Explain yourself Britbongs
>Not wanting to get sick air
>>27840486
krk?
>>27840486
>kd<
What?
>cryptoslavs
>>27840509
No, you're a fucking kekold.
>>27840486
>kik
wait a minute that card....
It allows F-35B's to take off from shorter runway distances by launching aircraft into a positive climb ratio (as opposed to a negative climb, seen in videos when the launch then sink below the deck before climbing). It means that the stern of the carrier deck can carry out landing operations simultaneous to aircraft launching, as well as safer launching of aircraft.
>CURVED DECKS
>>27840486
It's a foil, it increases the stability of the carrier at high speeds.
American carriers don't possess one because they're slower.
>>27840590
>>27840605
you guys... Awesome.
>>27840486
For snowboard tricks.
>>27840590
>Those carriers from britland...they have curved decks! CURVED. DECKS.
>>27840486
It's a shoulder thing that goes up.
>>27840486
I know you're not allowed them in America, but it's basically a deck thing that goes up.
>>27840486
>Explain yourself Britbongs
>>27840486
How else are they supposed to get totally sick air?
>>27841046
The kekramp isn't the worst thing about it.
ITS NOT NUCLEAR
>>27841566
Hardly relevant when it can go to the Gulf and back four times is it
>>27841566
But is it wild?
>>27841062
well, that's centuries of inbreeding for you
>>27841613
Is it breaking up?
>>27840486
What's good enough for China and Russia is also good enough for us, damn Yanks.
You never heard about our new bro, did you?
>>27841861
I still can't believe we're letting them build a nuclear reactor. Normally I'm all for nuclear power but those assclowns can make anything explode.
>>27841890
Not a chinese design, they're just funding it IIRC.
>>27841890
Half of the technology is british, though. And Chinese civilian reactors so far proved to be quite safe tb'h, as they are all of the newer and safer designs, unlike the Fukushima or Chernobyl plants.
>>27841890
>chinese nuclear disaster kills millions, sterilizes millions more
>global population crisis averted
>>27840500
>>27841917
No, you don't understand anon.
They're building one in the UK.
>>27841946
It's better than all the useless wind turbines they are putting up on every mountain. Besides, the chinks can make decent stuff when they try.
>>27840512
>>27841861
kek.
though their ramp is wider and angled, allowing two birds taking off in short succession.
this isnt given with your britkek kek-ramp.
>>27841890
I thought that is was just Chinese money and the possibility of a Chinese design nuclear reactor later on.
>>27841946
>millions of brits killed, half of europe sterilized
same effect more or less, death to the white man desu senpai
>>27841962
Yeah the chinese are honestly outgrowing the cheap shit manufacturing phase. First it was Japan, and now Japan makes high quality stuff. Now all the cheap manufacturing is moving to south asia. I think it will eventually end up in Africa, and then the molepeople kingdom.
>>27840486
it stimulates the prostate
>>27841711
>Nuclear and breaking up
That would be the Charles DeDrydock.
>>27840486
They are just following the lead of their new Indian masters.
>>27841594
> ending sentences with "is it"
found the britbong
>>27841946
so it kills Muslims instead of chinks?
that's even better.
>>27840486
>Explain yourself Britbongs
No.
We dont have to to you, and we wont.
Deal with it.
>>27844538
damn. you can see how the deck is brown because of all the pooping
>>27840486
Their newest carrier was going to be CATOBAR, but their budget fucked them over.
>>27844873
they will steal Us marines F-35B this time
>>27844919
They've been using USN planes on and off since the 40s.
>>27844935
i dont mean use the same plane models. i mean actually stealing marine's planes after they land on british carriers
>>27844954
>land on british carrier
>"whew, good thing the brits were here or I would have had to bail out over the ocean! long live the queen, heh."
>approached by young men in plaid caps, smoking cigarettes
>"huh, british regs still allow smoking? weird"
>OI BRUV HAND OVVA DA PLANE FOR WE STICK YA CUNT
>I-w-what?
