Aesthetic thread
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
What is wrong with the brit design?
Look at the pic
It's a ramp.
>>30605318
>The ramp meme
>>30605318
Yes, it's ugly
>>30605312
Except subs, France beat the shit out of UK.
>>30605329
>>30605312
The CdG appears to be underway
thats unusual
>>30605329
The fuel costs alone mean long term conventional carriers are obsolete, hell the first 2 America class LHAs are equal to the queen, but the issue is as a pure airborne platform it makes no sense so we went back to well decks.
Also, the big issue is well you don't have the energy supplies for future directed energy weapons and electromagnetic and other advanced armors.
>>30605335
are you frustrated?
>>30605424
>The fuel costs alone mean long term conventional carriers are obsolete
Those with all numbers available to them disagree.
>>30605329
>The queen elizabeth can in any way, shape, or form, natch the gerald r ford
And Americans are supposed to be the angry ones here?
>>30605424
>hell the first 2 America class LHAs are equal to the queen
You are mixing two different things here.
Assigned air group =! total aircraft capacity.
>>30605470
Not that I'm defending the bait, but it doesn't say that at all.
>>30605482
Read the bottom paragraph. It says that the QE can do what the GrF can do at a lower price point.
>>30605424
>The fuel costs alone mean long term conventional carriers are obsolete
This is so wrong it hurts.
>>30605500
Key word.
>if
>>30605329
There should be examples of this for just about every peice of technology.
>>30605329
>Queen Elizabeth
>Approaching Ford class capabilities.
>No catapult
>No fixed wing AWACS
>Overcomplicated rail system unusable in rough seas
>Going to literally lend it to the USMC
Britbongistan on literal suicide watch.
>A
>Fucking
>Ramp
>>30605329
wut
>>30605312
All of the British designs in your image are superior. The closest being EF and Rafale, however even with current generations using PESA EF has had more success in exports.
FGR4 is arguably the most advanced aircraft flying outside of F35 and F22, and in may regards it has areas where it is superior to each of those aircraft.
The only reason India selected Rafale as preferred bidder was because Dassault was willing to compromise its technology and allow aircraft to be built in India. Something I believe has now come back to bit them as negotiations appear to be going nowhere
http://www.janes.com/article/62152/deadlock-over-india-s-rafale-purchase-continues
>>30605312
why the fuck can't I load this picture
>>30605424
>the first 2 America class LHAs are equal to the queen
What did he mean by this
>>30605540
Clapistanis in charge of reading comprehension
>>30605590
>trying to use logic in a thread where the ramp meme has been posted
You're doing God's work, lad
>>30605540
Not the person you are replying to, but here we go.
>No fixed wing AWACS
Crowsnest Merlin matches any fixed wing naval AEW in every regard with the exception of radar horizon and time on station. However the reduced cost and increased numbers easily make up for this as we can use Merlin in larger numbers, from all of our warships, and hot refuel from all major surface combatants. Fleets will not require a carrier to have AEW, and carrier groups can operate AEW from picket ships over the horizon from the carrier.
>>Overcomplicated rail system unusable in rough seas
That 'overcomplicated' weapon handling system is designed to work in all sea states (pic related) and has no modern counterpart. It allows munitions to be brought to to the deck from a safe armoury, quickly with almost no manpower requirements. Additionally it can change seekers and fuse bombs as required allowing QE to have a stupidly high turn around time. And something the USN are very jealous of if reports of visits are to be believed.
>>No catapult
Option for one in the future, cost does not justify it as our F35B's will be able to operate with full fuel and payload (something USMC F35B's can't do) and recover without ditching weapons due to the rolling recovery we pioneered. Additionally our F35B's have drastically more capability and range than the USN's existing hornet fleet.
>>Going to literally lend it to the USMC
no. Not even close. Allowing your allies to operate from your ships is not 'lending it'. If this is how you think then i have plenty of pictures of RN harriers operating off Nimitz class and various other US ships.
>Britbongistan on literal suicide watch.
Calm down Jamal, you get upset that NATO does not spend enough and when we actually go ahead and build the most capable carrier in the world outside of the US then you get all upset about it.
I wish i knew you IRL so I could regularly remind you how much of an ape you are.
>monthly QE ramp thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CbUmVo8n3Y
>>30605451
Only because they modeled it with the standard Brit tactic of parking it for years at a time.
