Is the HMS Queen Elizabeth better than the Charles De Gaulle ?
>>30013067
An Iowa is better than that thing.
>>30013067
Nope. The De Gaulle is CATOBAR which makes it automatically better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mehij8v5HI
>>30013067
A FUCKING RAMP
>>30013097
serious answer plz, french/british competition is really important, especially when it comes to naval stuff.
>>30013067
I'll take the one that is operational.
>>30013123
The bongs could have had 62 Iowas for the price of both of those "carriers".
>>30013135
so neither, then.
>>30013067
r a m p
a
m
p
post real carriers only ITT
>>30013067
Easily.
It's 70,000+ tons, compared to 42,000.
It carries 36+ combat jets, compared to ~23.
Max load is 50+ aircraft of varying types, compared to ~40 (It could only hit 40 with the smaller Super Etendards that are now gone)
It has AESA and PESA radar, CdG only has mechanical.
It moves 5 knots faster.
It has an automated munitions system aboard, CdG does not.
It puts out 200 sorties a day at surge, compared to CdG's 100 at surge. Literally doubled.
it doesn't have to block its own runway to land if it needs to keep launches going. CdG, unlike a Nimitz, doesn't have the space for concurrent landing and launch even with catapults.
It launches 5th gens, as opposed to 4.5th gens, which have longer range despite not being catapulted, thanks to the F-35's internal storage and massive internal tanks, even on the B. Not to mention being superior in virtually every other way. This is a huge point, it launches better aircraft, carries more of them and launches more per day.
There are 2 of them, instead of 1. Meaning there is always one available, not just 60-70% of the year.
It has on board simulators, CdG does not.
Its deck operations are smoother, with a larger deck size and the ability to lift 4 aircraft at a time, not 2, to ease logistics.
CdG's only real advantage is that 2x E-2 Hawkeye > 4x Merlin Crowsnest, but that doesn't make up for everything else, especially as the QE can have up to 10x Merlin Crowsnest if it really wants to to make that advantage less so.
>>30013067
Memes aside, yes. Operational at sea grade 7, thats nuts.
>>30013097
>>30013112
>>30013119
>>30013137
>>30013147
>hey guise I said the /k/ meme xDDD am I not a newfag anymore? x3
fuck out of here summer fucks
>>30013237
man wtf
Why is this screencap blurry? This thread was only a few days ago.
>>30013137
>what is inflation
I see economics 101 escape you. You should probably stick to your nugget.
>>30013067
Well, given the frogs up until 2013, were planning on replacing Charles De Gaulle with a design based off the QE speaks volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2
>>30013296
Blurry? You been drinking? I wear glasses and it is clear to me.
>>30013339
Can't you see how pixelated the image is?
>>30013358
It was a straight capture using the windows tool.
>>30013339
>>30013358
>>30013381
Settle down, chaps. I've got you covered.
>>30013399
People shit on the ramp without knowing the other amazing stuff aboard.
>>30013413
What's even the benefits\drawbacks of having a ramp or CATOBAR?
I heard it's something to do with launching fixed wing non VTOL planes faster, or something? Any (non-biased meme sprouting) /k/ommando care to enlighten me?
>>30013436
ramp limits the type of planes a carrier can launch but is significantly cheaper
catobar is more expensive, but it can launch a wider selection of planes.
QE is basically limited to launching either harriers or F35.
>>30013436
CATOBARS can allow aircraft with higher payloads and range but are more expensive with lower sorties. The UK will be outmatching anyone but the USA who they will never be fighting anyway but they do not have the insane budget and manpower the US does. The UK has a lot of automation purely because the Royal Navy is already understaffed and were forced into it, not really such a bad thing since it is amazing technology. Too many are shitting on the RN rather than praising an ally that is trying to pull their weight rather than leeching like most NATO members.
>>30013436
Even the biggest carrier doesn't have a runway long enough to give modern fast jets room to build up speed for take-off. You can compensate for this either by using a ramp - giving the jet some extra height - or a catapult - givingf the jet a LOT of extra speed. Ramps are much cheaper and simpler than catapults because it's... well... a bit of metal on an incline rather than a whole machine installation. However, they limit the size and weight of aeroplanes that can launch from the carrier because the ramps are too small for very large units (e.g. some AWACs aeroplanes) and don't give enough of a boost to jets encumbered by very heavy bomb loads. Catapults in contrast have so much power behind them they can fling anything off, but they are not only much more expensive but also energy-intensive too so they only work if you have a very big power plant.
>>30013517
Because you don't need to reset ramps as you do catapults ramps also give you a faster sortie rate.
>>30013559
Depends on number of catapults.
1 catapult - Yeah, ramp can outdo it.
2 catapults - Ramp can match it.
4 catapults - Catapults are ahead.
QE and CdG have the same launch-rate. The reason QE's sorties are so much higher is due to much faster turn around due to deck space, automated munitions handling and larger elevators; more planes to take over; ability to land and takeoff simultaneously and faster landing processes.
>>30013488
>>30013491
>>30013517
Thanks, anons.
So it doesn't really matter if the QE's have Ramps or not, simply because they won't really operate anything other than F-35's. Unless a new VTOL aircraft is developed and is replaced. And it's highly unlikely that the RN will grab a set of Typhoons and\or Tornado's and convert them to maritime sea operations for the Fleet Air Arm, so there's not really a point to them having CATOBARs.
>Naval Eurofighter Typhoons and Tornado's
muh dick
>>30013559
Do they? How?
