![2a6e75bf-9748-4e0f-8212-324d72886b5a-2060x1236[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KBUfj5g.jpg "2a6e75bf-9748-4e0f-8212-324d72886b5a-2060x1236[1].jpg")
HMS Queen Elizabeth should have been CATOBAR. She isn't.
The United kingdom has a population of 64 Million
The USA has a population of 318 Million
The US Navy has reduced their fleet from 11 to 10 super carriers and with those numbers can only have two on deployment at any time (with another one on it's way to relieve one of those two) as opposed to 3.5 with 11. This is mainly due to their nuclear reactors needing a long mid life refueling and maintenence.
By cheaping out on the CATOBAR and Nuclear power the United kingdom is able to afford not only the worlds third most powerful carrier (Nimitz and Ford being the 1st and 2nd) but two of them allowing one on deployment at all times during the ships 50 year life span.
Further more, the US not using ramps for increased efficiency of their F-35B's on their LHA's is a huge mistake and they only do it to try and protect their super carriers from budget cuts. Comments from American's regarding "lol ramp" is a sign that the propaganda got to them.
/k/ will not accept this.
It's not needed. We fight a casual and economic war now. Carriers are useless. Case in point, the Chinese islands. Carriers can't do anything about it. Would they risk MAD if they sink the islands? The islands are Chinese lands like the carriers are American land.
ha rampfag
>>29931241
>>29931241
why are ramps better than flat
why is gas better than nukes
>>29931270
Ramps allow f-35b's to take off with more fuel and payload. The f-35b is already at a disadvantage to the carrier variant, why make them even worse! It's also safer.
Gas is not better than nuclear power.
But gas is better for the uk than nuclear because the uk doesn't have a population to support the cost of nuclear power super carriers.
>>29931241
>>29931444
>But gas is better for the uk than nuclear because the uk doesn't have a population to support the cost of nuclear power super carriers.
Not true in the least, friend.
>>29931241
You can land every aircraft in a support engagement on american carriers. Radar aircraft to fuel craft that are double the size of a fighter.
A flat deck can hold 23 attack helicopters or nose boop a midway structure to offload 45 abrams.
>>29931569
Whilst that anon is shit at making his point, he's right.
Considering the manning requirements alone excludes nuclear power for the carriers.
>>29931241
why don't they just make massive glider carrier, it would work better
>>29931603
>>29931444
>But gas is better for the uk than nuclear because the uk doesn't have a population to support the cost of nuclear power super carriers.
Not true.
what the UK lacks is the pre-existing infrastructure required for the maintenance of a nuclear-powered warship. It would require the construction new drydocks, new secure facilities, etc, in England (the carriers would be based out of Portsmouth normally). The existing nuclear-powered vessels, the submarine fleet, are all based out of Faslane in Scotland, which does not have anything even close to the infrastructure needed for carrier-sized vessels.
The estimated cost of construction of those facilities would therefore be several billion - potentially adding 50% or more to the cost of the carriers.
its not an issue for the US, they've had that infrastructure for decades, so making a CVN instead of a CV makes sense economically there.
for the UK, making just 2 carriers for a 30-year service life, it doesn't make sense over their operational lifespan. its just wasting money.
>>29931241
England is not worth defending anymore
>>29931598
He's not right that it could not be afforded, thats total bullshit.
>>29931444
>Ramps allow f-35b's to take off with more fuel and payload.
This is blatantly untrue. American catapult craft leave with much more ordinance and fuel than their euro counterparts from ramps
>>29931906
He wasn't talking about compared to cats&traps.
It was ramp vs no ramp.
"All abord the u avin a giggle god bless the queen n u2 mashallah!"
>>29931444
>Ramps allow f-35b's to take off with more fuel and payload.
So does a catapult.
>>29931923
So you're trying to compare a carrier to a helicopter carrier?
>>29931252
>Carriers are so useless China is destroying priceless coral reefs to build islands that will sink themselves in a few years in a pathetic attempt to counter them.
This hilarity alone is worth the price of a super carrier.
>>29931943
Yeah, well you can blame EMALS development for the QE not being equipped with that, partially.
Does it even work now?
>>29931241
Your first mistake was buying F-35Bs
>>29931241
>The United kingdom has a population of 64 Million
>The USA has a population of 318 Million
These are relevant how?
>>29931241
>By cheaping out on the CATOBAR and Nuclear power the United kingdom is able to afford not only the worlds third most powerful carrier (Nimitz and Ford being the 1st and 2nd) but two of them allowing one on deployment at all times during the ships 50 year life span.
There will be one available at all times, there certainly won't be one on deployment at all times.
>>29931964
>Buying direct replacement to Harrier fleet
>Mistake
>>29931953
I wasn't the one making the comparison.
>>29932047
They should have bought F-35Cs and built actual carriers instead of oversized LHAs
>>29931955
They're still throwing trucks off the deck with it last I heard.
>>29932199
From your simplified view, in which we're discussing everything in a vacuum.
