Why not just build proper flattop aircraft carriers? These things cost billions with billions more for the aircraft stationed on them. Using ramps is ridiculous, if you build 2 of them, just make them as big as the new American ones for Christ’s sake, don’t be cheap on a 30 billion dollar project!
I mean, the French carrier is flat with no ramp and uses nuclear for propulsion.
P.S. how many aircraft carriers does Europe, Russia and China need, how many does the US need?
they think jets are like bmx, they are retarded
But why? Aircraft carriers are symbols of national pride. Why waste that by using a ramp which says “uhhh, we couldn’t make the thing big enough like American carriers or install a CATOBAR system”.
Oi mate. We forgot to renew our steam powered catapult loicense. Ramps are the best we can do.
2019
sushchestvuyut yadernyye giperzvukovyye rakety
sushchestvuyut giperzvukovyye takticheskiye rakety
vse yeshche obsuzhdayut plavayushchiye groby stoimost'yu milliardy
Paзвepнyть
143/5000
>2019
>successfully tested nuclear hypersonic missiles
>successfully tested hypersonic tactical missiles
>still discussing floating coffins cost billions
>Muh nuclear missiles!
The moment you use nukes the world will nuke you back retard, aircraft carriers get used all the time.
>2019
>i still use shitty google translator
Because the aircraft they operate can take off with a larger payload using a ramp.
>Why not use a catapult
More expensive and they break. You have to work quite hard to break a ramp.
Seething
>aircraft carriers get used all the time
against sandnigerrs? it is obvious that no aircraft carrier will come close to our borders.
You truly think that the US baseline only CATOBAR for aircraft carriers because they are inferior to ramp approaches?
I also read that catapult shorten the life span of the aircraft, where it put strain on plane each launch
No catapults have their own advantages. The main one being they can launch more types of aircraft. We did invent them you know.
The new Australian LHDs Canberra and Adelaide we're made in Spain. They have ramps. To remove ramps from the design would have cost too much money. They're only used for helicopters so they're pointless and waste all the ramp deck space.
Pic related HMAS Canberra
Build yourselves one if you're so intelligent
>Using ramps is ridiculous
Using ramps is cost efficient. You get with a shorter penis extender.
Based Australian Juan Carlos
This.
Also- Eurofighter was never designed with CATOBAR launch in mind, ramp is an easier solution to making them to be carrier launchable.
Do the German aircraft carriers have ramps?
>Implying they've had any since 1947
Please,they have to launch with less fuel from a ramp which leads to them needing to refuel from a tanker almost immediately after launch. It's just hard to build and maintain a catapult, and the US has mastered it.
That's not the first time Queen Elizabeth was covered in seamen, if you know what i mean...
Wrong. Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing. The F35 can do it.
F35B I should say.
Boasting about nuclear weapons in your arsenal only, is like a lunatic yelling "Look, i have a suicide vest on, dont mess with me!".
Name a type of aircraft that you Brits can launch and Americans cannot.
Germany is not allowed to have aircraft carriers because of world war 2. We cannot have any weapon systems which aren’t useful in case of a defensive war at home on German soil.
>military hardware needs maintenance
The nerve of some people
>Takes out ramp
I haven't really done testing on ramps for airplane takeoff. I am guessing that ramps are just a bad idea, as they lower the amount of landing space a plane has (meaning the carrier needs to be larger and costs more). And I also believe they lower the acceleration of the plane when taking off, so they require more distance to actually reach flight speed. I think they may actually make blind spots on the ship radar.
I'm guessing that they are just completely ineffective for aircraft carriers.
What point are you trying to get at here?
First off, when it comes to war it’s probably not a good idea to include “French” in there.
Secondly, we have 20 aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has 12 combined. And ours are bigger. 80 fighter jets each. ‘Murica.
What a cuck.
ACs are only useful for pushing around sandnigger shitholes. And only america cares about doing that.
Well then maybe you shouldn’t have lost ww2, have you ever thought of that?
This is just a hypothesis, we'd need an expert who actually knows this stuff, or we'd have to test it ourselves.
>the French aircraft carrier is already coloured white
What a surprise...
First action of ww3 will be each carrier group getting nuked.
As said above, we are not allowed to have German aircraft carriers, but we can build them as a cornerstone project for the new EU navy. We would need 5 to 6 EU aircraft carrier groups, 2 stationed in the Atlantic, 2 in the Med/Middle East and 2 in reserve/maintenance.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
>aren't useful
Well, you guessed why so many countries prefer to reduce costs. In a conventional war scenario in Europe (which is unlikely), there's no point for us to have many aircraft carriers. The US, however, need them to project power, that's why they have so many.
Hmm. So that means America’s power mainly comes from the fact we can afford these ships, and these ships lets us carry lots of planes that can blow up everything on the ground?
I get it now. I thought it was because of some secret weapon our army has.
You said there are aircraft that can only be launched with a ramp.
It's a good strategy, nobody messes with dangerous lunatics.
haha what a slut
This
No I didn't.
You have 11 carriers, the rest of the world also has 11 actives.
In 5 yrs, the US will have 10 active carriers and the rest of the world will have 17.
Yes, if we wanted to be sovereign country with military relevance, we probably should have had a better ww2 strategy, maybe focused on North Africa and the Middle East in 1940/1941 before the Soviet Union.
But we lost, so our only option to be military relevant (nukes, carriers, jets, ICBMs, tanks, large armies) is by creating a unified EU military controlled by us.
