Do two of these little cuck carriers compare to one bull Nimitz?
>>29270926
The new British carriers are shit, we know.
2 cuck carriers = 1 cuck carrier operational at any given time
1 bull nimitz = 1 bull carrier operational half the time
>>29270959
There's nothing truthful about that.
not sure why they spend billions on aircraft carriers when you could just slap a flight deck on a commercial ship for 500 million
and call it a day
>>29271409
>this idiot again
pic related
>>29271409
>not sure why they spend billions on aircraft carriers when you could just slap a flight deck on a commercial ship for 500 million
>and call it a day
It's odd that not a single country has ever done that though isn't it?
I'd say 2-3 Gerald R Ford class are equal to one Astute sub.
>>29271603
>It's odd that not a single country has ever done that though isn't it?
Are you stupid or just merely pretending to be stupid?
>>29271653
B A I T
>>29271603
>It's odd that not a single country has ever done that though isn't it?
>HMS Argus
>USS Langley
>>29271603
>>29271668
>>29271692
>picture of modern jet aircraft
>responses with WWII prop CVE and experimental 1920 carrier conversion
>and they actually think this relevant
congrats. you two fuckwits are the reason we can't have nice naval threads on /k/.
>>29271044
but we have 11 nimitz's
>>29271732
No, we have 10 plus the Enterprise, which is now held inactive in reserve until the Ford comes online. US Congressional rules stipulate that the USN keep 11 super carriers available for service.
>>29271732
The US budget is huge compared to that of a small Island nation, what other tidbits of wisdom do you have for us?
>>29271816
That anal play can be fun.
>>29271816
Pretending Britain can play World Police™ with 1 active carrier that maybe kinda sorta beats a carrier from fucking 1975 in a few very specific areas is a dumb stance to take whether or not the Brits actually believe it.
No seriously, good on them for putting forth the effort, but with the official stated goals of primarily being a kick in the arse for the Commonwealth economy they probably would have done better off buying the US's used Nimitz for a couple hundred million, then paying all the Scots to dump the rest of the money in pennies into the channel. Would've gotten the same results.
>>29271785
>US Congressional rules
It's called "law."
>>29271919
>1 active carrier that maybe kinda sorta beats a carrier from fucking 1975 in a few very specific areas
If you're saying that the QE isn't an improvement in every single way over the Invincible you are a fucking vegetable
>>29271923
Yes, yes, no need to be a twit. I was trying to underline that it was Federal, established by Congress as a minimal operational level (as opposed to SecNav, POTUS or the DoD) and is fluid (has changed several times since WWII).
>>29271919
What a dumb post.
>>29271723
>congrats. you two fuckwits are the reason we can't have nice naval threads on /k/.
There are commercial ships that are big enough to be converted for aircraft carrier, same shit as WWII era CVE's, just on bigger scale. Use ramp or add some extra diesel generators for EMALS.
Dont post in this troll thread please. This is the cancer killing /k/. Only the children will remain here to shit post.
>>29272055
By the time you make a flight deck that can take the heat of afterburners, add defense, radars, berthing, latrines and dining facilities for thousands, weapons storage, aircraft elevators, etc...you might as well started new.
Go away you fucking ant.
>>29271980
SecNav, POTUS, or the DoD are all federal offices.
>>29272131
Jesus Fucking Wept.
Congrats. You completely missed the fucking point.
>>29272164
I believe you need to up your effort in making your point. Or a 4th grade education.
>>29272184
Maybe you need to down ur effort in autism LMAO.
>>29272184
I can't help it if you cannot wrap your mind around the practical difference between legislated force/hardware levels (as political as it can get, and very often removed from operational/budgetary/strategic realities in either direction) and operationally/budgetary driven decisions like those which come out of the SecNav, POTUS or DoD offices with varying degrees of lesser nonsensical political influence and greater degrees of flexibility year to year.
Now kindly fuck off back to your boteslut containment thread.