But we're not.
The RN knows exactly what its needs are and what works for them, far more then you do.
>>29932199
For what purpose?
>>29932199
What exactly is your definition of an '''''actual carrier'''''?
The QEs have the the heaviest displacement of any non-us carrier ever made.
Their air wing is superior to any other non-us carrier.
Their sensors and processing systems are superior to any other non-us carrier.
Where are these '''''actual carriers'''''' the UK should have?
With a 10th of the US' defense budget they've built a ship that curbstomps any other carrier other than those operated by the USN.
>>29932286
It's important to remember that US naval designations are really against having the word "carrier" anywhere near their LHDs like America class because of the worry that if congress thinks the can get the job of a Nimitz done the fords will lose budget.
The Queen Elizabeth class is more like a super LHD, which is not a bad thing and is more proof that US LHD's have no real reason to not use ramps.
>>29932286
I still don't understand why Americans on this board love shitting on UK stuff so much. Everyone knows the Americans have all the best stuff and more of it. Everyone agrees that the US possess the most terrifying, dick shivellingly powerful military in the world. These are not really up for debate. But everyone loves to judge all other capabilities, and particularly for some reason British ones, against their American analogue. It's not surprising that the American stuff is going to be better. They have more money than God, enough to have 10 motherfucking supercarriers. It's not like the UK or other nations are deliberately producing inferior equipment in small numbers and saving all their defence budgets up to buy biscuits. They just can't because they're not lucky enough to be undisputedly the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth.
>>29932403
>because of the worry that if congress thinks the can get the job of a Nimitz done the fords will lose budget
Stop perpetuating this fuddlore. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
>>29932403
>Clearly explain how it is superior to full size aircraft carriers like Admiral Kuznetsov, Charles de Gaulle and Liaoning
>its just a super duper LHD
>>29932448
>I still don't understand why Americans on this board love shitting on UK stuff so much.
do you remember when you were a teenager and you hated your parents ?
America is a socially immature country.
>>29932487
Is QE any better than CDG capability wise?
If the french suck up their pride, they can probably get F-35C's for the CDG, which would make it's air wing more capable than the QE's.
> France
> Suck up their pride
>>29932467
Every navy on the planet uses Ramps on their carriers ( except Charles de Gaulle).
Are you saying every navy is wrong and the American LHD's have a secret that no other navy has figured out, even allies of America?
Or could it be America are gimping thier Light carriers that use f-35B's and harriers for a reason
>>29932562
You mean other than being ~30,000 tons heavier, carrying 10 more aircraft, and not running on a shitty sub reactor that makes it break down more often than not?
Clappers seem to think everything with a fucking catapult is superior to anything that isn't. Just blatantly untrue.
>>29932527
As an American, I can agree with this.
>>29932562
Is F35 better than Rafle ?
>>29932403
I the LHD (would be an LPH if anything) designation is misleading as the class is a fixed wing carrier first and helo second.
Although the QE class does have enhancements that make it a great LPH such as widen "assault" corridors for marines heading up from their quarters to the flight deck, the second in the class, HMS Prince of Wales is getting additional enhancements for amphibious assault such as expanded helos capacity and other goodies.
>>29932448
It is because the British are cheap and safe shots, you can spew shit meme opinions with little reprise.
>>29932562
In what sense?
And she's good enough that the French were considering her as a replacement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2
>>29932577
I thought not having ramps is a thing that allows helicopters to do rolling takeoffs easier. Probably wrong thou.
>>29932562
>Larger airwing
>Better sensors and processing systems
>Integrated with green aircraft
>HMWHS
>Higher sortie generation
>Props that don't need to be replaced every few years
>>29932641
>I the LHD
HURRRRRRRRR
*I think the
>>29932646
The only advantage to not having a ramp on a ship like USS America is it gives the ship an additional helicopter pad.
>>29931241
lol ramp.
every post after this will be "lol ramp"
>>29932636
Pretty sure the consensus is yes by this point. F-35 is somewhat kinematically worse in exchange for having much much better avionics and stealth.
>>29932689
Which is really the right thing, since the LHAs are amphibious assault ships first and fixed wing carriers second.
>>29932716
This doesn't make the Rafale more capable than the F35.
>>29932731
>This doesn't make the Rafale more capable than the F35.
That's literally what he said.
>>29932747
If you want to get autismo about it, he didn't actually say it.
You come to that conclusion because you know that avionics and stealth outweigh kinematic performance.
ramp is for children
vive le Charle de gaulle
>>29932767
deployment is for children
vive le drydock
>>29932767
When does CdG go in for refuelling?
>>29932870
Tuesdays
>>29932870
fuel aircraft, food and stuff ?
supplies by helicopter i suppose
>>29932870
I think you meant when does the CdG NOT go in for refueling?
>>29932905
2 nuclear engines to do shit with diesel ...
>>29932002
Actually, no. Both QE class carriers will be out at sea most, if not all the time
>>29931241
>but two of them allowing one on deployment at all times during the ships 50 year life span.
