loadout, the smallest fuel capacity and is the more expensive of the three but the thing can fucking take off and land vertically. Marines cream over this shit.
(continued)

So, F-35b is what we went for. Why?
We use what is known as a tailored airgroup on the new carriers this means that a minimum of 12 planes will be embarked when she is fully commissioned the rest will be spread out between the RAF, the Army and for use in training. We're buying around 140 of them.
By using the same aircraft, which only the B can actually do, we save billions in planes, we solve the personnel problem, we save money on the carriers by not bothering with catapults and we still end up with a jet that is miles ahead of anything else in the mutirole in the air today by any nation (other than those that use F-22 raptors for Air Superiority and the F-35A or C).
Its worthwhile pointing out that the British will have a special place in the procurement of the F-35. We are the ONLY nation that will have full access, being able to reprogram and develop the fighters as we see fit, every other nation will have to resort to the US for software changes.

Lets talk automation? A US nimitz class Carrier has a crew compliment in the region of 2-3 thousand going up to 5000 with airwing embarked.
The Royal Navy can't afford these numbers, we just don't have the people. So we automate the shit out of the problem, we achieve something the Americans haven't managed to get working and who are incredibly interested in how QE gets the job done so they can steal the tech, make it better and use it in their new Ford Class.
What this means is that our carriers will have a crew complement of around 680 raising up to 1300 when the full airwing is embarked.

So we have two super carriers, only matched by the Americans Carriers and then only if we use American operational requirements.

When this thing launches the Royal Navy once again takes her rightful place at sea and for the first time we will be able to deploy a full Super Carrier Battle Group anywhere in the world and at short notice.

Semper Eadem ("Always the Same")

>a fucking ramp

No aircraft. The Harrier was too old. We bought all the wrong stuff now anyway. Close air support should be Tucanos (hundreds of them), carriers should be CATOBAR + better F35 not the shit one, and Eurofighter should have been a drove not a manned aircraft. Finally we should have some kind of bomber, which neither the F35 nor the Eurofighter is.

FUCKING

RAMP

Other nations small carriers like in italy are supposed to replace their Harriers with VTOL F-35 too. Is there something about the Invicibles that makes them unable to service those planes?

who needs the waves, when you have the vast surface of da moon!?

Gratz, while you dream about having one carrier strike group, we have 11 currently deployed.

The Royal Navy doesnt like using out of date equipment, the Invincible class "carriers" were over 30 years old and past their sell by date.
Illustrious was supposed to be in use until 2018 when Queen Elizabeth is commissioned but as the harriers were retired HMS Bulwark and Ocean are more than enough to carry our fleet of helicopters saving money to push forward on our new fleet of Frigates

>ramps

The whole point of a Carrier Battle Group is to defend the Carrier. The sheer amount of defensive capabilities of the Cruisers in the group plus the one sub means that nothing can get close enough to the Carrier to stop it from doing what it does. There is also a compliment of aircraft on the Carrier specifically designed to stop threats to the group.

>He thinks having 11 super carriers means having 11 carrier battlegroups at sea
wew lad

"My Jewish masters have bigger weapons than your Jewish masters" the thread

>Carriers

Meme tier ships, multiple instances of american carrier battle groups getting recked in training exercises against lone subs by Sweden or even France.

Yeah sure you can bomb some shitskin camp with impunity but don't say they rule the waves.

Does your country have any aircraft carriers lad?

For every 3 Nuclear carriers you build you get to have 1 at sea.
You need 11 to have three carrier battlegroups, oh and the USA navy is currently sitting at 10 Nimitz carriers, not 11.
This lead to what's called a carrier gap where there was a period of time where there was no Carrier group covering the middle east.
There is another carrier gap coming up soon for the pacific, later this year/early next year.
This is mainly due to the mid life refueling and refit taking around 3 years.

underrated

>carriers being relevant in 21th century warfare

Literally about to be outdated meme ships.