>>30013630
>So it doesn't really matter if the QE's have Ramps or not, simply because they won't really operate anything other than F-35's. Unless a new VTOL aircraft is developed and is replaced
The QE can be converted to catapults, it's been designed for the modification fairly easily.
>>30013674
current catapult use steam pressure to propel the plane. Those takes time to build back up.
not sure about the electro magnetic launcher.
>>30013214
All I want is please please for someone to develop a v-22 AWACS
>>30013250
PISSED RAMP SHITTER FOUND
>>30013741
He's right though.
Virtually no different from "f35 is lemon xD"
>>30013687
It's just that it's a super expensive job
The carriers are running on schedule and actually a bit under budget if my memory serves me correctly.
>>30013700
>not sure about the electro magnetic launcher.
The QE ramp has space for EMALS and the ramp is designed to be removed, they are waiting for the USA to iron out the bugs so they can buy it cheaper.
>>30013779
It's not as expensive as people make out. The only reason it was expensive to modify mid-build was because it woulda breached Labours dumb as fuck contract and resulted in billions of fines to BAE for breaking agreement.
Moral of the story - Never let Labour run ANY defence project. Ever.
>>30013880
Never forget or never forgive for CVA-01.
>>30013214
I really doubt QE can put out 200/day surge when Ford is estimated to be 160 surge.
>>30013953
>tfw we coulda had 62,000 ton catapult carriers decades ago were it not for Labour.
>>30014114
Ford is estimated at more like 270 surge, 160 is its NORMAL rate.
QE is more like 110/200.
>>30013067
The fuck, is England converting barges into military vessels now?
>>30013630
Well, if its a real war, they might want to house the Australian f-18's
CATOBAR would be useful for that.
>>30014149
>barges
Big barge.
>>30014123
RAF shares the blame as well.
>>30014198
H I G H T E S T
>>30014242
The RAF isn't to be blamed though, the navy was trying to rid them of their bomber fleet too.
Neither side was to be blamed. It was Labour that threw down too little money and said "fight over it."
We coulda had bombers AND carriers.
Can either the DeGaulle or the Queen Elizabeths launch and recover refueling aircraft?
>>30014198
It's still a sled-jump vtol shooter instead of a proper naval aviation carrier.
>>30014284
Better than anything their enemies have and they are US allies, maybe more should try pulling their weight.
>>30014272
Neither navy owns any.
However, both are interested in the V-22 perhaps for it.
>>30014284
>proper naval aviation carrier
What did he mean by this?
>>30014307
An upgrade to their last carrier too.
>>30014311
The United States Naval Armed Forces current carriers. Hell, even the Japs have something that looks more respectable than that limey cargo barge.
End of the day, it's a big damn carrier, will be very potent.
And I don't see anyone fucking else in NATO building carriers besides us.
Bongs, ya done good over there this time.
>>30013764
God damnit anon... You're right.
I just like giving the brits shit.
>>30014327
Real ironic as the Izumo-class and Hyūga-class is what the older British carriers use to do, minus local air cover.
>>30013214
Christ an actual answer
>>30014284
>Outperforms every single carrier aside from the US' on the face of the earth
>Not a real carrier
>>30014327
>Japan's neutered LHD is better than a supercarrier
Is this the power of american education?
>>30013630
itll be good enough for combat drones im guessing
>>30014150
>Which have no arresting gear and the pilots have never trained on
>>30014284
>It's just a carrier rather than a carrier
Jesus Christ why is this not dead yet
>>30014311
>>30014272
>>30014309
Rafales can buddy-buddy refuel each other
>>30016110
Also the australian f18s aren't navalized
>>30015503
He is talking about a ship that isn't built yet, featuring jets that aren't finished yet. It isn't an answer, it is a straight up lie made up by either him or som sorry O-2 POG in the Royal Navy.
It is completely oblivious to the fact that one of them is CATOBAR and the other one has to use F-35Bs instead of F-35Cs of Rafale Ms. Can't operate Greyhounds either. The radar bit ain't that important since the freaking carrier is surrounded by about a fleet of AESA radar equipped frigates in both cases. I am not going to waste much time on the shit he wrote, this should be enough to indicate he is a fucking chav.
>>30018052
you're fucking retarded, are you seriously implying that we dont know the deck and hanger capacity of the QE?
>>30013067
Is it better than one of our LHA's?
>>30018052
>Its air wing it is a straight up lie
>Its radar array is a straight up lie
>Its HMWHS is a straight up lie
>Its sortie rate is a straight up lie
>Its launch operations is a straight up lie
>The number of them built is a straight up lie
>All of these proven factors are lies
Careful, you're looking a little desperate.
>>30018186
>proven factors
>from a ship that isn't in service yet
>>30013067
Is the QE class better than the incoming new Chinese aircraft carrier?
>>30018320
>If it's not in service it doesn't exist and is just a lie
Shit... what an eye opener...
I guess the Gerald R Ford doesn't exist. EMALS? Impossible bullshit.
That Zumwalt too, I have never seen it with my own eyes, it's probably fake.
Man the rabbit hole goes even deeper if we go to aircraft...
The F-35C isn't in service, who says it ever existed at all? Stealth? It's probably just a lie.
tl;dr you're a fucking idiot.
>>30018352
>>30018352
>I guess the Gerald R Ford doesn't exist. EMALS?
They've got a working model, and it's the tests are going to plan.