>OUR PLANE NOW BRUV IN THE DRINK WIV YA
>>27845887
>land on their ship
>let them valet park it for you
>never get ticket
>can't get plane back
those sneaky bastards
>>27845887
Are British ships crewed by Orks?
A few submersible carrier concepts I've seen have ramps, too.
>>27846298
No, but Orks are based off stereotypical British chavs / louts / soccer hooligans
>Plen goes vroom
>Not fas enuff
>Ramp
Is to make sick wheelies with plen on ship.
The introduction of the ramp has had several benefits.
Among them is the capability to launch with heavier play loads and with less fuel used than if the aircraft was launched vertically or from a cat.
Also. WINTER IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC. You want to launch in sixty five foot swells, you use a ramp.
The USN stops flight ops at forty foot swell because they shoot planes straight into the water.
>>27841658
what do you expect, all the good and capable lads went to die in useless wars
>>27841711
Inside, yes it is.
>>27846603
and they had all their beauties stolen by scandinavians for about 300 consecutive years. Not too beneficail for the gene pool.
>>27841969
>Non-V/STOL
>Ramp
U wat mate? Can they even take off with more than missile?
>>27846603
Don't worry, they are getting a new genetic stock of Middle Eastern men.
>>27841062
Thanks Jeremy Kyle, always getting the best parts of society showing how great they are.
>>27840486
Would you rather we cancelled them then, Amerikeks? Baring in mind all those carrier gaps you're expecting in the Gulf.
Cheap, manageable, does what it needs to do. Seeing as the USN is about to get absolutely fucked in terms of procurement (potentially dropping to 50 surface combatants by 2020 with no plan for replacement) there's actually a lot of interest in Washington in the QE concept, especially as two carriers plus all the trimmings, port facilities, etc were delivered for pretty cheap.
That half ramp is ugly desu, they should have done it like the russians.
>>27841030
Haven't been in power since 2010.
>>27847648
And yet managed to completely fuck shit up by increasing the bill for QE by £1 billion out of pure spite, meaning that CATOBAR couldn't be added.
>>27846364
Their mannerisms are based on cockneys, underclass people from the rest of the country don't speak like that.
>>27847671
Having both a STOVL and CATOBAR carrier would be full fucking retard
>Need to buy both F-35B and F-35C
>Double the training, operational costs, logistics and parts headache
>Pilots have to get certed for both aircraft or are anchored to one vessel
>Can't share F-35s between carrier
The only logical choice is to choose one or the other
>>27847717
By that anon meant both would converted to CATOBAR, not just the one.
>>27841029
>>27840590
>>27840605
>>27840528
>>27841040
>>27841566
REAL CARRIERS HAVE CURVES
>>27840486
QE is an excellent carrier, its not CATOBAR, but it still has a 300m take of run before hitting the ramp making it by far the best ski jump carrier.
Also using the long deck for rolling recovery basically does away with all the issues of recovering with fuel and weapons that the USMC has.
Also we've done just fine without ANY fixed wing carriers thanks to handy oversee's possessions like the one in my pic.
There are plenty more islands like that all around the world - Diego Garcia being one the US can relate to.
>>27847778
>300m take of run before hitting the ramp
>QE total length 280m
?
>>27847794
Close enough from the top of my head. It is still a very long takeoff run for a STOVL aircraft. You could get unladen typhoons taking off with the ski jump in that distance.
>>27847778
Improved that image.
>>27847410
>literally nothing in this post is true
Amazing
>>27840605
>he's honestly trying to favorably compare the QE with the Nimitz
>>27841594
It is when your ally's carriers have unlimited range and don't need to be refueled for 20 years at a time. You guys need to be able to keep up.
>>27847287
We'd rather you guys get your shit together and keep up with us in terms of tech and capability as best you can.
>>27847970
So by your logic USN carriers can't keep up because their escorts, which are conventionally powered, don't have unlimited range?
>>27847970
When your ally has an economy more then five times the size of yours it's not the easiest thing to keep up. (And the other ally only has one carrier, which can't be assured to be up when you need it)
>>27847956
I'm not sure why you are trying to work in absolutes.