>British Navy
youtube.com/watch?v=HtbKSXoueks
>American Navy
youtube.com/watch?v=siwpn14IE7E

/thread

>a fucking RAMP

edit: typed this out before I realise it had been said 10 times already in the thread. But still, RAMP

>Yep, still A FUCKING RAMP

Funny how you did not respond to my bants

we arent the ones claiming to be rules of the sea mate

I don't the UK rules anything anymore to be honest. It's having massive internal struggles at the moment that will cause further problems.

Even we can sink your carriers. During this excercise HMS Gotland repeatedly "sank" the USS Ronald Reagan without being discovered. Pic related.

I'm not knocking the US Navy you fucktard. I'd world leading and admirable how much the American people are willing to spend to police the world.
Infact I urge you to support congressmen who are willing to spend more because as I said, having 10 carriers means there is gaps appearing in your defence.
It's one reason why having nations the US is allied with building super carriers, which is currently only India and the UK, is so important.
Meme's aside, the capabilities of the Queen Elizabeth class is astounding and she is more capable than any other ship other than the Ford/Nimitz. Including the French's Nuclear carrier, which itself is still an excellent platform (when it isn't breaking down from being over worked)

If you had any relations in the US Navy or any real knowledge on the subject you'd already know all this.

>RIP Intruder

I'm of the opinion that the 5 Eyes Anglospshere should join into a union, after we all get our immigration blunders sorted out. We could deport all non anglos, stop immigration from non-European countries and non-Anglo countries. All we would need would be freedom of movement from all 5 countries and lax immigration laws for people of European descent, despite the country.

Anglo countries have proven, by a large marigin, to be the best countries this planet has ever seen. This idea of diluting our populations with non-Anglos/non-European is nothing more than a failed experiment that only hinders progress we achieve.

Even if you care about lifting black and brown people out of the hole they perpetually dig themselves in, only allowing European and Anglo people to live in these countries would benefit them far greater. We could spend less money on trying to bring them up to our standards in our own countries and focus on helping them in their countries, which would benefit both. Anglo countries are by far the most philanthropic people on this earth, but that has been used to our detriment.

We could have the most powerful empire this world has ever seen. We could achieve never before seen standards of living and low crime areas for our people to come home to. The achievements we could make on our own would benefit the world ten times greater than what we're doing now.

Anglos wouldn't be labeled as American, Canadian, British, Australian, Kiwi. We would be Anglos. We would stop competiting against each other and start cooperating together, becoming one. There would be no country or union on earth who could come close to challenging our rule, even if the entire world banded against us. My only regret in this world is that we haven't realized this.

That carrier was designed for anti submarine patrols in the north Atlantic as part of NATO operations.
The new carries are much bigger.
They don't have nuclear power though because we're too poor.
Also we can't afford planes.

Daily reminder to avoid shitposting divide and conquer threads by agenda driven shills

>did not respond to my bants
Because your banter is stale.

That's the first time I posted in this thread Pierre, check my ID

Remind me how many aircraft carriers you have? Oh yeah, just the one, and it's about two thirds the size of each of the TWO that we will have in just a couple of years :)

When did I claim that mate?

Rule Britannia was written at a time when Britain DID rule the waves, which is how we built the world's largest ever empire. Did your country build the world's largest ever empire mate? :^)

...

...

youtu.be/bGYs4KS_djg

American education

Lads is the navy a good career choice?

Finances arn't as important as personell issues
see
As for planes we can afford them, we're buying around 140 F-35bs to start with and as I already said we're the only senior member that's buying, not even Israel gets this treatment

nah because we arent conquerors, we're survivors.
look at all the empires that fell while we are still here. yours is burning now man. we arent the prettiest flower in the garden, but we arent getting plucked out anytime soon

Yes! Right now there has never been a better time to join the Navy.
Massive amounts of funding, excellent career paths and if you train to be an engineer you can be paid to go through Uni while receiving a huge bursary.