But that's wrong. You typically want 3 vessels if you want one on deployment at any time.
1st undergoing regular maintenance
2nd doing training and certifications for crew
3rd on deployment
>>29932767
Sitting in the drydock all day every day doesn't make that a carrier, Pierre. It makes you lazy and turns the ship into a floating art exhibit
>>29933088
That's not true.
SDSR2015 states that one carrier will always be available, but it is ambiguous about both operating, this of course is not to say it can't happen, just that typically one will always be operating.
>>29933116
Ideally.
There's been some talk about a third carrier along the line, but I'm skeptical.
>>29931252
>We fight a casual and economic war now
>Buy F-35s
>>29933187
We buy them from ourselves, dunce.
>>29933188
that's right level 1 goy.
>>29933187
The f-35 is pretty cheap if you're just buying it, the development costs are where it's costly
>>29932562
QE class curbstomps CdG in capability. 5 knots faster, carries a good third more combat jets (more if they equal the helos of CdG for numbers to fit more F-35's on board) has vastly more advanced systems and more of all, puts out double the daily sorties.
Even with F-35C's, the CdG's rate wouldn't come up to match it. It's having the extra pilots, extra planes and especially the robotic automated munitions handling system that speeds sortie rates. Size and technology matters.
>>29933483
I heard the QE has capabilities in power requirements for future weapons like railguns and lasers the same as Ford class although I guess less capable. Any truth in this?
>>29933508
QE class has room for growth, to what extend idk.
>>29931241
One ramp is better than one catapult. Unless they put 2+ catapults on the ship (which would have required a significant redesign), the ramp was the better choice.
>>29933691
QE always had the capacity for catapults, just that it would have fucked with the contractual obligations the government had with BAE.
You can't go lolchangedmymind midway without delaying and costing tripling (IIRC from the NAO reports).
The problem with non-nuclear carriers and catapults is the question how to produce the steam.
A nuclear reactor produces steam as by-product like crazy.
>>29932716
>better avionics
No, not really.
>>29933801
>F-35
>not better avionics than the Rafale
>>29933783
>steam.
The Ford basically uses a railgun to launch and an electric motor/water turbine system for the arresting gear. No more complex steam systems.
>>29932403
I'm just glad Britan has something bigger than their old carriers like HMS ocean
>>29933120
top kek
>>29933801
>frog delusion
>>29933875
>I'm just glad Britan has something bigger than their old carriers like HMS ocean
This, I am happy a close ally is actually upgrading rather than leeching like most of those in NATO.
>>29933742
It was only ever designed with 1 catapult in mind.
>>29934401
It is great. The class could have been better but at least the UK is finally undoing the damage from the 1966 white paper defence review
>>29933845
>>29934387
>greentext
>>29935181
>The class could have been better
With what budget?
We lost two Type 45s for the Type 26 to brought forward.
>>29935200
Nice argument, frog
>>29935201
I meant in an ideal world, I'm a big fan of the class as it exists in the reality of the UK now.
I'm going to be in Edinburgh next week, don't suppose anyone knows how close to the docks you can get in Rosyth, worth the trip across the bay?
>>29931241
>Further more, the US not using ramps for increased efficiency of their F-35B's on their LHA's
That would require very expensive and costly retrofit to a bunch of existing ships, which is why it wasn't done.
>HMS Queen Elizabeth should have been CATOBAR. She isn't.
The class was built "For, but not with" electromagnetic catapults, which are drastically cheaper to maintain and operate. The intensive maintenance required for steam catapults is one big reason so few nations use them, despite the big advantages they offer. England can't afford to develop their own, so they're waiting for the US to perfect the ones being installed on the new Ford-class carrier (under construction.) Then they can just buy it from the burgers. The catapult would give them the steam catapult ability, but at a cost far, far cheaper than old steam catapults; cost they can actually afford.
>The US Navy has reduced their fleet from 11 to 10 super carriers and with those numbers can only have two on deployment at any time (with another one on it's way to relieve one of those two) as opposed to 3.5 with 11.
No, it has everything to do with the Ford class carrier's construction being delayed. No deliberate reduction of the fleet was implemented, and it'll be back to 11 shortly.
>>29933846
>The Ford basically uses a railgun to launch and an electric motor/water turbine system for the arresting gear. No more complex steam systems.
>Railgun
>No More Complex Systems
>>29935365
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Rosyth,+Fife/@56.0225418,-3.4425916,1399m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4887ce2016004a9f:0xf85d88e855ff9e82!8m2!3d56.03647!4d-3.423064
Close enough, I think.
Also, I think that's Lusty in dock.
>>29932403
>The Queen Elizabeth class is more like a super LHD
That you said this, horrifies me greatly. The Queen Elizabeth class is a proper god damned carrier, even with the sad ramp launching system. Please respect it as such.
>>29935428
>Also, I think that's Lusty in dock.
No, I'm wrong that's QE.