Most situations the Nimitz will out strip the QE, some situations the QE will out strip the Nimitz. Give that both nations are allies does it not makes sense for us to pool as many capabilities as we can together?
>>27847905
Someone doesn't know how big a shit the USN is in. Right now the only thing they've got going on are new Arleigh Burkes, but the budget isn't around if the US Navy wants to keep the nuke carriers at full for more than 50 or so surface combatants especially as a lot of the older hulls are starting to approach the end of their lifespan and while the America class is a stopgap, it's an expensive one and not as good as the QE for being... well an aircraft carrier.
>>27847893
>would it kill you to spend over 9000 hours in ms paint?
FIXD
>>27848271
>Just within toss-bombing range of Basrah
>>27847410
>50 surface combatants
>by 2020
There are more Burkes than that alone. Do you expect half the USN to light itself on fire in the next 5 years?
>>27841566
>ITS NOT NUCLEAR
British do have nuclear submarines (lots of them) but don't believe in it for carriers... sorta makes sense to... nuclear makes sense on submarines because it gives them endurance, but the carrier has to move as part of a larger non-nuclear surface fleet with tankers anyway. Cheaper, less dangerous. Only downside is the turbines don't make steam so it would either need a seperate steam generator for cats and traps OR it would need the EM catapult under development. As it is doesn't matter as they plan to buy the STOVL version of the F35 like the USMC
>>27848302
The Brits are mostly interested in the North Atlantic Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap and the Mediterranean/Middle East. They don't have to worry so much about the vast pacific, as these days they have very few interests there.
>>27848375
I didn't even mention the Brits, I was saying the USN falling to 50 surface combatants was bullshit. Christ, stop being so defensive.
To add what this >>27848356 anon is say:
With having nuclear powered carriers comes all sorts of funny business with dealing with local ports and docks.
The QE is free to pick any port or dock provide that it can support its draft and can be made secure.
>>27848375
Answer the fucking question. I'm also interested how you managed to conclude that the USN will be reduced to 50 surface combatants in the next 5 years apart from just you pulling it from the depths of your halal semen filled ass.
STOP TAKING THE PISS YOU MUG
IT'S CURVED FOR A PERFECTLY GOOD REASON
OUR CATAPULTS AREN'T MAD SICK SO WE NEED DAT ANGLE OF ATTACK TO MAKE UP FOR LACK OF SPEED
FUCK OFF AMERICA GIB WAR BUCKS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
More to the point, why are ameritards so fucking concerned with what the RN are doing?
>mfw was super proud with the new aircraft carriers and then everyone laughed at them anyway
>>27848529
IMO, everyone laughs at everyone else's shit. Just the way it is. Everyone is too insecure about their own country's military.
>>27848529
You guys were so close and then you let Labor kek your shit up. The part where you almost let one of them get mothballed immediately after completion didn't help.
>>27848529
American here, you honestly should be.
You went from a few not great light carriers with harriers to two super carriers that take full advantage of F-35Bs and have sortie rates that rival our Nimitzs. It's huge step up for your navy.
>SDSR 2015 at the end of the month
>>27848553
>The part where you almost let one of them get mothballed immediately after completion didn't help.
i want to laugh at this, but my country's MoD wanted so sell a brand new ship and buy a smaller version instead before it was even finished
>>27840486
Who even cares, its only going to sail about for foreing relations purposes, unless any dirt poor shit holes near the coast get larey.
Actually, hopefull Falklands War II: The Quickening might kick off, that'd be good, nice to beat a conventional enemy in a straight up fight, even if it is poor bastard conscripts.
>>27840486
Apart from the ramp there's a much bigger problem with the QE carriers.
Their fixed wing complement consists solely of F-35s, which certainly can't carry harpoons internally. I'm not sure if they support the harpoon at all.
What exactly is the plan if a frigate flotilla shows up and points their missiles at you?
>>27848585
>sortie rates rival Nimitz
>Nimitz peacetime complement is 4 Fighter/Strike Fighter squadrons
>QE peacetime complement is 1 Strike Fighter squadron.