Every day
It's named after Queen Elizabeth I, who was famously a virgin and left no heir.
By that time we won't need aircraft carriers, we will have 12000 satellite cannons, which we will use for mass spying, storing nukes and other offensive ballistic missiles. Maybe a few lasers to redraw the borders of countries we don't like.
>Other than the USA, 5 of them are also in NATO, with 3 more on the way
>Outside NATO, the world has 4 in service, with 3 under construction
>No, catapults have their own advantages. The main one being they can launch more types of aircraft. We did invent them you know.
You said “more types of aircraft”, i.e. more types for catapult systems.
Yes you did faggot. What can only be launched with a ramp? Something without a cable hook?
You mean when he said bigger payload?
Yes. Catapults have their own advantages, the main advantage catapults have being the ability to launch more types of aircraft.
That is what I said.
I can forgive the kraut for failing English, but you you can go suck my dick.
Ahh your push for an EU wide military becomes clear. Get fucked.
I am unlicensed for sucking dick you said it could launch more types you have yet to say what types and why it's superior.
German misunderstood english i can understand but the american amaze me.
He said catapault main advantage is that they can launch more type of aircrafts and british ramp cannot.
Go back and read my post carefully.
They're just toys
Errr, no she had lovers. Portrayed the image of a virgin yes. The original tradthot.
We know the recruitment numbers for your bundeswher from last year (however it’s spelled), you have no chance to regain military status.
Matter of fact, unless you become the next Soviet Union, then you might invigorate your countrymen to die in battle.
Why is NATO relevant?
I count the carriers by 2025 as follows:
America: 10, all of them of the big CATOBAR variety, so pretty strong overall
UK: 2, both build to support the US in its wars
Europe:1 France, 3 Italy (all smaller ones), 1 Spain (small) for a total of 5, but with low capabilities
Enemies or unreliable allies of the USA/UK: 2 Russia, 2 China, 2 India (small), 1 Thailand (small), 1 Turkey (small) for a total of 8 enemy carriers
>read my post carefully.
You're asking quit a lot of him, to be fair.
You said “No catapults” have their own advantages. You implied carriers that are not CATOBAR can launch more aircraft types, presumably choppers and turboprops?
Well, I would say US aircraft carriers can launch all kinds of shit.
>Russia
>2 aircraft carriers
I've read it several times you massive faggot.
>Ramp better because more versatile.
>Gets upset when anyone asks how it's more versatile or even an advantage.
I'm the one with comprehension problems
I said "no" to your suggestion that the USA uses cats and traps because they're worse.
>1 France
Ambitious. They don't really have one now, nor are the firm plans for a replacement. I wouldn't hold my breath.
what do you hide under that ramp ?
It meant to be "No, catapult"
But what does "No catapult have their own advantage" means to you?
You're the one with sentence structure problems then.
You really are mate
>hurr durr why do the US use them because they're worse?
>No catapults have their own advantages. The main one being they can launch more types of aircraft. We did invent them you know.
Admittedly he could have done with a comma after the 'no'.
The Charles de Gaulle just had its midlife upgrade and is supposed to be operated until 2035/2040.
So what happens if a conventional world war breaks out, and nuclear powered submarines & aircraft carriers get sunk. We just irradiate and die?
Thank you fren. Little known fact; missing commas led to WW2
Read this in context with his first post here>Because the aircraft they operate can take off with a larger payload using a ramp.
>Why not use a catapult
>More expensive and they break. You have to work quite hard to break a ramp.
It's barely functioning. Naval aviation gets so little carrier flight time they're suffering serious skill fade. Nuclear and catobar bring more complexities and headaches, and there isn't a second carrier to rotate with.
>No, catapults have their own advantages.
There you go, Princess.
I made a ramp for my bike once, worked fine for a while til my heavy payload fren John tried it
Now i know why Americans are infamous for their education. Even i understood what brits said.
Missing comma in this case, the sentence make no sense to me.
And missing full-stops led to it not ending until 1990?
>people actually defending the cuck ramp
china has manmade islands instead
That's not a ramp. That's the aftermath of having a woman captain ramming into things, they just never bothered to fix it because noticing there is a problem would be mysoginistic
Missing periods always leads to some sort of trouble.
Yes I did.
Ramp has advantage of being able to install more payload on aircraft.
Then you ask if catapault is inferior to ramp. The brit said "no", catapault has their own advantage of being able to operate more types of aircrafts.
>not even able to traverse the ramp
should have bought more powerful aircraft
Well, if that’s what he said, fine then. I still wish to know which aircraft can’t be launched with a ramp then.
SHH shut up you kraut...ofcourse they're worthless but they look cool k?
Let me help you with your autism fren.
Catobar
Pro:
Can launch a wider variety of aircraft, debatably with greater payloads
Cons:
Requires constantly supply of steam
Frequently fails, sometimes catostrophically
Landings are harder (debatable)
Ramps
Pro:
Don't stop working
Greater payload (debatable)
Landings easier
Con:
Fewer variations of aircraft can be used
I chuckled.
Checked and underrated kek
E2 Hawkeye, C130 are the first that come to mind.
Name the types or aircraft that cannot be launched with a ramp.
Source for a US CATOBAR carrier ever have a catastrophic failure of the catapult system during war.
Also F-35A wasnt it? You brits are using F-35B because it can vertical land and design for short take off