>>29935365
You can see them VERY clearly from the bridge. But to get close to the actual site you need to have a media pass. The gate is miles away from the drydock and basin. Saw this during my visit tour of her.
I've been aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth on a media trip, btw. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask, I've followed and see the ship in extremely great detail and had a full tour of it (sans engineering, which wasn't visitor safe at the time)
(Pic related is out of date, btw. PoW is basically structurally complete now and QE is running her shafts these days. It looks like two complete carriers up there now)
>>29932448
>I still don't understand why Americans on this board love shitting on UK stuff so much.
Burger here, I agree with this post. It fucking annoys me to see people shitting on the QE class, because the QE is what we've been fucking demanding from Europe for YEARS. It's about fucking time someone ELSE in NATO built some weapons capable of real power projection instead of building a bare minimum of defensive weapons and letting America foot the bill for every-fucking-thing else. Construction of the QE class is a serious commitment to the alliance, and shows the likes of Russia and China that their efforts to undermine and isolate the US will not be met with apathy.
England is sacking up and arming for bear but fuckheads on /k/ just gotta fuckhead I guess
>>29935442
Nope, that's definitely Lusty. Look at the lack of two islands and the "nose" at the front.
>>29935454
Could you talk a little about the assault corridors and HMWHS?
(meta note: has the number of educated bongs gone up on this board?)
![HMS-Queen-Elizabeth_Photo-Credit-Lee-Howard-Photography[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pf2Ja0G.jpg "HMS-Queen-Elizabeth_Photo-Credit-Lee-Howard-Photography[1].jpg")
>>29935442
No you were right, that picture is lusty with a partly formed QE to the left.
Here's a later picture
>>29935413
>intentional misread
Yes, the EMALS/AAG is new, fancy tech, but it doesn't require miles of piping to route and pressurize steam from the reactor systems, is easier to set to optimum launch/capture pressures, and is overall an improvement. It's not like it needs to fire at the speeds the hypersonic cannon guns do.
>>29931241
>>29935476
>>29935496
I couldn't quite tell because of the debris around the deck.
Aren't the two others in the smaller docks a Type 23 and a Type 45?
The VLS boxes look different.
>>29932577
Do they even have enough deck space to make proper use of them? You need a certain speed/roll-out room to get that speed. You can use ramps to launch fixed-wing fighters with no VTOL/STOL capability whatsoever, they just lug less payload and fuel than if they'd launched via catapult or runway. But for getting extra payload out of a VTOL aircraft... I'm not sure how much extra payload you're getting. I mean, VTOLs typically can't make vertical takeoffs with full weapons loads anyways. Even the Harrier needed a short take-off roll with a full weapons load. And if you have enough deck for that, you don't even need the ramp.
>>29935454
That's a pity, so to get a good proper look I'd be best to just park and walk to the bridge?
>>29935507
Triggered
>>29935527
USS america is bigger than what most other countries call carriers.
She has more than enough room for a ramp. Which means it was a political reason to not include a ramp, especially when the America class was designed with aviation in mind.
>>29935496
>that tiny clearance between the hull and the dock
she's a big one
>>29935486
The corridors are extremely wide. And by that I mean that the main thoroughfares you could fit four men abreast in combat gear. (Mostly near the mess, to my amusement) They narrow down to two people abreast nearing the routes to the flight deck, hanger and rear docking platform. The interior is very spacious and in some places was actually given design hints from Bugatti for minimalisation of size, such as near the Ops Room.
The HMWHS (Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System for those now in the know) is, to be blunt, absolutely incredible. I've never seen a thing like it. One of the ex-Royal Navy guys with me took a look at the deck its build on and commented "This shit is the size of a frigate." It stretches all through the vessel, with robotic cranes and rolling platforms that can carry munitions from belly to hanger or flight deck in around a fifth of the time on "manual" carriers. It's protected behind what is basically a vault door that closes it entirely off when not sending stuff out. Notable is two elevators in the backs of the islands connected directly to the system, so it can delivery munitions, entirely robotically, to the flight deck without coming up through the deck itself, they use the islands, and is one of the less well known reasons behind the two island design. It's been designed to function safely even up to Sea State 7. God knows why you'd be moving munitions topside then but better safe than sorry. Pic related for testing. It felt like walking through a car robotics factory. Tech lovers will probably pitch a tent in there.
If there is but one feature of this ship that is truly innovative and revolutionary, it's this thing.
>>29935572
>desire to know more intensifies
>>29935566
>bigger than what most other countries call carriers.
Just because they call their helicopter barges "carriers" doesn't mean they're anything close to a carrier, anon. That doesn't mean jack shti.
>which means it was a political reason to not include a ramp,
Not unless you're operating fixed wing aircraft from them. They're not big enough to launch fixed wing aircraft, and a ramp doesn't help a VTOL very much.