>>30018352
>Zumwalt too, I have never seen it with my own eyes,
Stop strawmanning
>>30018352
>F-35C isn't in service, who says it ever existed at all
F35 exists, tests show it's already leagues ahead than the f18's it's replacing.
Fact of the matter things like sortie rate can't be predicted until it's tested. Too many factors come into play.
tl;dr You're the result of inbreeding
>>30018362
> tests are going to plan.
It's not in service. You have no idea whether it actually works.
>Zumwalt
Again, it's not in service. The 155mm AGS, the ablative stealth, the MK automation. It's all unproven lies until its in service.
Fact of the matter things like stealth can't be predicted until it's tested. Too many factors come into play. Azimuth, POP interference, installation height, radar strength, altitude. It's all unproven lies.
Stealth is a lie.
tl;dr You're the result of being 29th in education rate
>>30014321
Jesus /k/ube it looks like a big blue pancake
>>30018052
> and the other one has to use F-35Bs instead of Rafale-Ms
Given F-35 shits all over Rafale, sounds good to me.
>Can't operate Greyhounds either.
Kindly point me to the greyhounds that France operates. Oh wait, they don't have any. In fact CdG has even worse cargo ability than QE, because QE can operate Chinooks, but CdG can only operate smaller helos because thats all France has helo wise.
>The radar bit ain't that important since the freaking carrier is surrounded by about a fleet of AESA radar equipped frigates in both cases
France does not own a single AESA equipped escort in their entire fleet. It's all PESA. Herakles and Horizon's EMPAR are both PESA. Only the Italian FREMM's have the AESA version of EMPAR.
>I am not going to waste much time on the shit he wrot
Nice way to say "I have no answers to the posted facts so I'll try to dismiss them"
Given you make factual errors in your own post on at least two major accounts about believing France has Greyhounds and naval AESAs on their ships, I think we can safely toss your post in the garbage.
ITT: Reeeeeeee it's not American! Reeeee Reeee! It's shit because it's not American!! Reeeeeeeeeeee Reeeeeeeeee!
As one anon said, at least bongs are building carriers unlike the rest of nato who just want the US to do everything
>>30013067
Chars De Gaulle is operational
>>30013298
If you'll count inflation in single Nimitz class CV costs as much as 10 Iowa class battleships, with all modernisation costs included.
>>30014123
>we could've had 62,000 tons of junk but the programme was cut to pieces.
For defensive conflicts "supercarriers" are useless pieces of shit. Britain doesn't need one, they need few lighter carriers(CdG size at most) and numerous light vessels like destroyers, corvettes and rocket cruisers. It would be better for both the UK and NATO as a whole, but nah, you have to flex muscles and build useless wrecks to show how great you are, and then never use them.
>>30018352
>That Zumwalt too, I have never seen it with my own eyes, it's probably fake.
It's real, and that's the worst thing about Zumwalt. They weren't joking, they really wasted their money on this shit.
>>30013112
I came here to post this.
>>30018632
v-22 awacs and the QE is suddenly unarguably superior
until then its arguable eitherway thanks to frenchies having awacs
>>30018589
Except when its in a dry dock.
>>30018620
There's nothing truthful about this post.
>>30013067
Charles de Gaulle it's a 1990 design.
Queen Elizabeth class is 25 years younger.
>>30018836
And still somehow managed to have a deck layout worse than CdG
>>30018846
Explain
>>30018645
Yeah but what use is carrier-based AEW over your drydock?
>>30018857
I think people push the CdG unavailability line too hard.
Besides, why is everyone making it out that QEs have no AEW? They'll have access to a pool of 30 rotary wing AEWs vs CdG pool of *3* fixed wing AEWs.
CdG is a great cautionary tale about national dickwaving
the french wanted to be in america's nuclear cool kids club but they fucked it up and put 2 tiny 150 MWt reactors on a carrier so it has all the disadvantages of nuclear propulsion(cost, shit availability, yard queen etc) and none of the benefits(speed basically is the only benefit a carrier gets from being a nuc boat)
>>30018885
Its slight hyperbole to really bring home what a shitty decision it was to make one nuclear carrier with sub reactors to boot.
>>30018905
>shit availability, yard queen
Wewlad.
Might want to look up refit schedules for US carriers.
Just because the CDG exibits these symptoms of poor design does not mean its inherent in nuclear propulsion.
>>30018926
G H E T T O P R I S E
>>30013214
You're missing a critical fault: The QE lacks nuclear propulsion.
>>30018958
This is a problem, how?
Given she's going nowhere without her escorts or support ships.
>>30013214
Thanks man
>>30018589
running on 1,5 submarine reactor while the whole French fleet is cannibalized just to keep ze pride of France afloat
>>30018958
Considering that CdG is underpowered even with one (took almost 7 years to be commisioned) and all brits' previous aircraft carriers were conventional ones (and they didn't have any major problem with it), I don't think having nuclear propulsion is really that advantageous, especially given its AoR which is significantly smaller than Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
>>30018926
The problem with the CdG is probably more that its high costs in a context of budget cuts on defence mean that the rest of the French fleet, especially the frigates/surface fleet, gets left behind
>>30018990
nuke propulsion is overrated
>>30018942
>compareing a one off design, single ship class, to the fleet.
Wewlad, i think you can throw that in the actual definition of strawman.
>>30018994
Well if your poor, yes, nuclear propulsion is not for you.
>>30019046
No, there are significant strategic advantages, you just have to have the knowhow and ability to use it.
