A
FUCKING
SKI
RAMP
I still don't understand why we spent so much money on a gimped carrier.
>we
When you're on the dole you don't really fund any of the new toys, or anything at all.
>>30122676
Are you asking a question to learn or spouting rhetoric?
>>30122676
because of efficiency in procurement (which is a very rare sentence indeed) the British found it would be cheaper to continue building these two carriers instead of going back to the original plans
>>30122939
>going back to the original plans
It was planned as a >ramp carrier from the beginning.
>>30122676
>gimped
It can launch the aircraft it was designed to launch, and it's better than the shit carriers most other countries have. is it a Nimitz class? no. but that doesn't matter. It's a solid economical design that will let bongland do what it's got to do and rely less on NATO *cough* USA *cough*
>>30123018
>rely less on the US
>When they don't have the ships available at any one time to make even a gimped CBG
>>30122676
When will Americans accept the fact that there is a different method to catapults?
>>30123100
hmmm... you gotta point there....
>>30123116
No he doesn't.
>>30123100
Define a CBG for me and what the Bongs lack to put one out.
What's difference? As long it does the job as aircraft catapult??
>>30123124
you're right... he doesn't...
>>30123125
Usually the US deploys a carrier with two Arleigh Burkes and a Tico, so the Brit equivalent would probably be a Type 45 and two Type 23/26's.
Then you'd have a supply ship and probably a submarine.
>>30123100
Even with a guesstimate using the 1/3 rule, they have 6 escorts available.
Of course, this isn't even counting allies that can add onto that number.
>>30122676
>ramp
>>30123296
babby's first semester psychology to deflect from having a ramp
>>30123296
Satire at its best.
>>30123296
>Projection: The Screencap
>>30123296
Actually no, I personally don't like the ramp because it limits the loads aircraft can take off with on a carrier. However since this thing is designed around the F-35b I can't really find an issue with it. EMALS is better though.
>>30123322
>I personally don't like the ramp because it limits the loads aircraft can take off with on a carrier
But it does the inverse. Having a ramp allows the aircraft to carry more and have greater clearance from the sea (allowing aircraft to operate in poor sea states).
Would you rather have a non-Cat/Trap flatdeck?
>>30123103
When a better option is presented.
>>30123296
indeed
>>30123103
When those different methods actually help you launch planes.
I mean seriously, a ski ramp? Might as well extend the deck another 30 feet.
>>30123387
>When those different methods actually help you launch planes.
But they do.
>>30123322
>EMALS is better though
Obviously. The bongs considered it and liked it. They simply couldn't afford it.
God that's hideous
>>30123352
>Having a ramp allows the aircraft to carry more
no. The opposite, in fact.
>>30123401
Flat like the average high test American woman.
>inb4 British """"woman"""" there is a reason we became sailors.
>>30123404
>no. The opposite, in fact.
As opposed to a flatdeck without C&T? It certainly does.
>>30123296
>limey noguns on /k/ are THIS mad about ramps
>>30123387
>I mean seriously, a ski ramp? Might as well extend the deck another 30 feet.
Would do less than a ski ramp.
>>30123399
>They simply couldn't afford it.
'Afford it' is the wrong phrasing, it would have delayed the program, put the second carrier at risk of not being commissioned, added training and maintenances problems.
>>30123427
You don't know who actually wrote that post.
The amount of people who outright believe ski jumps are bad because they've seen it said in ALL CAPS over and over again on /k/ is sickening. So many brainless cretins.
>>30123412
FLAT
IS
JUSTICE
>>30123427
So why do people keep screaming 'RAMPS'?
He's got a point. In the eyes of some people no one can be seen to challenge US hegemony on all things shooty shooty bang bang.
Like how people deny that the SAS is/are the daddy of the world's special forces. And that's not me saying they are the best - just that most major SF units can trace a lineage back to the SAS.
>>30123454
>ski jump = less payload, less weight that can be launched total, fewer airframes available, no fixed wing AWACS
>this is just fine
k
>>30123533
A ski jump carrier is inherently inferior to a flat deck which has been explained so many times in these threads that it's flat out redundant to go through the entire litany again.
There's a difference between using a ski ramp and thinking that it's somehow not a mediocre option.
>>30122683
Tip top kek.
>>30123412
>British food
>British women
And so, a nation of great sailors and explorers was born.