Plus, the US is deploying an America-class with F-35Bs aboard it sometime this year for a trial deployment. We're very gung-ho on this, part of the "distributed lethality" initiative to offload offensive capability from our carrier battle groups. If it was "political," why the fuck are we actively diversifying our firepower AWAY from carriers? Fuck you're stupid.
>>29935572
Thank you.
What is it like navigating through the ship?
I've heard things like iphones apps being created for helping the crew get around the ship.
>>29935572
>The HMWHS (Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System for those now in the know) is, to be blunt, absolutely incredible.
I've heard ~rumors~ that there was come collaboration between the US and the UK on that, and a lot of the insights shared will be present on the Ford-class carriers. Pretty cool shit.
>>29935616
>and a ramp doesn't help a VTOL very much.
Fixed wings capable of VTOL are all STOVL, and are helped by ramps immensely.
>>29935636
Heard that as well.
Though since there's nothing, but arrsey whispers to it, can't really posted about it as "no proofs = didn't happen"
>>29935572
This is why I still come to /k/. The odd gem that is actually informative.
>>29935666
In my seven years on coming to this board, this is the best QE thread to ever happen.
>>29935572
Do you have any info on what sea states the carrier is capable of launching aircraft in? I've heard in the past that ramped carriers can launch in worse conditions than flat-tops.
>>29935616
>Ramps don't help f-35b's much.
>fuck you're stupid
Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
>>29935540
There might be some special spots that I don't know about, I'm not a resident. But with a set of binos and the bridge, you're golden. Maybe try asking around across the river, you might find a hill. They're not exactly easy to hide!
>>29935601
Well, one of the things that interests about the handling system is because it's so enormous, it can take in future weaponry that may be larger or of unusual shape. It can adapt to new things and in theory could even fit your munitions ahead of delivery, such as different seeker types.
>>29935630
There is indeed an app, but it's not intended for operational deployment on iPhones. They have their own handheld devices in there that use it. It basically reads where you are in the ship and can then offer you a GPS like guide to get where you're going.
I fully expect that anyone who uses this past the first week is gonna get hounded relentlessly by the crew.
All the same, it's very useful, as you can reprogram it to "avoid" areas if they're closed off for maintanence. They use it mostly for media right now in case they get lost. We all had to wear a lanyard with a signal in it that they could detect and navigate to us if we wandered off.
Inside it's surprisingly clean but very samey from deck to deck. You rarely feel cramped compared to some ships I've been on but if you weren't a crew member, you could be forgiven for forgetting which deck you were on after going up and down a few times. I particularly liked the Ops Room and the Forward Bridge, they have a fast access elevator in there. Very nifty.
>>29935636
The US Navy was very interested in the design of the carrier. With things this large, there's always some little nuggets of innovative ideas that can be shared between projects. It's easy to forget in the world of sortie numbers and launch methods that something as small as a change in the power distribution grid could be a massive deal to those actually operating the things. They've had regular visits and taken regular ones to the Ford too.
This is something the engineer guiding us was keen to stress, the "little thing", he was showing us some very nifty engineering about the chain driven aircraft lifts. Yes, chain driven. While hydraulics run the lifting power, it actually LIFTS on chains, because they're considered easier to rely on stopping dead on a power failure to not have the thing crash down. They were very proud of it, but I'm afraid they went into rather too much detail for me to understand what they had actually achieved.
>>29935698
I did prod for an answer there, but they wouldn't say. Operational parameters that permit or deny launches were considered classified. However, they did say it was definitely more than the Invincible Class and "some catapult carriers."
If I had to take a guess, he probably just means "everything that isn't a Ford." Which makes sense, given the QE and Ford allegedly use very similar stabilisation methods. He stated the reason isn't so much the method of launch, it's about what the ship itself can be affected by these days, since planes got good enough to not suffer the same restrictions.
However, one definite answer was that they could LAND in worse conditions, but thats fairly obvious, being STOVL and all.
>>29932448
>It's not like the UK or other nations are deliberately producing inferior equipment in small numbers and saving all their defence budgets up to buy biscuits.
If bongs would stop trying to pass off their fucking ramps as so much better than flat decks then maybe you wouldn't see such vitriol in response.
>>29935857
Stop with the jingoism.
Not him, but I've certainly never tried to pass off ramps to the LHAs, I've even said stuff against it being fitted in this very thread. Don't mistake one autist for a whole nation.
>>29935857
They're not better than flat tops and catapults launching carrier variants.
But they are better for launching stovl aircraft like harriers and f-35b's
>>29935733
>>29935851
Thanks again.
Did you get to ask about what modifications the PoW was having?
>>29935851
Yeah but what's under the ramp?
>>29935939
>>29935851
Any word on the name change of PoW to Ark Royal? Haven't heard about it for awhile and figure it's being cancelled and hushed up.
>>29935967
Biscuit storage
>>29935967
Leftovers from the Nimrod MRA4s.
>>29935973
None at my end.