>>27848607
An irrelevant statistic.
Sortie generation is based on the efficiency of the vessels systems and its crew, the fact is that with a bunch of fancy new loading automation they come close to the sortie generation rate seen on our Nimitz.
>>27848591
The rumour mill has already started turning out stuff.
[austerity intensifies]
>>27848607
The UK (& USMC) have undertaken numerous surveys reference STOVL vs. CATOBAR. STOVL aircraft generate higher sortie rates, which means more airframes in the air on CAS/CAP missions at any one time.
>>27847671
>And yet managed to completely fuck shit up by increasing the bill for QE by £1 billion out of pure spite, meaning that CATOBAR couldn't be added.
You seem to be confusing the labour party with BAe. Have you considered taking some medication for that?
>>27841962
>wind turbines
>in Britain
>useless
Yeah, the weather here is calm about 80% of the time.
Oh wait, no its not, its shite, rainy and windy.
>>27848672
No he's right.
Just before the general election the labour government "renegotiated" the contract with BAE which the end result of that was the price increase.
>>27847715
>I have never met poor people in other parts of the UK
That's you.
>>27848494
There's no article that clear out and says it, but the problem is clear. The Ticonderaga class is going to be phased out and new Arleigh Burkes can will have about 40 or so hulls, but they'll be replacing 70 odd ships that will be phased out in the next ten to twenty years. However, the LCS programme has collapsed and most of the budget for ship acquisition will be going for the carriers currently under construction and replacing the Ohio class. There are no current programmes for a future Cruiser or Destroyer replacement and are not likely to materialise the beginning of the development cycle until the 2020s at the latest.
So unless there's serious action taken or some cheap hulls are bought to fill the gap, the US Navy will see a huge drop in surface combatants in the early 2020s and the only replacements will be a limited build of Arleigh Burkes.
We cool now
>>27848607
Britain's developing a new generation of ASMs to use with the F-35 such as the MBDA Spear 3 and Sea Spear.
>>27848730
There's nothing wrong with this.
>>27848706
I have. They don't speak like that.
>>27848657
HEAR ME FOR I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!
RAF GETS A FEW HITS BUT GETS P-8S FOR MMA AND RETAINS TRANCHE 1 TYPHOONS WHILE CUTTING TONKA NUMBERS.
ROYAL NAVY GETS THE 13 TYPE 26S BUT OCEAN WILL GO. THE RIVERS WILL ALL STAY.
BRITISH ARMY GETS SHAFTED: 20,000 CUT IN NUMBERS, MASSIVE AMALGAMATION, BONFIRE OF HEAVY ARMOUR AND CAP BADGES. AH-64E FOR THE ARMY AIR CORP.
>>27848698
It takes a lot of wind coming from a certain direction to turn the turbines. The ones where i live are barely ever turning and are often shut down completely because the wind is too fast.
Also they are inneficient and ugly as fuck.
>>27848736
>
>>27848768
This. Wind turbines are not effective in the UK and are currently costing money to NOT be operated due to the irregularity of the wind.
>>27848770
CROWSNEST offers decent enough AEW and retains persistence. In addition, AWACS and AEW can be provided by RAF assets in a pinch if the organic AEW isn't up to scratch. Plus the UK's current threats (Argentina is laughable but a good bench mark) are either easily outclassed by CROWSNEST or will be operating in conjunction with NATO (ie US Navy) in larger operations.
It would be a nice capability to have, but the QE class will have an AEW capability that is adequate for everything but a shooting war against the USN. Because the Russians ain't got shit, the Chinks aren't going to be shooting at British vessels unless they're also shooting at Americans and the Argentinian threat even with their 14 Kfirs they just bought from the Merchants can be dealt with by the Typhoons on the Falklands.
>>27848754
Not him but cockney is not the same as underclass talk.
>working class
>scum
>same thing
Pick one
>>27848716
Also, here's some articles that hint at the problem.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/22/the_us_navys_real_enemy_math__107790-4.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/navy-hidden-crisis-114943
>>27848786
That's what I thought I was saying.