>>30018905
>speed basically is the only benefit a carrier gets from being a nuc boat
>nuc carriers are not any faster than ww2 carriers
>>30018958
Not too much of a problem
Brits have this thing called the Auxiliary Fleet or something. It's basically a bunch of refuelling and replenishing ships which are part but not quite part of the navy. They also have all of those islands across the world
Something that people have pointed out before is that not all docks are equiped to take in nuclear carriers and not all docks want to, but with a conventional ship, they can just go to any dock big enough to replenish
>>30019068
>there are significant strategic advantages, you just have to have the knowhow and ability to use it.
There are no strategic advantages to nuclear propulsion on surface vessels. Marine turbines produce more than enough power to meet all the requirements of large warships.
Large carriers need resupplied multiple times a week with food, munitions and aviation fuel. so you aren't avoiding the logistics of fuel - especially when all your escorts need the same fuel.
Nuclear propulsion adds a huge amount of weight, makes the ship more vulnerable to power loss in combat and is a nightmare for damage control.
It was a good option in the cold war because marine turbines and all electric propulsion had not developed to the level we see today.
Regarding QE's speed - the only official speed we have today is the minimum design spec of 25+ kts (below this the manufacturer is penalized for failing to meet a requirement) Untill she goes on sea trials we have no idea what the maximum speed will be, however BAE seem to be fairly confident that it will comfortably be in the 30's.
QE can go anywhere in the world and have 24 hour F35 coverage, with an alpha strike capability that is unmatched outside of the US.
It is a huge leap forward in technology, both for the RN and for carriers as a whole.
but Americans - who usually complain about Europe not pulling their weight - are suddenly upset that the UK is building these ships.
>>30019068
>Wewlad, i think you can throw that in the actual definition of strawman.
Was making a humorous remark rather than an actual point.
>Well if your poor, yes, nuclear propulsion is not for you.
Saying not having nuclear propulsion makes you poor is misleading, it is like telling someone not buying a $1500 AR makes them a poorfag.
The British budget is much bigger than the French.
>>30019097
its also the fact that to make the carriers' home base equipped for servicing nuclear vessels was estimated to cost something in the region of 2 billion pounds. For two carrier, with a 30+ year service life, and no other vessels, this simply was not economically viable - it would've meant cancellation of one vessel, and it would've cost more that conventional propulsion fuel costs.
the sole reason to select nuclear would be to silence the tantrums of american armchair admirals, obsessing over every detail of the QE class designs.
Strangely enough, their opinion is rather low down the order, somewhere below stowaway rats in the Navy's list of people of importance.
>>30019302
That wasn't also considering the manpower and training.
Would have been an utter nightmare.
>>30019302
>For two carrier, with a 30+ year service life
50 years.
>>30019375
>tfw you'll be dead before QE gets decommissioned
>>30019430
The final captains have not been born yet.
>>30019448
It is a very strange thought.
Still, this ship will always be mentally associated with 4chan to me.
Every time I see the >ramp I'll think of 4chan.
>>30018589
And it's about to disappear for 2 years because it needs refuelled and there's no second carrier to cover for it.
>>30018645
It's not even vaguely arguable. One single area where they are better doesn't mean that them being completely outclassed in EVERY SINGLE OTHER respect is suddenly ignored.
>>30018846
>I'm going to make something up and then offer no facts because it's blatantly untrue!
>>30018885
Exactly, people keep missing this huge point. If QE isn't available, then the Royal Navy still has AEW because they can launch from anything. If CdG isn't available then the French Navy is FUCKED for AEW.
It's no problem for America because they have 10 of the damn things, but the French rely on a single ship for it in their entire fleet.
>>30018958
Range isn't an issue for it, plus the RFA.
QE is faster.
MT30 powerplants offer enough power for EMALS anyway. This is the same powerplant the US is intending for railguns, lasers and shit from Rolls-Royce. It's enormously powerful.
Literally no problem for them.
>>30019159
The Assembly Director is also on video saying 32 knots.
>>30019159
>There are no strategic advantages to nuclear propulsion on surface vessels. Marine turbines produce more than enough power to meet all the requirements of large warships.
This is simply false. FAR less fuel needed for ops overall than conventional designs, much more power to the screws, much faster overall travel speed due to consistent power at levels. Its no more vulnerable to damage control than other designs (actual reactor is about the size of a engine class of compareable tonnage), steam produced is non radioactive.
For example, over its 6 engines the QE has about 58 MWs of power.
The two A1Bs on the ford? Over 300 MWs.
Un-fucking-compareable. One A1B reactor has more than 3x the power of all 6 QE engines.
>>30019619
On 2nd look i fugged my math (actually misread figures).
Overall QE does about 110MW~ over its 6 engines (2x turbines at 36MW each and 4x diesel at about 10MW each give or take).
The ford has 300MW per reactor though (i miss read that too) for a total of 600MW.
>>30013880
Some Labour supporters working on the project were sacked a few months ago because they started quoting contract laws to the bosses after refusing to to make a simple alteration to a steel beam that would no fit into it's struts.
I HATE unions and I hate lefties that work as a part of a fucking union.
>>30019619
>>30019659
Of course they use less fuel... what sort of dumb point is that when nuclear ships don't use fuel ?
The real question is if those tanks of diesel cost more than designing, building operating and refuelling nuclear reactors.The RN did the sums and decided it was cheaper to go with conventional power.
Quoting the maximum power output of the reactors is meaningless, the fact that you would even do it shows a lot about your knowledge of the subject.