>>29935939
You're very welcome, and yes I did. Most of what the Assembly Director mentioned is not terribly exciting stuff, mostly internal design alterations to help the assault ramps and navigation or equipment storage and a new passageway to go direct from bunk to armoury in a shorter time. The more exciting part was the flight deck organisational changes, they bumped it from having 6 landing spots to 10. Of course it always could fit it, but the process of actually designing signals and background workings to permit it to be carried out safely are more complex than I think many might realise.
>>29935967
The ramp itself has a flight deck equipment storage locker below it never got to look inside but I did see the door when I was up beside the ramp (Which is so much bigger than you'd imagine from the photos, it's HUGE). No wasted space. Some junior rates sleep on the decks below it. Must be interesting.
>>29935973
Definitely isn't happening. The internal support for the name "Prince of Wales" was enormous, the back room has been wanting a ship by this name for a LONG time, ever since the old CVs were cancelled. They weren't going to give it up easy.
To be fair, the name IS steeped in a lot of history.
>>29935851
where in this picture would the munitions handling system posted above be located?
>>29932716
Good avionics and good kinematic performance are not mutually exclusive you dipshit
>>29932641
>Although the QE class does have enhancements that make it a great LPH such as widen "assault" corridors for marines heading up from their quarters to the flight deck
>Assault corridors
>In Bongistan even hallways are considered deadly military-grade weapons
>>29936075
Sounds like that was left out for a good reason.
>>29936125
heh, fair point
>>29936075
On one of the missing decks. It's deifnitely not on the image. I admit, it was hard to keep track in there, especially as we went down the stairs from the bridge and half the exits were covered in cloth for engineering work. Sometimes I wonder if they were deliberately spinning our perception of where we were, because we did a lot of detours and never went through decks in a simple order.
But it's essentially through the belly of the entire ship within its armoured tomb of weapon spewing robots (Engineer's quote, not mine!). It stretches at least between the two islands, given they are its primary exits to the flight deck. It has about 56 individual robotic palletes that move along the system, so it's got a lot going on. I'd say it easily takes up a good majority of its deck. The edges away from it were mostly non-critical things and various toolshops and stations.
Check out pic related. Thats two Type 23's for scale. Now the guy with me commented it was "the size of a frigate", so imagine just one of them in the picture in terms of length and width. Thats the sort of scale of system you're looking at.
I know I can harp on about the HMWHS, but it really was something special to see.
>>29936051
>>29936186
How small is the pilot wheel? I've heard it is tiny.
And how did a smarty pants such as yourself end up on 4chan?
>>29932798
Burst out laughing at work
10/10
For those who want to learn britbong military websites:
Thinkdefence co uk
ukdefencejournal org uk/
defencetalk com/forums/
savetheroyalnavy org/
Arrse co uk
navy-net co uk/
ukarmedforcescommentary blogspot co uk/
ukdefenceforum net/
>>29936120
I kekked
>>29936214
It's miniscule. Hilariously so. I could control it with one hand, it's comically offset to the size of the ship. Rest of the bridge is sweet though, those massive windows give a roof to floor view and I saw a lot of things similar to the Type 45 in there, which makes sense I guess. Very bright and open, but it's deceptive. That glass can resist attack, allegedly. It's very thick looking, I know that at least. The navigator is gonna have the best view in the house sitting at the corner looking off starboard.
>And how did a smarty pants such as yourself end up on 4chan?
One must let their hair down every so often, and you get to meet a lot more defence enthusiasts from other countries on here.
>>29936282
Forgot a pic with that post. Fixing.
As a note, they took us underneath her when in drydock, so I've walked beneath the ship. That was freaky, 65,000-71,000 tonnes of steel just above your head held up on beams is disconcerting, especially when you get to the middle and have to hunker down a little. The engineer was very proud of this though. As many of you know, she was build in whats become humourously known as "lego blocks", big chunks that slid together. They had two massive sections of over 16,000 tons each covering every deck to slide together width ways to fit every wall on the inside together perfectly for every join. He told me that they actually missed their mark, then grinned as he told us by "how much".
By 1.9mm.
The solution took less than 15 minutes, from their first attempt.
The ACA are god tier engineers up there in Rosyth. They really are.
You lost all credibility the moment you claimed not having ramps was a bad thing
>>29936551
Ramps are fine, what matters is what you are strapping them on.
>>29935731
>he says with no evidence
nigga, if you got some information, post it, otherwise, naw
>>29936186
>But it's essentially through the belly of the entire ship within its armoured tomb of weapon spewing robots (Engineer's quote, not mine!). It stretches at least between the two islands, given they are its primary exits to the flight deck. It has about 56 individual robotic palletes that move along the system, so it's got a lot going on. I'd say it easily takes up a good majority of its deck. The edges away from it were mostly non-critical things and various toolshops and stations.
What they didn't say was, those spaces will absorb most of the blast from an anti-ship missile hit, protecting the vitals and keeping the carrier mission-capable.
>>29936607
> what is Google? The post
Here's the first link, there is dozens of others.
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA378145
>>29936282
You need a name. CarrierBro or something.