>>29272184
>accuse someone of being uneducated and ignorant
>after missing the entire point
>get this >>29272265 reply
pic related is his face when he looks like a moron on the interwebs
fuckin kek
>>29272282
>not even worth a full size reaction image
>>29272100
>By the time you make a flight deck that can take the heat of afterburners, add defense, radars, berthing, latrines and dining facilities for thousands, weapons storage, aircraft elevators, etc...you might as well started new.
Impossible to do... just like during WWII. Reality is that only thing that has changed radically since WWII are size and power requirement due catapults, catapult part can be skipped with a fucking ramp at cost of aircraft payload. Converter commercial ship would be naturally inferior to a proper carrier and death trap like WWII era CVE's, but it would be way cheaper than proper carrier.
>Go away you fucking ant.
Fuck off yourself. You are the actual reason why we can't have nice naval threads here.
>>29271409
Fuck that, spend that money on FLYING CARRIERS
>>29270926
>bull Nimitz
Are you saying the Nimitz is a nigger?
>>29272340
>>29272100
>>29271603
>>29274658
Literally the example of why this is not combat viable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Atlantic_Conveyor
>She was hit on 25 May 1982 by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles, killing 12 sailors. Atlantic Conveyor sank whilst under tow on 28 May 1982.
>Both Exocets struck Atlantic Conveyor on the port quarter of the ship. There are conflicting accounts on whether the warheads exploded after penetrating the ship's hull,[5] or on impact.[6] Due to the presence of both fuel and ammunition that were stored belowdecks, the incendiary effect of the unburnt propellant from the missiles caused an uncontrollable fire. When the fire had burnt out, the ship was boarded but nothing was recovered.
>>29274658
Welp, time to add to the growing list of /k/ nutters. Cargo ship aircraft carrier man is now with the ranks of, gliderman, battleship man, antman, etc.
>>29274695
Admittedly I agree it's a bad idea for anything with any likelihood of receiving fire from an opposing force, it was used only as a cargo ship during a period of limited time and resources to ferry the Harriers to an actual aircraft carrier prior to entering combat.
There's also not enough room for the aircraft to do take-offs for actual combat and not just transport flights from cargo ship to airfield/carrier with limited weight and fuel. I just think that it's interesting that it's possible for jets to be taken off from cargo ships and has been done even if only for utility purposes.
>>29274993
>Admittedly I agree it's a bad idea for anything with any likelihood of receiving fire from an opposing force
You will note that the original proposer of this concept in this thread here >>29271409 said
>not sure why they spend billions on aircraft carriers when you could just
He's clearly referring to replacing actual front line fleet carriers with cargo ships. There is no situation in which this is a viable procurement strategy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain that this anon has made or posted in multiple threads to this effect, and refuses to acknowledge reality when the many, many issues with such a plan are pointed out to him.
>I just think that it's interesting that it's possible for jets to be taken off from cargo ships and has been done even if only for utility purposes.
It is an excellent improvisation strategy for the exigencies of wartime. In fact, the Atlantic was kept open in large part due to merchant ship based/converted CVEs, not to mention the not inconsiderable combat support they provided in the Pacific. They are, however, never replacements for front line combat carriers.
>>29270926
>two medium-capacity ramp carriers versus one high-capacity catapult carrier
Yes in some ways, no on some other ways. The ramp QEs come up short in aviation radius compared to catapult carriers. However two is better than one, especially if you need to cover many hundreds of miles of coastline. On a long-term basis, you need 3 units to maintain year-round capability.
>>29275097
I'm going to admit something Anon, I didn't actually read the contents of the conversation, I just clicked peoples posts on the general topic and posted images of something I thought was interesting call me a lazy shitter. The improvisation and conversion of merchant ships during periods of logistical constraint is intredasting, though I know little about it.
>>29275165
I think you may undersestimate the importance of having two for one when that's all you can build and operate. Having one up and ready at all times is, most military thinkers would agree, more operationally important than having a single more capable asset which is only up half the time. Establishing baseline capability on tap at all times is paramount. Then you look to improving your capability.
>>29274695
Same would happen with a missile hitting any fleet carrier.