The reactors will never be run at full power outside of tests. the vast majority of that power has no use. The reactors will run at a low percentage of their total output for their entire life, meaning that they wont need to be refuelled.
You'll never find an official figure, but QE was designed to have a large amount of excess power in order to incorporate future technology - such as EMALS. It will never find itself in a situation where it is restricted by avalible power.
Some food for thought, the biggest consumers of power at sea - cruise liners - use conventional power.Part of that is due to public perception of nuclear and port availability. But they have no issues with meeting their power demand. In commercial ships where nuclear has been tried it has always been found to be too expensive over the life of the ship.
Nuclear surface ships are a hang over from the cold war that for some obscure reason are seen as an essential feature by some.
>>30019430
I might be dead before POW gets commissioned because /k/ gave me cancer.
>>30020084
Nuclear surface ships make sense in a scenario where fossil fuels are scarce.
>>30019619
>Its no more vulnerable to damage control than other designs (actual reactor is about the size of a engine class of compareable tonnage), steam produced is non radioactive.
oh and I forgot
The issue is that during combat conditions (as in taking hits) reactors will automatically SCRAM and need to be brought back online. This has been seen multiple times in submarine collisions at sea.
I know the steam inst radioactive (it only takes a single hit to change that though), but the issue comes in protecting the reactor and all of its supporting systems.
The threshold for abandoning ship is completely different if you have to worry about keeping your rector cool and preventing radiation escaping.
>>30019302
Could't the just service those in the same place they service their nuke subs?
>>30020244
Faslane and Barrow-in-Furness are not deep enough and don't have the supporting infrastructure for large vessels like carriers.
There is no point moving the home of the royal navy away from pompey
>>30020282
Can you imagine the political outcry?
Heads would roll if anyone got whiff of the idea to move the surface fleet to Scotland.
>>30020309
Scotland was base for the Home Fleet for decades.
>>30020084
unbeatable super sanic speeds are the minor advantage nuclear gives surface vessels
not worth Britain wasting money on it but if you have the means, the infrastructure, the crews and the experience already in place *cough* USN *cough* then it is worth it for the sick cunt 34kn+ hooning with the hammer down
>>30020177
>The issue is that during combat conditions (as in taking hits) reactors will automatically SCRAM and need to be brought back online.
the reactor will only automatically slam its rods down if there is a problem with the reactor and since the Thresher got threshed there as been a procedure in place for bringing naval reactors to criticality quickly
>if you have to worry about keeping your rector cool
my college had the same problem in the summer
poor man
>>30020364
I'm talking about now.
Not then.
>>30020364
scapa flow was the base for the home fleet in an era where Portsmouth and Southampton were too congested (and too close to the enemy).
The same can't really be said today.
>>30013067
The biggest problem the QE has is that right now it is dependent on the F-35B which might not even be a viable aircraft for combat.
>>30020388
>>30020395
There was no shitstorm then and there's no reason to expect a shitstorm now.
>>30020404
Yeah, because people didn't have a fit when Scotland got the build contracts and pompy didn't.
>>30020404
because there were 200+ ships not 20
>>30020382
Debatable.
If you want to floor it in your carrier you're just going to be leaving all your escorts behind.
>>30019430
wait, what?
>>30020465
>You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18
>>30020465
anon age + 50 = ded
>>30020084
>The real question is if those tanks of diesel cost more than designing, building operating and refuelling nuclear reactors.The RN did the sums and decided it was cheaper to go with conventional power.
Of course its cheaper to go with conventional at current prices. Cost is not the issue here, superiority is the issue here.
>Quoting the maximum power output of the reactors is meaningless, the fact that you would even do it shows a lot about your knowledge of the subject.
le fucking l. Is the QE redlineing its desel engines? If so, quoteing its max power is meaningless as well. As it stands the twin A1Bs has 6 times the power of the total max power of the QEs six engines.
Even if the A1Bs will be running at 16% power its ENTIRE life (it wont) its genorating more power than the theoretical max of the QE.
>You'll never find an official figure, but QE was designed to have a large amount of excess power in order to incorporate future technology - such as EMALS.
You will find an official figure for the ford. Currently, it uses only half of its genorated power on current systems, INCLUDEING emals.
This leaves wide, wide growth for energy expensive tasks like lasers, rail guns, dynaimic armor, better radar into 90 years into the future. The Ford is much better future proofed, power wise, than the QE.
>Some food for thought, the biggest consumers of power at sea - cruise liners
Kill yourself, the newest cruise ship, harmony of the seas, only produces 60~ MWs of power.
>it has always been found to be too expensive over the life of the ship.
For commerical applications? Sure. Its not about whats more affordable, its what is best.
>>30020177
>The issue is that during combat conditions (as in taking hits) reactors will automatically SCRAM and need to be brought back online.
Do i need to explain to you the differences of forces in hitting a mountain at 14 knots and getting it with a sunburn?
>>30020484
It's fucking unlikely the bongs will keep the QE class carriers for longer than 40 fucking years, you dumbass
>immediately accuses someone else of being underage
>what is projecting
Fuck off leddit
>>30020459
If you have to get to duty station fucking fast in an emergency its worth it.
It happened during 9/11 with the...stennis? I think?
>>30020488
Source on the predicted service age of the two QE's? Ark Royal was last bong carrier of the Invincible class, and it decommed in '13.
That was around 40 odd years. You're telling me QE's will last longer than that?