>>29936706
Second
>>29936670
>"significant improvement"
>no numbers
Oh god dammit it's probably classified. Fuck.
>>29936551
Give me any reason other than "a single helicopter pad" why the America class shouldn't have a ramp when it's design focus is on aviation.
>>29936762
Because "aviation" in this case means "helicopters," you dizzy cunt.
>>29935967
Tea bags, millions upon millions of them.
>>29936774
Helicopters and stovl aircraft.
How about from a major in the marine core the America class is actually built for?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Hancock.htm
>>29931241
Is there a way to save threads on this website. Whenever I see a thread where somebody seems to actually know what they're talking about, I want to save it as a reference for the future.
>>29936819
How about straight off Wikipedia?
>USS America can be used as a small aircraft carrier with a squadron of jet fighters plus several multipurpose helicopters, such as the SH-60 Seahawk. It can carry about 20 AV-8Bs, F-35Bs, or a mixture of the two, but the future ships of this class, starting with LHA-8, will have smaller aircraft hangars to leave room for larger amphibious warfare well decks.
Putting a ramp on it is trying to make it do the job of a nuclear-powered fleet carrier, and that's retarded, because these vessels will never operate in a serious large-scale operation without a fleet carrier nearby anyway. Even with a ramp, they just don't have air wings big enough to tackle any serious IADS, sending three of them is retarded when you could simply send one fleet carrier and we won't even have three with significant aircraft capabilities anyways.
And their focus on aviation has already been ditched in favor of larger well decks; effectively making all future planned ships into LHDs again.
>>29936867
All 4chan boards have their own community run archives.
https://desustorage.org/
>>29936706
>>29936743
If /k/ requests it, then I can do so. Honoured.
Will only put it on when the subject comes up though, think like Frenchfag. Just when I have something to add outside the ordinary.
I will be trying to get back to Rosyth again, perhaps when QE sets sail. If I can nail some pictures I will this time. I don't want to miss that.
Fun fact about QE setting sail, she actually can't fit under the Forth Road Bridge! THis disasterous sounding problem was known about in advance though, as she's so big that her radar would clip the bottom of the suspension bridge. As such, if you look carefully during the ineviable videos, watch the S-1850M radar carefully when it goes for the bridge. They've build in a hinged radar, so the entire thing can lift up and rotate 180 degrees to the side and hang the radar upside down to remove a few metres from the top of the carrier's height. This lets it fit under the bridge.
It's just one of those "so barmy it has to be a British thing" design moments.
>>29936892
So I just save the post number and then I can search for it later? Okay.
>>29936937
No, all threads are automatically saved.
https://desustorage.org/k/thread/29931241
That is this current thread.
>>29936894
>It's just one of those "so barmy it has to be a British thing" design moments.
Ahhahaha that's pretty funny. I would've expected them to just leave the radar off and finish fitting out at a different port.
>>29935475
>>29932448
As a burger I don't know why.
It's great that Britain is going "hey we can project". If only half our allies could do that things would probably be better for everyone.
>>29937037
There's a great book called HMS Thunderer which is a history of the RN's engineering school up until the mid-80s. It's full of anecdotes of ingenious MacGuyvering like repairing radars with toaster heating elements during the Falklands.
>>29936894
I'm lucky enough to be only an hour and a half away. Any word on when the PoW naming ceremony is, if it's getting one that is?
>>29937579
Certainly getting one. No date announced, though. PoW is months ahead of schedule already, so it could sneak up on us.
Hopefully they'll get some F-35's to fly over for it this time.
>>29935365
I live on the shore opposite Rosyth. The best place to see them is from a small car viewpoint on the south shore (you get an excellent view of the fourth valley too)
The Bridges View Point - 55°59'08.2"N 3°27'09.4"W
Alternatively a beach in south queensferry will do.
>>29937104
Do you have any "core" book recommendations? Something every bong defence commentator must have?
>>29932286
Actual carriers can launch Hawkeyes.
>>29937656
Although I found it interesting HMS Thunderer at least is a very obscure book - I've only seen one copy in the flesh in my entire life and that was the one I scooped from the remainders basket when the library was throwing out old books. You can't swing a cat in a bookshop without hitting a dozen Afghanistan/Gulf 2 memoirs in bookshops but I haven't seen many books studying the actual tech specs of the British Army outside of the simple Osprey summaries.
I'd be interested if anyone actually had information about the ramp and expected flight profile of the F-35B from the QE classes in comparison to Wasp/America class.
Honestly, it seems like you could get away with an almost conventional takeoff (and rolling vertical landing) with the length the QE class is and the ramp, if you really needed to stretch out the combat radius.
Or am I wrong?
>>29937714
I know the numbers exist somewhere.
UNSC and RN did a good couple of studies together into stories rates and whatnot, but I don't think they've published them.