Still a Fucking Ramp : not even half the operational capacity of the Charles de Gaulle

Fair enough I guess. Can the new carriers be outfitted with catapults at a later refit or is that too much work? IIRC they were originally designed with catapults in mind

You're making the mistake of writing constructive and knowledgeable posts in a thread of shitposters

how can europeans even compete with our big anglo ramps?

We rule at not sharting in marts so we have that going for us I guess.

You will be bored 99% of the time.

Lads literally go gay with boredom. Not even joking.......

Quality > Quantity

by not having them in the first place

>This thread
>Not posting this chart

>Literally diarrhoea
You have no idea what sortie ratio is.
You have no idea how the refueling and refitting process works and why it was such a bad idea building only one nuclear carrier.
You have no idea why ramps are a good idea.
2/10 for getting me to reply to your bollocks

BIG
BEADY
ANGLO
RAMPS

>71 nuke submarines

BROWN
MUSLIM
MAYOR
DICK

But we're still the world's 5th biggest economy mate, while you're... much lower.

But that graphic literally says they both carry 40 ships, can you not read Pierre?

...

Thanks for the answer, that's good to know

Slovenia
Literal third world shithole

They could do, but its unlikly to happen any time soon but since the operational life span is 50 years you never know.
The Queen Elizabeth class was built to achieve the new doctrine of maximising sortie ratio this means getting planes into the air, landed and up again as quickly as possible, rather than launching many planes quickly, which is what the Nimitz class was originally built for. The US new Ford class is also built for maximising sortie ratios.

Tbh it depends on if the Royal Navy gains more personnel and can actually afford having a fulltime airwing onboard, as right now pilots and planes are planned to be shared between the RAF and the Carriers in what is called a Tailored airgroup

But you are also being flooded by mussies.
We might not be the richest of the people, but god damn are fine with it if the alternative is what you're doing

''Great'' Britain
a soon to be a literal third world shithole

The list of countries who have said this before we sunk their navy is quite extensive and distinguished. We were blasting numerically superior navies out of the water when America was still swimming about in our loins.

I goddamn know that having only one nuclear carrier is a damn shame, that we french can only deploy it on short term mission with no rotation capabilities.

Ramp are a fucking flaw for ranged and long stamina mission.

For fuck sake, until you fucking brits decided you prefered to suck your master dick we would've built together with you our second nuclear carrier, and Britain with France would've rulled the wave.

So yeah, stick to your fucking ramp

Because they're dinky.

>water when America was still swimming about in our loins
like your tea in boston

Aside from everybody smelling bad and disease being rampant it would have been awesome to live during the age of sail.

alpha class carrier and cuck class carrier
guess who cuck class belongs to

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS

IF YOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIER HAS NOT GOT A RAMP ON ITS FLIGHT DECK IT HAS NO RIGHT TO BE CALLED AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER

RAMPS ARE PURE BEAUTY AND THEIR INCLUSION IS A TESTAMENT TO BRITISH MILITARY DESIGN

NO RAMPS NO LIFE

If you run a huge empire you have a few glitches; not that you ex-Ottoman rape victims would know anything about running an empire.

chart is inaccurate by the way, our carrier is far bigger than China's and Russia's

Its okay, we always have your back greatest ally

>If you run a huge empire you have a few glitches
thats whya we dont run empires, they all burn down with time

I'll try and make this as simple as possible
Flattop without ramp is bad - Very cheap
Flattop with ramp is good - Cheap
Flattop with catapults is best. - Very very expensive
Ramps allow for easier take offs, less fuel consumption, better loadouts, and taking off in rougher seas and higher winds.

Tbh ramps are a pretty good option if your using V/STOL or high TWR aircraft, cheaper and no worrying about catapult going kaput.

>two

>Carriers that require a ramp

That's also why I don't speak a word of Slovenian and yet everyone from everywhere, even some of the burgers, is fluent in English.

Can I save this image?