Letting their carrier get hit by a missile is bad by the brits
But as well, if you were building carriers for a tenth of the cost by using "COTS" strategy, then potentially losing one to a lucky shot is no biggie.
>>29276594
>Same would happen with a missile hitting any fleet carrier.
No, it would not. See, carriers have things called munitions magazines and redundant, DC friendly fuel bunkers. Neither of which the Atlantic Conveyor had, and which directly contributed to her loss.
She basically burned to the fucking waterline, anon. WWII USN carriers took 4 or 5 bombs/torpedoes/kamikazes on SEVERAL occasions and were able to save the ship. Are you saying Nimitz class carriers have worse DC?
No, you're not. Because you don't even know what DC is.
>>29276594
>then potentially losing one to a lucky shot is no biggie.
>losing 1600 sailors (compliment of the QE for reference)
>because you couldn't be fucked to build a combat capable hull
>no biggie
just fuck off
>>29276708
let's not forget about the 3bn dollars worth of aircraft it was carrying, while we're at it.
>>29271816
Your argument is that they can't afford anything better because their economy is so small, and your argument is wrong. As a percentage of GDP, they budget half of what the US does on carriers.
Basically, they could have bought two carriers with capabilities similar to the Nimitz class, but they chose to spend the money elsewhere.
>>29276594
>>29276805
>Basically, they could have bought two carriers with capabilities similar to the Nimitz class,
not when you include manning, aircraft and weapons systems/munitions.
You're just looking at the line item for QE/PoW budget.
>>29276696
You go to a commercial ship builder, and have them include all those things in their design.
>>29276708
It's called cost efficiency
Waste less, have more.
Where are the armored ships to defend the carriers?
Second reminder this thread that >>29271424 pic related from that post is the kind of stupid you idiots are trying to educate/argue with. Just stop hitting the >>29276869 bait.
>>29276914
Just because the US doesn't have any commercial ship builders in the country, and so you don't comprehend how much cheaper things could be done, doesn't make it impossible.
>>29274489
>cuckoldry only involves niggers
The fetish didn't start in Burgerland friend.
>>29276862
Especially when you consider manning and hardware. The argument was that the UK is too poor to afford "proper" carriers, yet they spend half as much as a percentage of GDP on them. Bringing up the larger hardware and manning costs the US has to pay for each of their carriers only widens that disparity and proves the point.
Proportionally, they could afford two Nimitz, They choose to spend the money elsewhere and go for QE. Maybe they don't need the capability, whatever; just quashing the bullshit assertion that their GDP can't support better hardware.
>>29277074
And their carriers cost a fraction of the Fords, while taking a fifth or less of the crew, while having half the aircraft.
Gotta imagine that the Ford class is a massive shitshow of bad design.
>>29274489
Perhaps if you expanded your pornographic tastes, you'd realize there's more out there than just black bulls. Pretending you are the bull is a thing my cuck friend.
>>29276984
>Just because the US doesn't have any commercial ship builders in the country, and so you don't comprehend how much cheaper things could be done, doesn't make it impossible.
Oh. So you're not only retarded but also foreign. Good to know.
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7702:house-panel-told-us-commercial-shipyards-are-booming&Itemid=230
>"The state of the U.S. commercial shipyard industry is the strongest it has been in decades," Matthew Paxton, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA), today told the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
>In 2012, U.S. shipbuilders delivered 1,260 vessels worth more than $20 billion in revenue, according to a recent study conducted by the Maritime Administration.
>>29277084
Hence why I'm talking about "Nimitz" like capabilities and not Ford.
>>29277084
Less to do with bad design and more to do with totally different requirements.
>>29277103
http://www.industriall-union.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Kan-meeting-DenmarkSHIP/iamaw-usa.pdf
And the breakdown of those 1260 vessels shows 1000 are river barges
another 120 are tugs
only 2 being ocean going barge
only 11 being large deep draft vessel
Commercial ship building being only 20% of the industry in the US
So like I said, the US doesn't have commercial ship building.
>>29277084
>And their carriers cost a fraction of the Fords
40% of the cost per ship. 30,000 tons smaller, no nuke plant or catapults, not even arresting wires. Half the air wing size. Capability costs money.