>>29937714
>>29937753
Feel free to search through, might be something in here.
http://dsearch.dtic.mil/search?site=default_collection&q=USMC+Royal+Navy&client=dticol_frontend&proxystylesheet=dticol_frontend&proxyreload=1&filter=0&tlen=200&getfields=*&btnG=Google+search
Considering the final captain of QE and PoW haven't even been born yet, its still probable that we will see the two carriers fitted for CATOBAR.
In 50 years they wont even be using F35.
>>29937875
>Considering the final captain of QE and PoW haven't even been born yet
Jesus christ, it just hit me how old I'll be when these things retire.
>>29931603
Gliderfag pls go
>>29931241
>I'm flying, Jack!
>>29937714
The combat radius would stay pretty much the same; the jet can take off with max fuel on either class of ship, the F-35B can just take more ordnance off a QE.
>>29940705
And return with a full load because of rolling recovery - although I think the US was investigating using rolling recovery instead of vertical landing?
>>29940705
Yeah, but the fuel usage in takeoff is lower, no?
>>29931608
>>29940064
I don't think it's actually him. He never starts his rants that obviously.
>>29942067
Yes, they can take off slower using less fuel.
But more importantly they can take off in rougher seas due to having far more clearance after leaving the carrier. Off the top of my head I think it's 16 meters from a flat top vs 60 meters from a carrier like an invincible class
>>29942101
fuck dipping below the deck in rough seas.
also
>Ski-jump ramp takeoffs are considered safer than takeoffs over a flat-top carrier. When a Harrier launches from an American LHA (Landing Helicopter Assault) it might finish its takeoff roll and begin flight at 60 ft (18 m) above the water. It might not have a positive rate of climb, especially if the ship had pitched nose down during the takeoff roll. Using a ski-jump ramp, the plane will certainly launch with a positive rate of climb and its momentum will carry it to 150 to 200 ft (46 to 61 m) above the water.[22]
>>29942075
Thats just what he wants us to think
>>29942141
From the publicly available videos the F-35B has more than enough thrust to be climbing as it runs out of deck, so I think it's fine there compared to the Harrier.
>>29943002
Generally the only videos we have are perfectly calm seas with no weapons
>>29935438
Can anything without downwards pointing thrust land on it?
>>29943339
Yes
We give them a lot of shit about it in jest, but it's honestly really cool that someone else in NATO is actually building 70,000 ton ships to launch F-35s.
I look forward to seeing them sailing with a Ford, Cavour, Príncipe de Asturias and Charles de Gaulle together someday please. The ultimate NATO STRONG fleet picture.
>>29936894
/k/ appreciates namefags who contribute good info and opinions in threads where appropriate. It's when you turn your trip on in threads where it doesn't make sense that makes me mad, because at that point it's self serving showmanship instead of board serving and helpful.
>Honoured.
Don't let it go to your head, you're already British enough as it is.
>>29943781
Afraid the Principe de Asturias was decommissioned a few years ago. They use a LHD as flagship now
>>29943339
They use downward thrust for takeoff and landing, just not straight down.
The deck is perfectly capable of handling pure vertical landing and takeoff though.
saved
>>29944489
Without arrested recovery what exactly could she land that would be worthwhile?
>>29931241
Bongistan is just purposely fucking over its military so it can't kill their invaders anymore. Pretty soon it will be not just an Arab Mayor of London, but an Arab PM, with a majority Arab Parliament.
Your country is fucked.
>>29947137
He's not an Arab, he's a Paki.
Get it right.
>>29947175
That's even fucking worse desu
>>29947183
Wtf did it just filter "desu" t b h to desu?
>>29947198
>>29947183
Holy fucking shit it did.
>>29947198
newfag.
>>29947137
>Bongistan is just purposely fucking over its military
Sure could have fooled me.
![Essex-class_carrier_modernisations_1944-1960[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7idTxBR.jpg "Essex-class_carrier_modernisations_1944-1960[1].jpg")
Is there a good reason they went with a ramp and a straight deck instead of two forward catapults and an aft angled landing deck like the Essex class refit?
>>29947103
a full load.
Rolling recovery comes in at 70 kts, that combined with the lift from the engine and lift fan generates enough lift to recover with a full load, thats the whole point.
You also end up with faster turn around because you dont have to wait for wires and catapults to reset.
There are some very specific circumstances where rams are superior, however generally there are more, broader circumstances where catobar is better.
>>29947298
cost and an earlier in service date.
The construction had already been delayed because lel politicians. this added an extra £1.5bn to the total cost of £6bn for the two ships.
EMALS, and the alternate deck would have added another £1bn to the cost and only the second ship would get it unless construction was halted.
Also while F35 numbers are low the mod wanted the RAF and FAA to share F35B so that they could move airframes between services if the need arises.
Even with STOVL, QE still has plenty of space and technology to allow her to turn around aircraft quickly. We can still have 24/7 F35 cover over any part of the world we need it.
Maybe in the future we will see a C variant, but there is really little need, the gain is too small, our AEW is good and there are continued murmurous of some kind of tilt rotor joining the air wing for refuelling / COD
