Give me one good reason to put a ramp on a 10bn dollar carrier

High altitude spy planes can launch off it where they wouldn't otherwise be able to. Sage.

How much are they? I ride regularly and I still use my uncle’s saddle that is 25+yrs old that he didn’t need any more. I heard a good custom saddle costs a shitton.

Engliggers aren't like very bright

One was a gift my sister (she rides) and the other two were for her friends and I only charged 1500 each.

Doesn't it let you get altitude quicker in an emergency? Catapults are alright but you've got to spend more time lifting while the UK is all about speed of operation.

Designing it cost £6.1 billion and building it only cost 3. That's $7.5 billion usd and $3.7 respectively.

The Gerald R Ford class, the newest built by the US, cost $37 billion to design and $13 billion to build.

Completely different in size and scope.

good luck finding one who is trained in tanning

We need ramp to make us go.

Attached: samaritansnare145.jpg (694x530, 81K)

Yeah, 1500 sounds pretty cheap. Like second hand here.

Veg tanning isn't that hard. Smelly, but not hard.

>The Gerald R Ford class, the newest built by the US, cost $37 billion to design and $13 billion to build.

Somehow I feel they didn’t have to charge 37bn for the design, more like 5bn...

Catapults break, ramps don't.

Why use a simple cheap solution?

they could buy american or french

Says you.

Also, diesel? Think of the environment, buddy. Plus diesel means you can’t be at sea for a year.

I way undervalued those. It was $400 in leather (on discount) in each one, but they liked my sister's a lot so I agreed to make 2 more Dressage Saddles. If it were a Cowboy saddle with all the extra leather, it would have been much more but it worked out to like $20 an hour for each one.

>Crucial functional design feature
>Plastic saddle
I dont think the point of that vessel is to appear aesthetic to you.

>a fucking ramp

Attached: 1482029619030.jpg (2544x4000, 800K)

probably loads of testing in the design fase

This carrier is like getting a new gaming laptop but instead of buying a good mouse you just use the track pad.

Laugh when you have a carrier... or even bullets to train with.

That's why they refit ships along with designing new ones. It's expensive. It might be inflated a bit but that's what it cost the US taxpayers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

Under-fucking-rated

It's American. They have to be ahead of the game so everything costs 8-10x as much. Everyone else just copies their designs and localizes it which costs far less.

He's smart.

I can confirm your sister rides
And rides good

"The Harrier Jump Jet, capable of taking off vertically, can only do so at less than its maximum loaded weight. In most cases, a short take off is performed, using forward speed to achieve aerodynamic lift, which uses fuel more economically than a vertical take off. On aircraft carriers, a ski-jump ramp is employed at the bow of the carrier to assist the aircraft in becoming airborne."

Attached: Sea_Harrier_FRS1_800_NAS_taking_off_HMS_Invincible_(R05)_1990.JPEG.jpg (290x210, 10K)

it makes your deadly airplane boat look like it had a hard dick

“We are smart. You think we're stupid, but we're smart."

Heh. Well she was prom queen and looks a lot like that Finnish ice skating chick, so... Good on you?

Limeymutts can't afford catapults.

>you keep making this thread.
>you STILL don't have one of your own

Attached: Bear-Hug-.jpg (1024x768, 108K)

Must be aesthetics, as our carriers don't have any planes on them at the moment. One of them is also in port being repaired for a massive leak.

The state of this country...

>Low maintainance
>Nil obselesence
>Durability
>Reliability
This is the advantage of ramp v catapult.

Wheres the advantage in training infantry with wooden props over rifles Fritz?

We retired the harrier ages ago.

2 new carriers that were designed with the f-35 in mind both have ramps.

VTOL is a meme. Literally everything is more fuel economical than that.

>Give me one good reason to put a ramp on a 10bn dollar carrier
Wheelchair access?

Lol so desperate trying to find flaws on brits.

Consider also the desig lifetime of the platform. Ford class is supposed to last 50 years or more. We went from kitty hawk to the moon in about 60. Hard to build a platform to handle that kind of future growth capably so lots of effort in design. That and inevitable requirement creep adds up.

I still don’t know why the hell the UK opted for a ramp over a flattop Catobar. It was possible, it wouldn’t have cost a lot more. I don’t get the whole psychology behind that.

It’s like you see a 9/10 super georgous smart girl and you say “fuck it, I’ll be laid back and talk to her”. Well, your conversation goes well and she likes you and not just that she likes you, she says she’ll be really cool with you two going night surfing the next day.