Sorry, I'm tired from phys and work.
>>27848764
LITERALLY TRUE, ALL OF IT TRUE
MUH CYBER MUH RESERVES MUH BATCH TYPE 26
>>27848804
>>27848801
Ah not a problem.
>>27848785
>decent enough
Chinese and Russian approved complacency.
>>27848804
>MFW the last decent SDSR was in 1997...
>>27848785
>Because the Russians ain't got shit, the Chinks aren't
>implying the Russians and the Chinese are the only ones that use their own missiles
Syria right now has missiles that could disable a USN CVN if it got close enough without the eyes in the skies
>>27848819
>Russia and Chinese approved complacency.
Right now, just getting two huge new hulls that will last 50 years, plus the full 13 Type 26s will be a huge achievement and a boost for the Royal Navy no one would have seen happening. That alone will be enough to outclass anything the Russians can scrape together. A QE taskforce with some Type 26s and a Type 45 would be enough to eliminate nearly all of the Russian Navy, especially with MMA cover and submarine support. As for China, not really our concern and hasn't been since you forced us to abandon East of Suez. But we mostly outclass them too so we can rock up and help out if you like.
>>27846298
yes, fucking duh
>>27848819
If it is a case of China and Russia the UK won't be alone, that will be done with support assets from other NATO nations to fill in where capability is lacking.
>>27848838
And why would Syria fire on British ships, thus giving a clear invite for NATO to fuck their shit up? Why is Britain, who has not done independent naval offensive operations without having territory directly attacked since the 1960s suddenly be dicking around, on its own, with a carrier, going within range of known ASMs without support from NATO or other allies?
Stop living in fantasy fleet world and start looking at reality.
>>27846578
Good. Plane become submarine. Nobody look in the water for plans.
>>27848858
Sergei, u r genus.
>>27848854
>why would Syria fire on British ships
Same reason they were ready to attack the USN or same reason Libya, Iraq and Iran have attacked USN ships.
>>27848854
You are implying an unstable state with many extremist factions in a state of civil war is a rational actor.
>>27848264
>approaching end of their lifespans
>almost the entire fleet slated to remain in service until at least 2050
>>27848893
If a massive project of planned retirement and rebuilding is taken place, one that the budget is not stretching to cover and one that would have the USN with clapped out hulls and obsolescent systems.
The logistics involved just trying to keep 11 Ticonderoga class ships through to the late 2020s are immense, as is the Arleigh Burke situation. And a lot of that cash is currently already earmarked or spent.
Right now, there are plenty of worried Admirals in the US.
>>27848794
Nigga we have 62 Arleigh Burkes, 76 are planned.
The first one will be retired around 2023.
Come 2030 we will have 70 of them left.
That's forgetting carriers, LCS, submarines, and the few Ticonderogas left over.
The Navy with its fearmongering predictions states 180 active combat vessels come 2025.
>>27848716
>LCS program collapse, therefore they will be scuttling hundreds of non-littoral ships for literally no reason when the LCS would have entered service
>>27848845
This absolute delusion. I like it.
>>27848934
Prove it wrong. Better yet. Prove me that the Russian Navy would be in a position to engage the Royal Navy without NATO support. If you haven't noticed, the Russian Navy is tiny, scattered across the globe and lacks any sort of staying power in an engagement. So even if you want to play fantasy fleet and put them both together, the Royal Navy's current planned formation would be able to defeat the Russian Navy as it stands. And with the Russian economy in freefall, it's unlikely that their modernisation plans and building programme will come to anything.
So away from /k/ and in reality, Zambellas has pretty much secured the future of the Royal Navy as a somewhat credible force with enough hulls to make things work. Would more/fancier be nicer? Of course. But as it currently stands, no one was expecting this outcome five years ago.
>>27848917
>The U.S. Navy has identified a need for 313 combat ships, but under the current plans will only be able to afford 232 to 243.[70] In March 2014, the Navy is considering counting deployable ships such as minesweepers, patrol craft, and hospital ships in the "battle fleet" in order to reach a count of 291,[71] and also ships that have been put in "shrink wrap".[72]
They are worried, but this is no where near what you said.