Of course a diesel ship that never actually gets to burn diesel is gonna be cheaper, long term, than a nuclear ship.
>yfw their total lifetime running hours projection was less than what the Enterprise did in her first year
>>30605748
Do you enjoy talking about stuff you know nothing about? Because you're making yourself look pretty stupid right now.
You actually think the 50 years of QE and PW beeing in service would amount to less than 365 days at sea each? (this is wrongly assuming that any US carrier is deployed for a year non stop)
Please, I beg you to show me your source then we can all laugh at you.
Conventional propulsion is safer, cheaper, easier to maintain, lighter and less restrictive on available ports. Oh and it produces more than enough power for the ships systems and all foreseeable upgrades.
>>30605821
These people don't give a fuck about facts
They're here to whine
>>30605821
>>30605952
nice samefag britcuck
>>30605988
I notice you are incapable of responding to any of the facts posted here.
>britcucks thinking theyre even close to pic related
>>30606018
Tyrone dont do facts. Tyrone do mixtapes and wellfare
>>30606024
In terms of logistics and fielding 5 gen aircraft at sea? We're much closer than anyone else.
>>30606024
Yeah, we're not even close to making photoshops that fucking bad
>>30605333
French SSBN's are most modern ships in their class. It's the one thing in OP's picture where French have something better than UK has.
>>30605424
>The fuel costs alone mean long term conventional carriers are obsolete
Nuclear vessel refueling and decommissioning is expensive as fuck. Diesel is way cheaper even if it requires more support vessels for replenishment at sea.
>>30606024
Britcucks can't photoshop?
USS Nimitz flight deck is 76m across at widest point. B-52's wingspan is 56m.
>>30605516
Fuck me, that radar is huge.
Whiners gonna whine... I'm happy we are seeing some new Carriers with some neat new tech.
please remember modern carrier operation techniques has been a group effort dominated by Britain and the US. With the relationship between the US and UK, especially with Britexit looming, I expect some nice new surface combatant tech to appear.
>>30606046
>We're much closer than anyone else.
Uhhhh....ehm.
Wew laddy.
The Wasp will deploy with F-35's next year to the SCS.
>>30606138
>French SSBN's are most modern ships in their class. It's the one thing in OP's picture where French have something better than UK has.
The British sub in the picture isn't an SSBN, it's an Astute-class, where the brits have Vanguard-class SSNs
Both navies are in a position on transition where one could compare Astute to the upcoming Barracuda-class, and the French Triomphant-class to the UK's future Successor-class SSBNs
>>30606390
>The British sub in the picture isn't an SSBN
Yes it is. Look at the rear deck, the lack of hydrophone on the front and the long flat hull array.
>>30605692
I'd like to point out to you anon that the F-35Bs launching at full fuel/payload is slightly misleading when its stores load, including fuel, as been significantly gimped to accomodate the lift fan system.
If you want to quote numbers to people regarding Crowsnest in the future, if carried on a Merlin its radar horizon at service ceiling against a target at 10,000ft is ~270nmi, compared to an E-2 with a radar horizon of ~350nmi.
Thats ignoring the fact that an E-2 can sustain altitudes at nearer service ceiling for a far greater time than a Merlin can, though. Ballpark, you're going to get around 70% of the radar horizon from Crowsnest.
>>30606277
>reading comprehension
>>30605312
Nothing wrong with British design...Unless you're french. In that case, you'd be wondering where the white flags were.
>>30606459
My point was that a Full F35B load cant be launched from an american ship. But yes the fuel and payload has been reduced in the B version, personally I don't mind considering the versatility of VTOL.
>>30606516
>My point was that a Full F35B load cant be launched from an american ship.
I mean.. they could, considering a STO launch off a Ford or Nimitz class would be perfectly possible. Got the length for basically a conventional takeoff. But they're using CATOBAR instead so I don't see the point of making the comparison.
Comparing the QE to a LHD is just sad
>>30605692
While you do bring up good points, and im not apart of the "KEKRAMP" crowd, i did find issue with one statement...
>Crowsnest Merlin matches any fixed wing naval AEW in every regard with the exception of radar horizon and time on station.
This is simply not true at all, when compared to the E-2D.
The E-2D has a much, much larger radar and much more powerful radar, able to track at a higher degree of accuracy at much farther ranges. It also can go to different stations much, much faster than the Merlin can, and with IFR, can stay in the air pretty much indefinitely.