>while taking a fifth or less of the crew
1,800 for QE, 4,297 for the Ford. Again, for 70% the size, no nuke plant to man and half the airwing size. That's about right.
>>29277137
That's their total berths, not necessarily their manning requirements
Lacking CATOBAR is of course a mistake, but I don't believe they had much experience with it, nor could they fit it into the design after they had started.
>>29277153
>That's their total berths, not necessarily their manning requirements
Manning requirements do not include the air wing, dipshit. Total berths is about the only way to get a good overall picture.
>>29277137
Just so that we're all aware, the 50+ number comes from the fact that the Royal Navy doesn't count the flight deck as storage space. So that number is what it is designed to fit below deck.
>>29276869
>You go to a commercial ship builder, and have them include all those things in their design.
And if this is so blindingly clear and effective why has NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD done it?
Oh. That's right. Because it's FUCKING RETARDED.
>>29276869
>You go to a commercial ship builder, and have them include all those things in their design.
So no military ship builders are also commercial shipbuilders? Anon, I have bad news...
>>29277174
Commercial ship builders need to deliver a product under budget, ahead of schedule, and working
Military ship builders do not, hence why military ship builders are completely incapable of competing in the commercial market despite being heavily subsidized.
Why is why the US doesn't do commercial ship building.
>>29277153
Fuck off.
You haven't read any of the NAO reports have you? CTOL would have been a major mistake.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carrier.full-report.pdf&q=national%20audit%20office%20carrier%20strike&ved=0ahUKEwi9rvuk8MTLAhUCvxQKHUPBASoQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNHTQ8lzw9Dsy3IgXTukD62OI-yxDw
>>29277190
Yea, it would have cost lots of money & time because they had no experience in it, and perhaps EMALS is still a technology in its infancy.
The vessel however would have been substantially more capable with EMALS, and buying all F-35C's would have saved more money in the long run than the catapults would cost.
>>29277189
>Commercial ship builders need to deliver a product under budget, ahead of schedule, and working
It's funny how people completely ignorant of how military procurement and shipbuilding in general know absolutely nothing, yet feel free to comment.
http://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/opinion-budget-pressure-prompted-success-virginia-class-submarine-program
>Let’s skip straight to the punch line: in December 2011, the Virginia- class USS Mississippi (SSN-782) was commissioned a year ahead of schedule and $60 million under budget. This was an impressive encore to the USS New Hampshire (SSN-778), which in 2008 came in eight months early and with $54 million left over. Prior to that, the USS New Mexico (SSN-779) was delivered four months early, having required a million fewer work hours than its predecessor, the USS North Carolina— you get the picture.
>>29277211
NAO begs to differ.
The price would have crippled the carrier program and left us with only one carrier.
Impressive
The Chinese should be laughing at how incompetent American shipbuilders are.
>>29277259
Very low quality post my friend.
>>29277239
Britain had already started building the carriers, it's very expensive to rip them apart & start changing things
The engine on the F-35B is twice the price of the F-35C
That'll add up when you buy 100+ of them.
>>29277274
>The engine on the F-35B is twice the price of the F-35C
>That'll add up when you buy 100+ of them.
The F-35C is more expensive than the F-35B in every single projection. At least try to know something, anon.
>>29277274
Yeah, I'm aware because I read the report.
And the cost of those F35B engines are literally nothing compared to the cost of going CTOL and you'll be aware of that too if you read the report.
>>29275165
>However two is better than one, especially if you need to cover many hundreds of miles of coastline
Why would you use aircraft carriers for coastal defense?
>>29277293
If they had planed to be CATOBAR from the beginning, then it would not have added extra time or cost.
Thats what makes it a mistake
>>29277310
Again, I disagree and so does the report.
Whilst certainly the CATOL price would not be so dramatic, the costs for configuring QE would be still there.
Manning would be still a key issue in the back of my mind.
>>29277288
That isn't true at all, though.
In full rate producion including the engines, old(er) estimates put the F-35B as more expensive.