>>30020491
>The Ford is much better future proofed, power wise, than the QE.
The Ford is also a good 40% larger and costs about 3 times as much.
You get what you pay for. The class of carrier the QE falls into is not the same class that Nimitz/Ford fall into.
>>30020495
Except they're specifically designed to last for 50.
>>30020459
useful for when you are under attack and want to maneuver
when maneuvering out the way of a DF-21 Wonton-Long-Dong 香酥é¸æµ·é²œé…± SUPER CARRIER KILLER turning and weaving fast is important
>>30020515
Speaking of which, I wish they'd called the second carrier Ark Royal. Prince of Wales is a good name too, but I think we need another Ark Royal.
>>30020573
"The Prince of Wales is understood to have privately agreed to allow that the second Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, which is set to be named HMS Prince of Wales (R09), be renamed Ark Royal."
Your wish has been granted, anon. Get hype.
>>30020585
>>30020491
How are you still failing to understand the difference between maximum theoretical power output and actual power consumption?
firstly oasis harmony and ovation consume more power than any other ship afloat, they are pretty much maxing out their power output at breakfast time (providing they are sailing). (they also have 130MW of power available, not sure where you found 60 from).
being "better future proofed" is meaningless when both options are perfectly capable of adding these technologies. QE can handle EMALS, any improvements to its weapons handling and extra sensors, this was a design requirement since the ships are designed for a 50 year service life.
>You will find an official figure for the ford.
there is no official figure on power consumption. 'less than half' is a vague statement not a figure.
>>30020495
>>30020495
>It's fucking unlikely the bongs will keep the QE class carriers for longer than 40 fucking years, you dumbass
see above, they are designed to last 50 years if anything that life will be extended. You dumbass.
>>30020515
from the Royal Navy website
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/features/equipped-for-the-future
>With a lifespan of 50 years, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will continue to have an impact around the world as they safeguard the UK's interests well into the future.
>>30020585
thats old news, it's not happening.
Ark Royal may have recent history but the RN have wanted Prince of Wales for a very long time.
>>30020623
Well I stand corrected.
Still, don't feel too down. Unless you live in some shit third-world country with terrible life expectancy, you'd more than likely witness the decomm of the two QE's. If you give enough of a shit when you're that old
>>30020585
I was aware of that, but it was from years ago. I figured if they were going to change the name it would have been done by now. If I remember correctly, the names were announced before the last Ark Royal was decommissioned.
I do hope they change it though. We've had an Ark Royal almost continuously since 1914, seems a shame to break that chain now.
>>30020648
>We've had an Ark Royal almost continuously since 1914
All the more reason to go for another historical name ?
Should pick HMS Enterprise, we've been using it since before the US existed (this is not a serious suggestion)
>>30020611
>How are you still failing to understand the difference between maximum theoretical power output and actual power consumption?
How are you failing to understand that with newer tech the power load goes up exponentially? How are you failing to understand that having more power is never, ever a bad thing? The QE will have enough power for an EMALS. Whoopy! Meanwhile the Ford DOES have enough for EMALS and anything else conceivable.
Its known that, as it stands, WITHOUT EMALS, the Nimitz reactors (which put out more power than the QE) are now being taxed to keep up with demand.
>firstly oasis harmony and ovation consume more power than any other ship afloat
NOPE
O
P
E
>, they are pretty much maxing out their power output at breakfast time (providing they are sailing)
I believe it.
>(they also have 130MW of power available, not sure where you found 60 from).
3 × Wärtsilä 12V46D, 13,860 kW (18,590 hp) each
3 × Wärtsilä 16V46D, 18,480 kW (24,780 hp)
each
~93 MW at any given time, 60 of which going to the azipods at full thrust.
Your figures are way off.
>being "better future proofed" is meaningless when both options are perfectly capable of adding these technologies.
No no no, nigger. The QE is capable of adding the tech. The Ford already has the tech, with room for growth.
>>30013147
You dont get to bring friends
>>30019863
That is one of the nice things about America, someone ignores the bosses order, he can be canned unless the boss was asking him to:
A) do something against company rules
B) do something that put his personal safety at risk beyond his normal work duties.
>>30020665
Could go for another HMS Gay Viking
In seriousness, Ark Royal was named something else before it became Ark. Possible something like that happens again, and a formal naming event might happen when the ship is being built
Why is
>ramp
A meme?
>>30020703
It became a meme when the two QE's where announced and the plans where laid down and released to the public. It was a joke but then teenage americans actually started using it as a "valid" argument to bash the bongs
>>30020665
Well I'm OK with Prince of Wales, but it'd still be nice to have an Ark Royal around.
>>30020682
>The QE will have enough power for an EMALS. Whoopy! Meanwhile the Ford DOES have enough for EMALS and anything else conceivable.
These are the same thing...
There is no carrier tech in sight that QE won't be able to power. stop desperately trying to justify nuclear power. It's your tax that the USN is wasting.
>>30020713
Is it a joke because other carriers don't need it?
>>30020721
With the last QE class one of the ships was cancelled. It was going to be called Agincourt, i think we should use that.
>>30020725
>These are the same thing...
No, its not.
The QE has enough growth for EMALS.
The Ford has EMALS and enough growth for literally anything else.
How you can say this is the same is beyond me.
>There is no carrier tech in sight that QE won't be able to power.
Dynamic Armor. Done.
>>30020703
It's just an tool for shitposting. Americans realize that other countries don't have the budget required for building CATOBAR carriers and so do the best they can with STOVL and STOBAR. They know this but continue regardless.