This is in addition to the radar horizon (which importance cannot be over stated) and time on station which you mentioned.
>>30606531
I doubt the extra 50m or so would be enough for a conventional takeoff. You need to remember that the ramp gives 60m of altitude right when it's needed, thats far more valuable than even an extra 100 meters.
>>30606531
>Comparing the QE to a LHD is just sad
I agree, but I was responding to someone who was eager to try and paint QE as a glorified LHD.
>>30606567
>I doubt the extra 50m or so would be enough for a conventional takeoff.
With Emals you can give it a nice gentle push into the air.
40,000 flbs+ of thrust is a hell of a drug.
>>30606549
>The E-2D has a much, much larger radar and much more powerful radar, able to track at a higher degree of accuracy at much farther ranges.
Are you basing that off looks alone? Because to my knowledge none of those figures are publicly available.
>>30606585
But you can't use EMALS on an F35B...
>>30606612
Basing it off of size of the aperture.
You can get some good results, smaller apertures but same size resolution than legacy systems, but the E-2D is hardly legacy anymore, with the radar constantly getting upgraded.
You cant put 10 gallons of water in a 5 gallon barrel, friend.
>>30606620
EMALS entire point (rather, one of its advantages) was to be able to launch of wider variety of craft, rather than just naval hardened air frames because it can dial down the shock of the launch as needed. This also helps naval airframes because if they are not loaded to bear, they can get a softer launch, which increases airframe lifetimes.
>>30606612
>>30606640
Did some searching, having a hard time tracking down any numbers.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/searchwater-asac
>>30606679
Anon, its the exact same kind of radar (pulse doppler) that on the E-2...but its significantly smaller.
Its going to have much less range and resolution.
>>30606693
I'm a different person, just trying to help the discussion by finding information on the radar.
>>30605329
But the QE doesn't match the Ford in capability at half the price?
>>30606640
>You cant put 10 gallons of water in a 5 gallon barrel, friend.
A very large part of the E2 dome is empty space, its primarily an aerodynamic tool. Cant find a photo of hawkeye by here is one from sentry
You cant compare modern radars by size alone, there is huge variety in how many TR modules you can squeeze in. For low bands especially there is a vast amount of processing power required, all of this capability is hidden.
They are both new radars, fielded by tier one nations, developed by some of the best companies in the business. I would put them both in the same category.
However the E2 platform certainly has its advantages, just like Merlin does. Different doctrine is good for allies.
>>30606733
>A very large part of the E2 dome is empty space, its primarily an aerodynamic tool.
It depends on the type of radar.
The E-2 and E-3 spins, so yes it will be a raydome on one half.
>You cant compare modern radars by size alone
Of the same type and around the same time fielded?
Fuck yes you can, its not magic anon.
>there is huge variety in how many TR modules you can squeeze in.
Sure, if you are comparing 1970's tech to todays. This is not the case at all.
>For low bands especially there is a vast amount of processing power required
Yes, see, you hit something relevant here. You can get more out of radar with better and more efficient processing power. However, "get more" does not mean you can match a radar that's SIGNIFICANTLY larger than yours, and in the same category, nor is there a lick of evidence that even suggests the brits are much farther ahead than the americans in this regard.
The E-2D has a AESA radar with a diameter of 24 feet. The merlins cargo bay is 7 feet wide, and it folds up into it.
The E-2D has a radar THREE TIMES the size of the largest possible radar the Merlin could carry.
>>30605692
hello this is roger posting from my thinkpad edge e530c. and im mad
listening to some guy from england try to use FUNNY MATH on something i know more about than arguable anything i know about, im gritting my teeth so hard youd think i was in the nanking girls school class of '36 (no offense)(they were raped)
first of all lets get something straight. well we were trying to fix the entire world cuz u people decided to make it into a giant tea planetation, you were like "please hitler can you come over for tea" and you literally had tea with him and he said "nein i wish to have europe" and you all silently consulted among yourselfs and decided it would be rude to not let him take over europe. we have a word for that in america
PUSSYS
so then we singlehandedly bail u out of a war where u were all patting urselfs on the back for retreating so orderly and bravely getting bombed, then we rebuild ur stupid tube, nig ben, etc, then we pay to rebiuild uorope, and then what do you do? create literally every problem in the middle east and southeast asia and ISIS, and u kill gahndi. oh and give russia basically all NATO intelligence. we have a word for that in america
ASSHOLES
and now ur trying to argue that ur navy is better because of some radar that u literally named after merlin the wizard? did scotland already TM the name "lighty-doodle range-seekabobble?". ur such bitch that over here we name our flour king arthur pic related
SPEAK ENGLISH.