>>29277338
Then you have a source, I'm sure.
>>29277348
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-28/pentagon-approves-lockheed-f-35-for-continued-development
"The Navy model’s target is $93.3 million. The latest comparable number is $210.6 million as negotiated in Lockheed Martin’s fourth production contract.
The Air Force’s version has a 2019 target cost goal of $83.4 million, down from $152.2 million.
The Marine Corps short-takeoff and vertical landing version’s 2019 target cost is $108.1 million, down from $172.4 million."
Those are very specific numbers to just "make up" if you were going to say that, as well
>>29271603
>having omega insignia
Literally lower than beta.
>>29277356
>Those are very specific numbers to just "make up" if you were going to say that, as well
I'm just wondering where Bloomberg (which has been cutting hatchet pieces on the F-35 for years now) got those numbers. Google returns nothing with "F-35C 93.3" except a forum post quoting that article.
>>29271409
>not sure why they spend billions on aircraft carriers when you could just slap a flight deck on a commercial ship for 500 million
>and call it a day
>>29272340
>Converter commercial ship would be naturally inferior to a proper carrier and death trap like WWII era CVE's, but it would be way cheaper than proper carrier.
So someone finally admits the real reason. Can we put this to bed until the next thread then?
>>29272055
Pic kinda related. No idea of the actual feasibility or operational practicality of the concept. Never read the book though. anyone did?
>>29277486
>No idea of the actual feasibility or operational practicality of the concept.
It's not. At all.
Can't even recover and launch at the same time, for one.
>>29271919
>No seriously, good on them for putting forth the effort, but with the official stated goals of primarily being a kick in the arse for the Commonwealth economy they probably would have done better off buying the US's used Nimitz for a couple hundred million, then paying all the Scots to dump the rest of the money in pennies into the channel. Would've gotten the same results.
>>29277074
>Proportionally, they could afford two Nimitz, They choose to spend the money elsewhere and go for QE. Maybe they don't need the capability, whatever; just quashing the bullshit assertion that their GDP can't support better hardware.
It's honestly hard to argue against posts this stupid.
But I'll just bring up 4 points.
The UK has no military port large enough to operate one - how much does it cost to build?
Nuclear decommissioning - does your cost of 'a couple of hundred million' (which you've pulled out of your ass by the way) cover this?
Would the US even sell a carrier - it's debatable if they have enough to cover their current needs.
The cost of an ageing platform. The first Nimitz is now over 40 years old. Does your cost include the extra maintenance of dealing with such an ageing and arguably obsolete vessel?
>>29277486
Add 2 more runways and you can make a union jack carrier.
>>29277486
Awful, truly awful.
>>29277522
Now that you point it i wonder how i didn't see it before. I guess it could but only one at a time, which makes for a awful lot of wasted surface. And once you start to think "mmmmmh, if the catapults were parallel, and the landing made in a less idiotic way... and the tower out of the way, why not on the side..." it starts to look a whole lot like and actual aircraft carrier
>>29277522
I don't see why not.
One airplane on one runway preparing to launch, another airplane landing on the other runway
>>29277486
Completely useless. You're not getting anything from the extra runway except added complexity. The pro of having more than one runway on an airbase is A) you can take of in different directions (useful in bad weather, close to populated places, plus you dont have to do a 180 which takes a bit of fuel), and you can vary what runway you use to minimize wear.
>>29277604
You could but what's the point of having two full runways then?
>>29277622
Literally doesn't cost you anything to just have extra space on the ship
Longer run way makes things easier & safer to operate anyways.
Maybe you should get your OCD under control, the only thing that matters is wasted MONEY not square feet of a flight deck.
But yes, it could also be optimized.
>>29277604
>I don't see why not.
Yellow shirt here. Anon's dead right. It'd be a fucking nightmare to run even one runway on recovery and one on shoots on that fucking deck.
No space to rearm or refuel unless you wanna use two elevators and half the hangar deck just for turnaround. No margin at all on trap ops - if a driver shits the bed, your whole deck goes up in flames after he plows into 4 or 5 parked aircraft.