>>30123174
Well they have those available unless I am more ignorant than usual.
>>30123100
>6 Type 45s
>13 Type 23s
>7 SSNs
>1 heli carrier
even with the worst availability they could easily deploy a capable carrier group
>>30123612
Where would you find the money/time to fit an as-yet still in development EMALS system to the carriers?
As has been explained in a previous thread; penalty clauses in the contracts would have meant that we'd only be able to launch one carrier with EMALS.
Also, a ski jump allows for interoperability between FAA and RAF aircraft, as there was in harrier days. If you fit EMALS you can then ONLY fly specifically designed aircraft off that deck. Again, these are expensive.
It was ski or jump or have one carrier that can only launch one aircraft type, of which we'd have fewer, in the mid-2020's.
>>30123604
If that's the capability you want, it is fine.
At aprox per ship $3.48bn vs per ship $10.4bn, nobody has the expectation of having the same capabilities.
>fewer airframes available
Explain how having a ski jump decrease aircraft availability?
>>30123612
I don't think anyone has argued that STOVL aircraft beats conventional.
>There's a difference between using a ski ramp and thinking that it's somehow not a mediocre option.
No, the mediocre option would be to have neither. If you don't have C&Ts, then you stick on a ramp to increase aircraft performance.
>>30123680
>Type 45 orders were cut from 12 to 6
>They break down all the time, needs major refit after a few years in service
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12128889/Royal-Navys-warships-face-major-engine-refit-amid-reliability-concerns.html
>Type 26 orders are being cut as well
RIP
The max takeoff weight for ski-ramps is limited, because the aircraft needs to attain a minimum speed under its own power during the takeoff run. Doesn't this mean you can easily increase the maximum takeoff weight by increasing the length of the deck/carrier?
It's my impression these ships are mostly expensive because of the innards, and extending one forward and back by 100 meters shouldn't be such a big deal. This would vastly increase the MTOW of the aircraft, while not requiring the effort of a catapult. Ships of 400m+ have been built many times already. Is creating a long ship like this really much more expensive than I'm thinking?
>>30123296
Why is Britain our allies anyway? Do we get anything out of this deal?
>>30123799
>The max takeoff weight for ski-ramps is limited, because the aircraft needs to attain a minimum speed under its own power during the takeoff run. Doesn't this mean you can easily increase the maximum takeoff weight by increasing the length of the deck/carrier?
The max takeoff weight for a flattop is even limited if you don't have cats & traps.
>and extending one forward and back by 100 meters shouldn't be such a big deal. This would vastly increase the MTOW of the aircraft, while not requiring the effort of a catapult. Ships of 400m+ have been built many times already. Is creating a long ship like this really much more expensive than I'm thinking?
So you want to stretch an already built ship?
>>30123604
NOBODY IS SAYING IT'S FUCKING BETTER THAN CATOBAR HOLY SHIT
It's just a matter of cost. The brits don't have 10 billion to blow on one fucking carrier like we do.
>>30123401
>Having Obongo on that pic.
6/10 You tried mate.
>>30123852
Worth noting that they couldn't have gone with an older Nimitz either.
That class cost 4.5 billion in 1975, which is 19.8 billion now. The Ford is nearly half the price.
>>30123849
>So you want to stretch an already built ship?
That's been done many times before. Like what they did with the seawise giant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumboisation
>>30123643
>>30123897
I never said it can't be done, however we don't know the costs of that.
If we're planning on delaying the class and blowing money, you might as well fit EMALS.
>>30123821
>Do we get anything out of this deal?
A permanent Aircraft carrier stationed outside of Europe that you don't need to pay for.
>>30123981
>Don't need to pay for
They rent old RAF bases from us. Shit isn't free.
>>30123604
>ski jump = less payload, less weight that can be launched total, fewer airframes available, no fixed wing AWACS
Valid if you're totally ignorant of the aircraft the QE is operating
>>30124214
Cheaper than buying an Carrier and doing maintenance.
>>30122676
>12 F-35Bs standard, 24 if needed, maximum of 36 Bs with four choppers.
I mean sure, ok, it's not CATOBAR, that's a little bit of a bummer. But 24 multirole fighters plus AEW and ASuW choppers is a neat little asset, and I'd rather the brits get two OK carriers than be stuck trying their hands behind their backs for half a year at a time.