We'll have 180 or so major naval ships in 2030. (40 Virg, 10 Ohio, 70 Arleigh, 10 carriers, 9 amphibs, 14 San antones, 5 Ticonderogas, and 25 LCS)
Not including patrol ships, mine ships, and intelligence ships.
>>27848974
Looking at the current issues and funding gap, I honestly doubt more than 50 Arleighs will be maintained. And I meant surface combatants, ie frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc.
>>27848854
>And why would Syria fire on British ships
Why would Iran forcibly kidnap RAN sailors ?
Why would Argentina invade the Falklands?
Why do countries do things?
>>27848510
Brits shit talk us constantly for no apparent reason. Apparently some us have taken to returning the favor.
Personally, I hope both groups meet their ends in unfortunate industrial accidents. Shitposting is shitposting, no matter what flag you're flying.
>>27844860
DESIGNATED SHITTING SHIPS
>>27848964
All I see is fewer destroyers, fewer frigates, fewer carriers, and fewer logistics ships than in 2000.
Russia's navy is tiny? They have more destroyers, many more frigates, and many many more attack submarines. They've completed 3 of their new submarines, 2 new nuclear submarines, 3 frigates, and 2 destroyers.
They have an aircraft carrier that is being modernized next year.
You think one Elizabeth class, 3 destroyers, and 4 frigates with a max 40 F-35B's is going to waltz up to the North Sea above Russia and survive?
You forgot about Russia's land forces, land based missiles, SONUS layer, and submarines.
-4% growth this year and -.5% next year and then a recovery is not a freefall mi amigo.
>>27848985
Ha.
There are no current funding issues that are going to make us retire the Burkes before their 40 year lifetime passes. Even the first one is scheduled to make it to 2023.
Too much sunk cost, and our economy is slowly growing.
Finally, if there are funding issues then why are they making a flight III?
What the Us navy is losing are a lot of subs and the Ticonderogas.
>>27848838
Those missiles can be hit by a Type 45 though.
>>27848964
>>27849036
Sounds like CMANO scenario time. Get to it boys
>>27846654
Without ramp they would not take off at all. With such runway length Su-33 could only achieve 140-180 km/h and its conventional take off speed is 240-280 km/h.
>>27849154
Will the scenario stand?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjNtB5g70ic&
>>27849036
Russia doesn't have a functional carrier, nor does it have aircraft that are effective launching from carriers.
>>27848264
>doubling down on the bullshit you made up
Nicely done. Commit to it!
>>27849176
Neither does the RN.
>>27849190
true
>>27849190
We have so many laying around we are going to use them to make a bridge.
>>27849036
>2 destroyers
Really? That's news to me. What class?
>>27848264
>The America Class is a stopgap
For what?
Ford replaces the Nimitz's
America class is doctrine shift,using a Marine EU as full fledged war-in-a-can unit
>>27849201
>RN
>>27849201
God I love my state
http://time.com/3819827/washington-bridge-aircraft-carriers/
>>27849202
"Started building"
I don't know why burgers are so fixated on the QE class. Sure it's no CATOBAR and we only have 2 of them and not even close to the USN, but it still put us way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of capability.
French
>one nuke carrier operational for about half of the year
Russia
>one jump carrier rusting away in dock
Inida
>one sitting in port serving as a shitting deck
China
>lol
Think Brazil had a shit one as well, may have missed some insignificant countries. Bottom line is 2 QE class will be more than enough to do what the RN needs to do, which is bomb up shitty ME shitholes and Argentina is they try any funny shit again.
>>27849297
>2 QE class in 2023 where one is on training/reserve duty and the other is fully active
>assuming no one else builds a few by 2023.
>India will have two in 2023
>China 3-4
>>27849297
I think people just dont' understand why the RN didn't go with catapults. The F-35B is a nice jet, but you really limit the carrier's flight group by not having a catapult as well as future jets.
>>27849369
Because it's a lot more expensive. We could have got 2 ski-jumps or 1 CATOBAR and we went with ski-jumps. Having one carrier operational at any time ensures our capability requirements are met.