It's a retarded design. It was clearly drawn up by someone who not only never served on a carrier, but never even bothered to do basic research on how a carrier flight deck works in various cycles.
These two cuck carriers can keep British shipbuilding in business better than buying a Nimitz could.
They're better than the invincibles so it's a step in the right direction.
>>29277631
>Literally doesn't cost you anything to just have extra space on the ship
You can literally only use one trap runway at a time. Why sink the extra cost in a second arrest system and have to deal with extremely stupidly situated elevators and only have two cats, neither of which you can use during recover? It's dumb.
>>29277638
Extend the sides of the carrier a bit, and it would leave you with room to park maybe 7-8 aircraft around the flight deck, while still operating both runways.
>>29277644
You need 2 cats anyways, Fords have 2 cats that can't be used while recovering.
I doubt the Navy would ever allow Escort carriers to be produced, they only made them in WW2 because they were ordered to.
Then promptly scrapped them asap.
>>29277681
Well apparently drawing above is about a pretty similar situation of container cargos nigger rigged into makeshift aircraft carriers
As said >>29277584 improving its operations would pretty much require to move the tower out of the way, and that requires an entirely new level of work. Within the context of the book there might be some "good enough, done quick enough" rationale behind the idea.
>>29277681
>Extend the sides of the carrier a bit, and it would leave you with room to park maybe 7-8 aircraft around the flight deck, while still operating both runways.
There's no reasoning with autism like this.
>You need 2 cats anyways, Fords have 2 cats that can't be used while recovering.
Yeah, but they've got two more well situated to shoot simultaneously in recovery, including great rearm/refuel aircraft flow. No one said it needed fewer cats. Just that putting one cat at the end of your recovery way and having that recovery way cross the ship so you can't utilize half your fucking deck space and still get the aircraft to your one remaining cat without two elevators is retarded. Not to mention the MASSIVE crash hazard to the ship when one of your recoveries invariably crashes into your grapes or ordies in the middle of ops.
It's fuckin dumb and you should feel stupid for continuing to argue it.
>>29277681
Why not just float out 200km2 of airport into the sea anon?
perfect!
>>29277712
floating airports are in fact a possibility
>>29276594
>Letting their carrier get hit by a missile is bad by the brits
It wasn't being used as a carrier you utter spastic
>>29271785
We do only have 10... Nimi? But the Enterprise is sadly no longer operational. They stripped out her reactors with no replacements a few years ago. The Navy lists her as 'inactive and unfit for service'.
>>29277983
>sadly
She was nicknamed the 'ghettoprise' for a reason.
>>29276994
I doubt anyone is aware of the Italian origins of the word anymore.
>>29276994
cuckoldry isn't even a fetish, it just means being cheated on
>>29278050
No, cuckoldry is a sexual kink where you get off on being cheated on.
>>29277681
>Escort carriers
Don't amphibious assault ships fill that role from time to time? They carry a handful of harriers alongside their helicopters.
>>29278427
Yes they are also why the f35b is being built.
>>29271044
You need 3 ships to have one active at all times.
One will be undergoing maintenance
One will be doing training for new crew and recerts for others
One will be on deployment
>>29274696
I'm guessing that the form up time with this would burn so much fuel that it was used for 2-ship scrambles and recon/small strike missions right?
>>29278851
They were used for transport, not flight operations.
>>29274181
oh god lol i remember that mission. taking out all of the fucking engines lol
cheap
commercially built
escort
carriers
The US should be buying from Korea to get the most bang for their buck
>>29279166
Do you have any proofs that this can be done? Like feasibility studies?
Mil-spec ship have higher tolerance,stronger hull and better build quality than commercial ship. The idea of using commercial,off the shelf ship for military purpose isn't new, but 3rd world country scum would use them, and even then it is due to abject poverty
There's a reason why countries like philippines and bangladesh (with sufficiently strong shipbuilding industry) bought their military ships overseas i steadmof building it themselves
>pic related: LPD based on ferry design
>>29271424
tl,dr but I do want modernized PT boats now
>>29279291
So?