Bit of a doctrinal question, does the UK plan to fly those F-35s against other fighters, or are they planned as just a strike asset? I dunno what I read that said that UK leaves air defense entirely to escorts, probably a Harrier-age artifact.
>>30122676
Nigga, you aren't British.
This is why we need flags on /k/
>>30122676
It's easy to alter (its just metal plating) in case its to be altered once the Americans perfect catapult systems and frankly, its second only to US aircraft carriers.
That isn't a bad thing.
>>30124321
The F-35B is going to be armed with the Meteor, which is probably the finest anti-aircraft missile since the AIM-54
>>30124321
>get two OK carriers
The carriers aren't 'ok' though, they're great for the price.
>Bit of a doctrinal question, does the UK plan to fly those F-35s against other fighters, or are they planned as just a strike asset?
Both, CAP and strike.
>probably a Harrier-age artifact.
Why say such a disparaging thing? Arguably the dedicated escort for QE is more advanced than Aegis. Jane's certainly thinks this way.
>“It’s certainly one of the most advanced air defence ships in the world,” he said.
>“The US Aegis system is similar, but Sea Viper is more advanced… as it can engage multiple targets simultaneously.”
- Nick Brown, the editor-in-chief of Jane’s International Defence Review
>>30124408
Nooo, I meant that what I had read was probably an artefact
>>30123415
Do it doesn't. Why would you ever think that?
>>30124457
Because its objective fact?
Are you misunderstanding what he's saying, or are you just retarded
>>30124457
>Do it doesn't. Why would you ever think that?
Because the evidence points to that conclusion...?
Clueless little americunt teenagers starting the same thread every fucking day.
>>30124489
You are just as bad.
>>30124489
Atleast the teen actually raises points asside from advocating a missle that would cause nuclear war if launched making it fucking useless
>>30124527
All of which have been addressed ad infinitum.
>>30122676
Obviously you never watched Eddie the Eagle m8
>>30122676
ski ramp means they are stuck with a shitty F-35B instead of a good fighter like navalized Eurofighter
>>30124839
>F-35B
>shitty
>Navalised Eurofighter
>ever
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
>>30124839
>navalized
American English.
>>30124839
>navalised eurofighter
About as easy as making a navalised A-10
>>30124968
>>30124998
Never went anywhere serious.
The NAO reports are pretty good at highlighting why navalised Typhoon would be retarded.
>>30125020
>>30124998
the Eurofighter and Dassault Product should have never forked, two lesser products were born and neither properly competed with the US.
Right now there are F-18s and F-16s in Europe, used by European countries. Its almost as bad as refugees fucking you....HMMmmm
plane comic about American refugee jets...
>>30125204
both eurofighter and rafale wipe the floor with any american 4th gen fighter.
those f-16s were bought long before these two planes existed.
>>30125204
>the Eurofighter and Dassault Product should have never forked, two lesser products were born and neither properly competed with the US.
Hardly.
Both Rafael and Eurofighter are pricey, but solid 4.5 fighters.
>>30124457
>>30123404
>>30124488
i just wanna point out he said aircraft. not aircraft carrier.
he means a heavier PLANE. hes saying that you can load say, extra bombs onto it because it no longer needs to achieve a specific speed to take off successfully, because of the ramp.
>>30125743
>because it no longer needs to achieve a specific speed to take off successfully, because of the ramp.
Christ.
>>30122946
Nu-uh
Did the Brits build two towers to troll us?
>>30125864
>The carriers will be completed as originally planned, in a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration, deploying the Lockheed Martin F-35B
>>30125204
They were two different projects from the beginning.
>>30125873
no. their pilots are so bad that if they hit one at least the 2nd captain in the other tower can sill drive the boat.
>>30124489
>No one hardly bats an eye at the daily F35 hate threads or the biweekly Abrams/M16/Anything not a Gavin bashing that happens on /k/
>but the second anyone criticizes "muh chally" or "muh ramps" bongs start whinging about "m-murricunts"
>>30122676
The only genuine argument for RAMPS is that they have slightly lower cost.
Britards love to argue that an EMALS would magically cost an extra $7 Billion to make it the same as a Gerald Ford or some shit. But then again I guess they wouldn't be Britards otherwise.
You can't fly a fixed-wing AEW&C off a RAMP, so the entire thing might as well be a waste. QE-Class Carriers are garbage and reminder that Britain no longer Rules the Waves and never will.