and of all the things u have the gall to claim ur better than the marines who dwight d eisenhower led across the strait of normandy to defeat the nazis? if it werent for france i'd say "i never" but sadly we have. we have
do me a favor. next time u see america take my name out your mouth. next time u see a marine say "thank u sir". next time u think about world war 2 go on a chat room and praise the old american who lain down his life 4 ur moms right before using some old axel grease on her "slimey-o" as u call it
>>30606813
>The E-2D has a AESA radar with a diameter of 24 feet. The merlins cargo bay is 7 feet wide, and it folds up into it.
>The E-2D has a radar THREE TIMES the size of the largest possible radar the Merlin could carry.
How did you work that out? The Merlin dome is far deeper than the E2 dome, did you think about that?
>nor is there a lick of evidence that even suggests the brits are much farther ahead than the americans in this regard.
Lockheed and Thales are providing Crowsnest.
>>30606840
kek'd hard. This pasta is new to me.
>>30606854
>How did you work that out?
The radar folds up into the cargospace of the merlin.
The merlins cargo space is 7 feet wide.
> The Merlin dome is far deeper than the E2 dome, did you think about that?
Yes, and i don't think its far deeper at all, the AN/APY-9 is quite thick at its center.
Overall, crowsnest sure as hell does not have the same volume as the 3x diameter AN/APY-9.
>>30606840
Ah, Roger long time no see.
>>30605692
>crowsnest Merlin matches any naval fixed wing AEW in nothing that matters, because literally TOS and radar horizon are the single most important factors in AEW
FTFY
>additionally our F35B's
What F35B's? You don't have any and probably won't for several more years.
>http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm
>that will have the ability to operate from land bases as well as the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, the first of which is due to accept Lightning II onto her deck in 2018
>2018
>build the most capable carrier in the world (outside of the US)
Congrats, you're the shiniest turd of a pile of shit. And I'd hope a carrier that's literally 20 years newer than the next newest (non-US) carrier is the best of the (non US) carriers.
>>30606991
salt
>>30607102
>>>30606991 (You)
Objectively correct salt tho
>>30607140
Not really.
The most important factor of an AEW picket is having as high uptime as possible, not individual airframe's time on station. Accomplishing this through having your AEW based on multiple vessels and more airframes dedicated to it is one method of doing that.
The whole F-35Bs not being here yet is just a total non sequitur, and not even true.
>>30605692
>Crowsnest Merlin matches any fixed wing naval AEW in every regard
>>30605748
Paying something like a billion dollars or more lifetime cost for a nuclear reactor could buy a lot of diesel m8
>>30607204
Maybe read in entire sentences next time, champ
>>30607214
>implying that only TOS and Radar Horizon are the things it's deficient at compared to An E-2, an aircraft that came out in 1960
>>30607219
Didn't imply that at all
>>30607226
>didn't imply that
>>30605692
>Crowsnest Merlin matches any fixed wing naval AEW in every regard with the exception of radar horizon and time on station.
>in every regard
>with the exception of two things
>>30607244
should try to avoid thinking you know who people are on an anonymous imagboard :)
>>30607254
>lol just because 'm arguing the exact same position doesn't mean you should use the argument that I'm defending as something I believe in!
>>30607268
Not "defending" anything, just saying you should quote entire sentences rather than partial ones to include the entire point of an assertion.
Try again :)
>>30607282
>>30607298
Can the AEW debate die off please?
Crowsnest is better than a lot of people give credit for, but it individually doesn't match E-2D. It has some platform advantages in that they can load them onto ANY ship and have AEW support even without the carrier present, along with more of them, but on a one to one basis, they just aren't equal. But then, they aren't one to one.
tl;dr - Both sides are exaggerating. Calm down, lads.
>>30606390
>Both navies are in a position on transition where one could compare Astute to the upcoming Barracuda-class
Not really. Barracuda isn't a particularly ambitious design (The project director himself claimed it's only aiming to have Triomphant era stealth, not more modern levels, to control costs). Astute is also larger, requires no refuelling (Barracuda will require a refuelling process at least once), has substantially better munitions, more of them and larger sonar arrays (Although Barracuda will likely use the same tech).