That's a LPD, not a carrier.
Pretty much everyone has something commerial-based like that, even America.
What they don't have is bread and butter carriers.
Besides, they aren't always cheap or free from problems, take HMNZS Canterbury, was supposed to cost £60mn, but had to be refitted at an extra cost of £40mn because it wasn't seaworthy.
>>29279291
>>29279363
Ah, sorry, I thought you were pro-commerial carrier, my mistake.
>>29279363
San antonio-class LPD is fully mil spec, idiot
Also
>What they don't have is bread and butter carriers.
It's called military sealift command. And they are not belonged to the navy (the ships are chartered from shipping companies)
>>29279421
I wasn't talking about the San Antonio actually, you rude person - I was talking about the ESD / MLP class.
Irrespective of whatever mental hoops people want to go through, the ramp will severely limit its future capability.
The point of a carrier is to carry and launch aircraft. If your carrier is stuck with the ability to only launch a single type of fix wing aircraft, then its a massive limitation.
Between the time the HMS Queen Elizabeth was christened and right now, the US has announced the potentiality of acquiring and fielding two new jet sized drones on its CVNs that would significantly increase its capabilities.
And that's just for now. We don't know if there will be something else between now and the 2030s.
So because of the ramp, the RN cannot even consider these new capabilities if they wanted to make use of them.
Their only hope of adding non-F35 fix wing aircraft to the RN carriers will come when it is time for their midlife refit which is very far down the line.
And will the UK gov actually pay for the conversion, AND re-purchase of entire new CATOBAR capable air wings (AWACS, EW, F-35Cs, FAXX, Drones) ? It is an enormous purchase. I don't even want to calculate how much all of that would cost.
Or is it more likely that the carriers would keep the ramps/VTOL jets and go to their grave just as their recent predecessors in the RN did?
And after the retirement of these 2 carriers, will large carriers even be a thing?
All these questions could have been settled if the UK Gov had just not played politics and given the RN what they deserved. Instead, the RN will spend decades improvising and relying on famous British grit to get through any serious wars. Which is stupid and unnecessary.
>>29271409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Langley_%28CV-1%29
>>29279462
Also, I should say because of the ramp and lack of cats/arresting cables.
You could probably launch other fix wing aircraft from the QE right now, if you didn't care about retrieving them.
>>29279462
The Royal Navy got exactly what it ordered and that's a pair of STOVL carriers and it has its reasons for it. This carrier program never hoped or tried for equal capability with either the Ford or Nimitz.
But sure, kick the $34bn nation for not having the same capability as the $600bn budget nation.
The British Armed forces are investing UAV and have several already in service.
And If you can launch fixed wing drones from the back of DDs, you can sure as hell launch them with 280 meters of deck space. Something will pop along, I'm sure the USMC will be wanting or needing a fixed wing UAV and look who also needs one.
>>29278391
Good lord, but you are a dumb motherfucker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold
>The word "cuckold" derives from the cuckoo bird, alluding to its habit of laying its eggs in other birds' nests.[2][3] The association is common in medieval folklore, literature, and iconography.
>English usage first appears about 1250 in the satirical and polemical poem "The Owl and the Nightingale" (l. 1544). The term was clearly regarded as embarrassingly direct, as evident in John Lydgate's "Fall of Princes" (c. 1440). In the late 14th century, the term also appeared in Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Miller's Tale".[3] Shakespeare's poetry often referred to cuckolds, with several of his characters suspecting they had become one.[3]
>The female equivalent "cuckquean" first appears in English literature in 1562, adding a female suffix to the "cuck". One often overlooked subtlety of the word is that it implies that the husband is "deceived", that he is unaware of his wife's unfaithfulness and may not know until the arrival or growth of a child plainly not his (as with cuckoo birds).[3]
>In Western traditions, cuckolds have sometimes been described as "wearing the horns of a cuckold" or just "wearing the horns." This is an allusion to the mating habits of stags, who forfeit their mates when they are defeated by another male.[5]
The term has been in common usage for almost 800 years. Only in the last handful of years has it become common usage shorthand for a particular sexual fetish.