Besides the F35B is nice and capable of what it needs to do. It should remain in service for the foreseeable future and who knows, maybe we will get submersible drone carriers next.
>>27849363
Britian has little interests in SCS, China's muscling there mean very little to us. (oh sorry I meant we strongly denounce their actions)
>>27849369
Costs mainly. 2008 added 2 billion to the costs through delays. CATOBAR (using EMALS) was decided in 2010, but u-turned because the conversions would be around £2 billion. That s what we get for trusting BAE to do a 'convertible design'.
Best we could hope for in that regard is a mid-life refit (Or the SDSR at the end of the month suddenly saying 'Fuck it, delay it a few more years, give us more dosh and put cats on it)
>>27849514
Cow tits > DFC
>>27848505
angle of attack more like anglo of attack
>>27849580
>this post
???
>>27841890
>explode
and this is a problem why?
>>27841062
Are you really suggesting that Jeremy Kyle is a wide and varied cross section of British society? It's daytime tv: made by idiots, with idiots, for idiots. It's the worst thing to happen to the telly since they started letting the Welsh read the news.
>>27845887
Nah, the yanks would go below decks to try and a McDonald's, and when they come back up their planes will be up on bricks with the windows smashed and expletives scratched in the paint.
>>27848764
STOP MAKING ME CRY!
>>27849297
It's more the fact that still no-one realises this is just a project to justify the outlay of the 70k ton dockyard and relearn the tricks of the trade.
Reminder to the Americans here, this ship is nearly double the tonnage of out last carrier, you can't go from single cell to dinosaur without amphibians 1st
>>27848764
Military budget is protected for next 5 years. It can now keep any savings from their budget (rather than giving back to tresuary ) so along with the economy doing well have a small increase in real terms. There are many rumours that the navy is actually going to get bigger by up to 2000 sailors (as will all three intelligence services). The RAF will have life extension for existing aircraft leading to real times increase in combat squadrons.
The Army will probably stay the same though reserves may shrink. David Cameron has invested much political capital in no more cuts too numbers.
The SNP have (rightly) going crazy about maritime patrol craft so that will probably happen too.
The world has gotten more dangerous the last few years and the government and more importantly the voters are waking up to the fact
>>27849922
damn redcoats are at it again
>>27840486
it's for making pirates walk the plank
>>27845887
>>27844538
DESIGNATED SHITTING CARRIER
>>27851857
DESIGNATED
BURNING
DOCK
>>27849273
Haven't you seen all the interest the USMC and US Navy have had in the QE class for providing cheap carrier operations? The fact is that we're facing a carrier gap and the idea is to use the Americas to try and plug it while they're not made for the role.
>>27850029
Like I've said before, Zambellas is not an idiot. He's got two great hulls and an revitalised ship building industry out of this. As long as he can get the funding, he's pretty much secured the future of the Royal Navy for the next 50 years.
>>27841861
enjoy your shitty nuclear power plant that will be basically made in china, i hope it does not fuck up, but if it does you guys were asking for it
>>27852620
never mind just seen your other post
>>27852247
Interoperability at this level is fantastic, all F-35B buying nations will be able to gain carrier op experience at a fraction of the normal cost.
>>27852247
lol wrong
The America class was originally designed toward aviation deployment specifically V-22s,AV-8s and F-35Bs
(but the 3rd ship of the class will swing back towards a larger well deck)
Its not a stop gap at all
Every Nimitz is getting a direct replacement
There is no carrier gap
You're talking out cho ass
Why don't they combine ramps and catapults?
>>27854775
>There is no carrier gap
Point me to the carrier currently deployed in the Persian Gulf.
You cant, because there are none there. There is a gap in deployment right this fucking second.
>>27854801
Because it would be stupid.
>>27854892
Why? The deck space needed for takeoff would be minuscule. You'd have so much room for activities.
>>27844538
Is that a designated shitting ramp I see?
>>27847956
>not recognizing the utter nonsense
What are you, a groundling ?