Virginia and Astute are on a tier of their own when it comes to nuke subs.
Barracuda won't be up there with them, but it will still probably be an easy 3rd best in the world. No-one should ever interpret me as saying it's shit. It's just Virginia and Astute are outrageously potent and had significant back history and focus to make them that way as primary arms.
>and the French Triomphant-class to the UK's future Successor-class SSBNs
Triomphant is more modern than Vanguard, thats for certain. But Successor is a whole new generation of technology incoming. Pic related for one of the concepts.
They're really going nuts with this one.
As a note it's not "Successor Class", it's simply the Successor program. It'd be like calling the Type 26 a "Global Combat Ship Class". Class name is undefined as of yet, they're a long way off. 2027 for the first one in service.
The Tornado GR4 is fully the equal of the F-15E, and the F2 of the F-15C. To date, Dassault has not been able to produce a comparable 4th gen aircraft.
>>30607469
Is this copypaste growing in text size every time?
The memes, man. They're evolving visually.
Random sub construction picture because it's a fucking great pic.
>>30607469
Britain has not been able to produce an aircraft comparable to the Mirage 2000 or F-16, when even shithole like Sweden, Israel and China can
>>30607586
>being this dumb
>>30607459
>The project director himself claimed it's only aiming to have Triomphant era stealth
We developp new tech for the boomers then refine and apply them to the attack subs we build roughly a decade later, then the cycle starts over with the next gen boomer, of which we should start the first study phases around 2018 to keep on track and considering the global increase of military budget, even in France, it is quite likely not to slide too much. So, yeah refined-Triomphant era stealth is by no mean anywhere near bad. My only concern is that with only 6 attack subs and 19 ammunitions per sub we certainly lack teeth. I'd give my left nut for four additional Shortfins Barracuda to operate in the mediteranean sea and escort our boomers when heading out and free the nuke boats for oceanic oversea missions and carrier group escort.
Of course if I had my way we'd have a second carrier, 6 more FREMM-ER with SeaFire 500 radar in addition to current FREMM/FTI target numbers, at least two additional Mistrals without the C3 facilities and hospital but maintance workshops and consummables reserves for elongated deployments in addition to the command-capable ones, and 5 new oilers instead of 3. And let's not get me started on our OPV needs for our gigantic EEZ.
>that flatened sub with full-lenght ducted propulsion
My Red October boner is rising
>>30607864
Yeah like I said, nothing I said above should ever interpret it as saying Barracuda will be bad. It's still one of the leading naval users making it after all.
The PA2 being killed off was such a kneecap though. I feel your pain there, I try to imagine how I'd have felt if PoW was cancelled and realise how sucky it must be. And it REALLY surprised me to see FREDA stick with the PESA Herakles instead of going for the Seafire.
All the best hope that things take an upward swing before it's too late for the French Navy.
>>30608054
The configuration of the FREDA is still in limbo, i'd say the high-end option is slightly more plausible than let's say 6 months ago. Thankfully the increase of the defense budget is pretty much the only things all candidates to next year's presidential election agree upon. Hopefully the navy will benefit of it in terms of hull number. No matter how many missions a modern ship can do, ubiquity is still not a feature.
>>30605312
>>30605318
>>30605329
>>30605330
>>30605333
>>30605335
>>30605379
>>30605424
>>30605442
>>30605451
>>30605470
>>30605482
>>30605500
>>30605516
>>30605521
>>30605524
>>30605540
>>30605579
>>30605590
>>30605603
>>30605614
>>30605628
>>30605674
>>30605692
>>30605723
>>30605748
>>30605821
>>30605952
>>30605988
>>30606018
>>30606024
>>30606035
>>30606046
>>30606097
>>30606138
>>30606215
>>30606249
>>30606277
>>30606390
>>30606436
>>30606459
>>30606470
>>30606500
>>30606516
>>30606531
>>30606549
>>30606567
>>30606585
>>30606612
>>30606640
>>30606679
>>30606620
ur all dumb
>>30607459
Ya, nah, it's going to look nothing like that.
Apart from the automatic munitions handling the De Gual is better imo, especially seeing as it can carry E2s and QE cannot launch ANY fixed wing awacs.
leclerc is better from a design standpoint than the challenger 2 in every single way, unless the British composite armour is actually a lot better (which I doubt) then the leclerc is better.