>>29278846
That's for nuke carriers, and it's more like two and a half. The QEs are conventionally powered and thus require less refit time.
>>29279421
>It's called military sealift command. And they are not belonged to the navy (the ships are chartered from shipping companies)
This is not accurate. The ships themselves are not commissioned warships, but they are a DoD department. The ships are all built to higher standards than commercial carriers: DC features, higher speed hull forms, better engines, custom UNREP equipment, etc. Pic related.
The military does contract commercial vessels for sealift, but that is a separate thing.
Pic related.
>>29280513
>tfw no sexually assertive cuckquean gf
>>29277522
No reason not to Go with 4 catapults 2 on each wing for staggered or semi Delayed launches. Easy to implement. Problem solved.
>>29283384
I love how you seem to think there is unlimited flight deck beam and off axis displacement for heavy equipment far from the keel line.
So aggressively ignorant. So aggressively unwilling to research the topic you are interested enough to comment on.
So apparently their LPH is being decommissioned and one of these are being modded for the Amphib role.
But it will be pretty rare that both are ready to sail at the same time, so you're basically going to have to choose between which capability you want to have.
Sounds like a fucking terrible idea.
>>29284562
The Iwo Jima class LPHs were the last ones in commission, and the last of those was decommissioned by 2002. It's been all Tarawa/America class LHAs and Wasp class LHDs since.
>>29271603
Japan did it back in WWII
>>29279363
I took a look round the HMNZS Canterbury when it was open to the public recently in Lyttelton. You could tell it was a militarised commercial ferry design but it is well set up for disaster relief, which it does a lot of every cyclone season. The crew seemed quite friendly & professional and were quite happy to answer questions.
A Mistral or Canberra class would be nice but we just don't have enough aircraft (sadly :( ) to warrant such an asset.
>>29284562
We have 2 other amphibious assault ships: Albion and Bulwark.
![les151[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tPkWCk0.jpg "les151[1].jpg")
>>29277606
Pilot here, you're right about the extra runway being useless on a carrier but wrong about the reasons. Airfields have runways in multiple directions to give pilots more options in changing wind conditions. Taking off and landing performance is increased with a headwind, and crosswind landings are a bitch (pic related). More runways means a better chance that one of them is pointed in a better direction and has a lower crosswind component.
But a carrier can just turn around and point its nose into the wind. Because the direction of the runway isn't static, there's no need for there there to be more than one pointing in different directions.
>>29287789
Well the runways on an aircraft carrier are just lines
Use one for landing, the other for taking off/storing planes on deck.
Or maybe a single runway layout would be more optimal
![Cvnanim[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/J5Edei5.gif "Cvnanim[1].gif")
>>29287877
Carriers do exactly that, it's called an angled flight deck. There's no need for such a large angle as that original image though.
>>29272100
>heat meme
holy shit will this ever die
>>29277523
>It's honestly hard to argue against posts this stupid.
I imagine it would be difficult to form arguments with a learning disability. All of your "points" were questions, most of which dripped with ignorance, and none of them are applicable to the second post you quoted. Nigger off jewbag.
>>29286645
1. They lost
2. We're not in WW2 anymore faggot. Tech has advanced.
>>29288039
Tech may have advanced, but that is no reason why one needs to buy super expensive amphibs or fleet carriers, as opposed to "Auxialiary" carriers based on commercial ship designs built in commercial shipyards
Enabling far greater quantities of carriers & carrier air wings fielded at lower costs.
>>29284562
>>29287744
>We have 2 other amphibious assault ships: Albion and Bulwark.
And another 3 in the RFA
>>29288053
There are plenty of reasons that have been listed throughout this thread you fucking illiterate pleb. And we'll be listing them all again the next time you post this crap in the next pointless thread.
>>29272055
Wouldnt it just be easier and more effective to modernize mueseum carriers?
>>29288083
All his points are right and you are stupid.
Anyone who advocates a carrier design for a country with totally different requirements has shit for brains.