Pure shitposting.
>>30020737
No, there's a good number of other carriers that do needs ramps, but once a meme gets traction, you can't really stop it.
>>30020746
>electrically charged armour on surface ships.
>electrical
>water
yeah. no.
>>30020737
It's not really a matter of needing it or not, it's mainly because the bongs use VTOL fixed wing jets rather than the norm i.e F-18's. American, and a majority of the world, use catapults to launch their planes. Bongs are still using ramps because it suits their game, and they don't have a need for CATOBARs unless the RAF give the RN Typhoons in times of war.
Those who actually use the >ramp argument don't really understand why the bongs are using it, and instead blindly follow memes because they're sheep to a shepherd dog.
>>30020725
>There is no carrier tech in sight that QE won't be able to power.
With EMAL's?
The QE would be hard pressed to run EMAL's WITH a defensive suite of FEL's. Keep in mind the FEL's take about 10MW a shot, per laser.
>>30020776
What are capacitors ?
>>30020773
Are you fucking retarded?
>HURR CANT USE ELECTRICITY ON WATER!
God damn troglodyte.
>>30020746
Not the lad you are arguing with, but we're also assuming that there's no room for growth with her power plants.
Who knows, in 25 years they might rip out the engines and strap in new ones that have quadruple the capacity.
>>30020784
Something that takes either a very long time to charge or no time at all based upon the power available to it.
Hell, conceivably you can shoot one without caps if you can provide the power directly.
>>30020774
this
The Harrier was designed to take off from short, unpathed runways if the Cold War got hot. It's just a continuation from that although I can't imagine that the F-35 is going to be doing many takeoffs from a field in the middle of England
>>30020787
No one is even looking into electrical armour on ships - prove me wrong.
Do you know why ? If you charge an outer skin with enough electricity so that it will jump to the nearest conductor, you will spend most of your time wasting your charge on the sea because (spoiler alert) water is a conductor.
>>30020797
>Who knows, in 25 years they might rip out the engines and strap in new ones that have quadruple the capacity.
Maybe, but these are some of the largest maritime turbine engines ever supplied to the RN.
>>30020703
An inferiority complex is something inbred in an American specimen yet it comes with an interesting twist. They call themselves the best but absolutely lose it when someone beats them, matches them or even comes close to what they've achieved. Defeat crushes them, to degrees they will outright deny it ever happened, as is the case with Vietnam and Iraq.
The
>ramp
Meme is another spin on this complex of theirs. Through programming on channels such as CNN and NBC (this one particularly due to its sponsorship by America's Navy), Americans have been programmed to believe they have the best navy. And by having the largest defence budget in the world, they certainly should. Anything else would be embarrassing. So because of this, when another Navy approaches theirs in a particular capability, they feel the need to validate their programming by attacking these navies that have reached the USNs capability with a budget often a 10th of what the USN alone gets. Because at the core of this all is money. Americans, like most people, pay taxes. And to be told that all these taxes they pay DOESN'T make them the best is simply crushing.
Let's look at the Queen Elizabeth and Gerald R. Ford specifically.
The QE cost 3.48 billion dollars to build. The Ford cost 10.44 billion dollars to build. Imagine the outrage from the taxpayer if the QE matched the Ford in capability at less than half the price. There would be widespread outrage, revulsion and a feeling of inferiority at not being able to do things as economically as the British. Americans need to feel like they, and by extension their country is doing the right thing. They absolutely live by this desperate desire day by day and on internet forums such as this, constantly need to validate their thought process by belittling an ally.
>>30020846
Possibly turbines that give a better size to power output ratio then
Saying that, I don't think turbine technology would increase that much within 25 years
>>30020838
Who says you have to charge the outer skin?
Ships generally have a few hulls, you know.
>prove me wrong.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/uss-gerald-ford-aircraft-carrier.html
>>30020853
>Imagine the outrage from the taxpayer if the QE matched the Ford in capability at less than half the price.
That would be bad, if it were true.
Thankfully, the Ford carries over 90 aircraft while the QE has 50 max.
>>30020846
I'd be very surprised if they haven't considered that the engines might need removing and replacing at some point.
Even the Type 45 can have her engines removed.
>>30020853
shut up nerd
>also saved
>>30020877
They should have thought of it
The fact two carriers are being built certainly shows that they had redundancy in their mind
>>30020853
This is going to be great copypasta.
>>30020774
> American, and a majority of the world, use catapults to launch their planes
Majority of the world? What?
Catapult Users:
America
France
Brazil (Although it's barely in operation now)
STOVL Users:
America
Britain
Italy
Spain
STOBAR Users:
Russia
China
India
>>30020877
>>30020899
Well during RCOH the reactors are upgraded and whatnot on the nimitz's, and the ford has made this more easier as a design detail.
The same could be said for the nuclear carriers as well.
>>30020774
>CATOBAR F-18s
>The norm
Why say you don't blindly follow memes when you're this fucking wrong in the first sentence
>>30020912
Exactly.
Everyone on the upper end of warship building has upgradability in mind now.
>>30020853
>There is a giant conspiracy to belittle britbong carrier design because Americans are too stubborn to adopt a superior design
I mean, it wouldn't be the first time the USN borrowed a bongistani innovation.
Anyway here's your (you)
>>30021049
Here's another interesting facet that has crawled out of the woodwork. Hyperbole heads the pack of discourse when an American makes a position.