Rafale and EF is hard, EF better fighter, but the rafale is definitely the better multirole. And has all kinds of cool shit like spectra and bvr ir missiles.
BUt in terms of aesthetics I prefer the French equipment for every single category
>>30611903
Wait till you see our close air defense, buddy.
Also it is Bastille Day, so Jambon Beurre Fromage, Putain !
>>30611929
France already has CAMM or land basted ASTER in service, I'm really jealous desu
>>30608729
What a great response.... for your next trick graduate high school....
leclerc! leclerc! leclerc!
>>30611903
>the De Gual is better imo
Are you unaware of its unofficial title, "Half Carrier"? It has it for a reason.
>unless the British composite armour is actually a lot better (which I doubt) then the leclerc is better.
US uses British-based armor for a reason
>bvr ir missiles.
Oh I am laffin
>>30612079
>US uses British-based armor for a reason
1990 called they want that time machine you have stolen
>>30612079
1. you mean staying in port all the time? if they had 2 like the QE is going to be that would be a non-issue. but desu I wasn't thinking of the reactor issues when i wrote that post. Seeing the problems with T-45s recently I'm not so sure the QE wont have similiar
2. They also added giant slabs of DU to it and more. Composite armour is hardly a mystical science, tons of people do it. I'm doubting dorchester is actually significantly more advanced. And because it's classified we will never know.
Everything else goes to the leclerc, blow out panels, autoloader, faster, lower profile, better sensors.
3. yeah i know right
>>30612130
The Type 45's "issue" was just that it couldn't run on full power, really just a media thing. Much like the CdG, except that sub reactor really is a little intensive on maintenance.
>>30612267
>Much like the CdG
yeah exactly
>>30612284
Well, no.
Having one nuke carrier really is an issue
>>30612130
>Staying in port all the time.
Dear god those tired-ass legends. CdG has more than 60% disponibility since beginning of active career which makes it as far as I know the best carrier worldwide in that matter. Even after next year long duration drydock it will still be at more than 50% disponibility. The so called "reactor issues" come from two non-related events, first is a one time only steam leak in a compartement that very lightly contaminated two crewmembers. Second is the reinforcement of the radiation protection after installation, not because it was inherently faulty but due to the fact relutations changed in-between and it was required that even pregnant women in the first weeks of pregnancy before detection had to be safe working in proximity to it. Which actually probably makes it one of the safest reactors out there under normal power.
However with two 45m catapults and not the largest deck out there I don't doubt it has half the sortie rate of a US carrier. But as far as 45.00 tons carrier can go, now that is early troubles are fixed, it's fucking stellar.
>>30612366
>45.000tons
fixed before someone points out the CdG as a pocket carrier.
>>30612380
I mean, 45 tons is still tiny
>>30612366
Acually the only unsolvable problem the CdG has is that the two shafts are nigger-derived from the much lighter ones of the Clemenceau-class and are fragile as fuck and can't be replaced without dismounting the reactors, which is of course a big no-no, which does more to limit the maximum speed at tiny bit above 27 knots than the actual power of the reactors of propellers design.
This is actually a real problem because with the 45 meters catapults that can't be changed easily for 55 meters ones either due to movements of the planes and organisation of the flight deck it is starting to be very hard to strap more shit to the Rafale M which took a fair bit of additional weigh since first version.
We pay the fact that a vast majority of our ships and equipment are dimensioned "just enough" due to variable funding, skyrocketting individual prices when target number goes down, permanent bickering, and the love our politics have for our "light" tradition as long as it means "cheaper".
So yeah, good carrier for its tonnage but it's starting to show the limits of what it can offer. And it's alone. i'll never forgive Sarkozy for ruining all chances to start the development of the PA2 when he still had the economic opportunity. Now who knows when we'll have two again.
>>30606840
Roger?
>>30605329
Wat.
Yeah the US overpays for its military stuff. The QE cant match a US supercarrier though, its not even supposed to, thats not its purpose.
>>30612267
THAT sub reactor ??? You mean THOSE.
There are FOUR K-15 reactors on the CdG. These were designed for SSBNs. We needed 600 Kw for the CdG. 150 x 4 = 600. ggwin !
Consequence : the antiradiation armor on the CdG has to be even bigger than on american carriers. And it's a pain in the ass to manage 4 reactors at once. Though, theoretically, if one or two failed, the ship would stay afloat. Still, having 4 potential sources of radioactive hazard onboard isn't particularly reassuring.
