A FUCKING RAMP
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Britain, what the FUCK are you doing?
>>29725993
It actually makes sense for the F-35B.
The real question is why buy the F-35B instead of the F-35C?
The Royal Navey does not stop air operation in sea state three like the USN.
A ramp is needed to keep the harriers out of the wet stuff when the bow is dancing around in twenty foot waves.
Want to cunt up the American navy?
Attack during a storm. They are helpless because they are scared of waves and rain.
>>29726050
>implying we haven't mastered the art of weather manipulation.
Every carrier group has a meteorolomage deployed with them. They channel the power of HAARP.
>>29725993
Besides the dank maymay, is there actually any disadvantage to having a ramp?
>>29726050
>>29726075
Not when you have catapults.
>>29726075
No, I'm pissing in British cornflakes. It's just funny that their ships are so short that they need a ramp to use them.
test
>>29726043
Flexibility.
The Royal Navy and Royal Air force get to share a pool aircraft (usefulness of this was learnt during the Falklands) which allows for surge, reinforcing and flying off shitty land runways.
And saves massively on manpower and maintenance time.
They wanted a catapult but the ships were designed & started without em, plus these EMALS cats are fucking expensive
>>29726263
>They wanted a catapult but the ships
No, the Navy really wanted a STOVL carrier from the beginning, but then the government changed it 12 years into the project, causing a massive clusterfuck.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/10121092.pdf
>>29726075
Takeoffs per hour as fewer wth a ski jump, simply because the entire takeoff lane must be clear and there is only 1 of them. This also means aircraft can't be recovered at the same time a takeoff is happening, which further reduces flow.
Also the ramp reduces deck space, since nothing can be stored on it.
Also ski jump equipped carriers typically can't launch fully loaded aircraft, though that may change with the F35. For most countries this means putting up fewer planes per hour and those planes are equipped with less ordnance.
But then, does that really matter? You are either going to be going up against someone with 0 carriers, or someone with a likewise ski jump equipped carrier. In both cases there is no disadvantage. The only other option is the US, and it ain't like ski jump or not will matter there.
>>29726444
>Also the ramp reduces deck space, since nothing can be stored on it.
We can already discount the top deck for storage anyway, Royal Navy don't store aircraft above deck like the USN, hence why we see such a disparity between capacity of QE and Ford/Nimitz.
RN literally don't count the top deck.
>>29726444
Angled flight deck was a Brit/Australian invention.
Britain does not piss off as many people as the US, no need to posture and threaten people into selling oil by parking a huge carrier group off shore.
>>29726444
> This also means aircraft can't be recovered at the same time a takeoff is happening, which further reduces flow.
Not so with the QE. While rolling landings are the most common method to be used, if they need takeoffs to continue, the ship is large enough to accomodate vertical landings at the same time as takeoffs, using the starboard rear section.
The QE can put out about 200 sorties a day in surge conditions. While not as much as a Nimitz/Ford (260+) it's still a very respectable number and absolutely destroys any other carrier non-Nimitz/Ford around for sortie rate by comparison. Thats what they always aimed for.
For comparison, the Charles de Gaulle only manages 100 a day during surge conditions, with notably less effective combat jets too compared to a 5th generation F-35.
http://m.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equipements/batiments-de-combat/porte-avions/charles-de-gaulle-r-91
We won't even approach how the Russian or Chinese ones compare...CdG wrecks them completely, so the QE isn't even a fair comparison for them.
Thats why people are excited for the carrier. Ramp or no, it's a massive leap in naval aviation for the UK and stacks up damn well on a world stage. It's not for playing top trumps with their closest ally, and never was intended to be.
>>29726444
RN does not ramp aircraft on deck.
We keep them undercover because we are not scared to sail through a storm that would sweep the aircraft off the deck of a USN ship.