Here, we see an American moving the goalposts from
>Accepting the QE class as a suitable use of the RN's budget
To
>Inciting that the British believe their carrier is superior to American counterparts.
The American habit of goalpost moving is actually quite funny, as it reminds me of MacArthur's moves during the surrender of Japan. The Japanese made several consolations in disarming their military, but MacArthur kept pushing them further and further even after all necessary steps to remove them as a threat were taken. The IJN that had just sunk or transferred ownership of all of their principal surface combatants were suddenly again the bad guys because they had dared to not also hand over the schematics and technical designs of all their warships. In that way it actually circles back around to the American trait of inability to admit defeat. In our case with the QE, admitting that she is appropriate for the RN's budget and size is an admission of defeat, so the goalposts are moved further forward, and it is implied that the British are the enemy, devilishly saying their carrier is better. And by doing this, the American thought process is maintained, with them comfortably seated as the innocent good guys, while the "stubborn" British enemy loom on the horizon. It actually takes quite a bit of thinking to really comprehend how deep seated Americans are in their inferiority complex and there are multiple layers to it such as belief in their token economy, blinding patriotism and the aforementioned goalpost moving. Don't forget hyperbole too!
>>30021167
So first you went from "the QEs are equal to fords at half the costs" to "The QEs are suitable to the needs of the RN".
Interesting. You also seem to be projecting inferiority complex.
>>30021167
As funny as the copypasta is, please stop.
You'll ruin the thread with nationalistic shitposting.
>>30013764
>>30014411
samefag detected
back to shooting your .17 air rifle and pretending to be a man as 30 CCTV cameras watch you because you need a nanny at all times
>>30021228
On what ground do you claim samefag?
>>30021199
Not that anon, but you should work on your reading ability.
>Imagine the outrage from the taxpayer if the QE matched the Ford in capability at less than half the price.
Does not mean he thinks the QE does match it in capability. It means the opposite.
>>30021238
>Does not mean he thinks the QE does match it in capability.
That is directly what he said.
The opposite of that is if the ford matches the QE at half the price, which also does not match reality.
>>30021199
And here's a rather unfortunate trait Americans hold, less than perfect reading comprehension. A result of the USA's 14th place in the cognitive skills and educational attainment field most likely.
So this American, in his (or her) desire to be or more importantly appear to be the 'good guy', has neglected to differentiate between the theoretical and actual. Despite the presence of conjunctions and verbs such as 'if' and 'imagine' which should denote that the situation discussed is entirely theoretical, the American charges headfirst, attempting to find a critical point, a weak spot in the argument of an adversary. They specifically attack the thought process of their adversary here, attempting to turn the exposition of goalpost moving back on them, as a way of making themselves appear as the 'intellectual combatant'. Because anyone can shitpost, spam or make the same claims over and over again and eventually be victorious, but it is the intellectual attacks that make true victories. The American here wants to be intellectual. They want to be part of an elite club. They want to be the best.
But their attack is misguided. The critical flaw in their argument, that is their own lack of reading comprehension neuters their post as anything but a gaff and instantly disqualifies them from their goal. Their last arrow in their quiver is yet another fledgling attack at their opponent's thought process but like the crashing fall of dominos, their earlier failure cannot contain this last position they've made.
>>30021217
I believe you're right. That was the last post, make it count.
>>30020863
>http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/uss-gerald-ford-aircraft-carrier.html
So your proof is a blog that uses an unsourced wikipedia claim ?
keep trying
>>30021316
>Despite the presence of conjunctions and verbs such as 'if' and 'imagine' which should denote that the situation discussed is entirely theoretical
That would be a fair point if said point was not the crux of your arguement.
Logically, you propose that americans shitpost brit carriers due to an inferiority complex that stems from an inherent need to be number one even if they are not. But if the carrier in question does not approch us carrier design superiority, then they are still unquestionably number one, thus there is no need to shitpost brit carriers in the fashion that you are describeing.
And please, you assume i am american, even though i am not, which again kind of ruins your entire arguement.
>>30021316
>talking about pros of hardware that happens to be american means you are american
Wew laddie.
>>30021316
>>30021167
>>30020853
And here we see one of the most best charicteristics of brit posters.
You see when they get blown the fuck out of an arguement they react with not normal butthurt, no.
They react with refined butthurt. Paragraphs and paragraphs of psudointellectual asshurt for all to see. Take it in, my fellow channers, for it is a rare sight indeed.
>>30021446
>for it is a rare sight indeed.
it's quite common actually
>>30021316
>>30021376
>>30021446
>>30021453
Frankly, I think you all should fuck off with your political diarrhea.
We're here to talk ships, not shitpost.
>>30021506
No, we've literally never done that
>>30021534
You have by replying. You don't feed the troll.
>>30021506
I just swung by to laugh at the butthurt brit since he had to turn it into his low level intellectual struggle as the QE got destroyed on a technical level.
>>30021588
I don't see a butthurt bong anywhere?
>>30021588
>the QE got destroyed on a technical level
In what aspect?
>>30018375
Actually, the zum is in service today.
>>30021779
You are not looking to hard then.
>>30022127
Or the fact that flags aren't a thing on /k/ and you take posts on face value.
>>30022206
this proves nothing
EMALS seems to be something of a problem still, maybe it was just new tech, maybe the people making it are a shit company that only exists because of government contracts, maybe the union employees fuck it up, dnno
But its extremely expensive and doesn't even work properly yet.