And you can’t believe your luck, but still you go night surfing and you both have a lot of fun and she leans over to kiss you... and you pull away, go home, never call her again and marry your overweight second cousin Francine who has a half-black kid from her previous marriage.

Attached: CBA78A6D-FE66-4225-9931-BC59DC00B6B2.jpg (1903x1427, 601K)

Why would a carrier be at sea for a year? what refuels the aircraft?

Attached: 35487565270_dc2515cc2f_b.jpg (669x1023, 76K)

Only reason for the ramp is that US has dibs on all the new electromagnetic catapults for the next decade. Old Blighty will probably refit once they become available.

Its more like brits using simple cheap mouse and you american purchased VR sets on top of the gaming laptop

The funny thing is, you basically gifted your 72 fully functioning Harriers to the US... which keeps the Harrier operational and in good use.

Attached: C4068C63-A245-4ED5-85E1-95A81CEA284F.jpg (1304x1043, 256K)

My exact thoughts til I saw the picture.

Ramp carriers are the McMansions of aircraft carriers

Carriers are obsolete. Missiles and subs are the future.

>in port being repaired for a massive leak.
don't worry bro, some some heroin and use one of your dozen back up carriers

Jet fuel.

CATOBARs only exist on nuclear powered carriers. The one in the photo, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, is not nuclear powered. If you think it "wouldn't have cost a lot more" to put in a nuclear reactor and a CATOBAR onto a ship in a navy that has none of these, you're an idiot.

I am aware that the Royal Navy has nuke subs. That doesn't make it any cheaper to put it on a ship.

>2019
>not having cutting edge russian technology on your aircraft carrier
youtube.com/watch?v=4ShACteRduY

Attached: Capture.jpg (1117x807, 83K)

do you even have just one aircraft carrier to attach a ramp to? only super powers have them. can post some pictures of your aircraft carriers please?

Well if you blow your entire budget on the carrier and forget supply ships, nothing I guess

The UK actually considered a catapult system and the F-35C. Look it up. They considered it AFTER the project was well under way.

>Jet carrier
>Ramp
>No skateboard visible
Why even bother?

They did, you're correct. They canceled it because of the COST. It doubled the cost of the carrier.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

4th paragraph, last sentence.

Scratch the double the cost of the carrier, I read it wrong. They still canceled it for the same reason though.

>twice of the “original” estimate

The actual current estimated cost for both carriers is 70% more than the original estimate. So CATOBAR would just have been 30% more... even with the shitty huge cost estimate.

>rampboats
>beans for breakfast
>no air conditioning

The absolute state of bong

I corrected myself. It still doesn't change my point. It's cheaper to use a ramp and they just couldn't afford it.

you just made the list, Nygel

Attached: 1552865398044.jpg (980x742, 181K)

It’s cheaper to use a ramp. I agree.

And it is cheaper and less effort to marry your second cousin Francine (a 4/10) with her half black kid ... than go for the 9/10 woman of your dream.

Attached: BD6C3F0F-7733-4C7E-8E4B-1DF9C180A8FE.jpg (550x550, 70K)

Reduces minimum takeoff speed and fuel consumption on take off. Far cheaper than traditional launch systems. We know what we're doing, we invented the carrier afterall.

How many carriers does Ger-money have again? Oh yeah, 0.

What's the issue with having a ramp over a catapult? I don't know what the benefits/drawbacks of each are.

are you a contractor or actually handicapped?

isn't the new brit carrier a super carrier ?

You also don't have 66 million people yelling at you if go for the woman of your dreams. Your second cousin and her spawn are collecting government bennies just like the other 60 million people so they don't mind too much.

At least we have a fucking carrier. At least we are making some attempt to have a sufficient defense without needing big daddy USA to do everything for us. You eurocucks make me sick. You can make fun of Britain for many things but on this topic you have no grounds. Get your own fucking carriers then you can talk shit.

I thought the catapults were steam powered. Why can't they do that on a diesel carrier?

it will probably be a while, Trump fucked up the EM catapult with his "lmao just use good ol steam" move

Think of it this way.

Germany is girlfriendless.
The US has a 10/10 super hot girl.
The UK could have had a 9/10 model who wants a family.... but because of “reasons”, you settled for a 5/10 fatty.

Attached: 9A09C17F-66C9-4126-A04E-02E2475506C3.jpg (470x700, 77K)

reminder that the FUCKING RAMP can't launch the awacs plane with the pancake on it and bongs only have like 4 destroyers so their new carrier will never be able to do anything but tag along with america without being completely defenseless. I guess that's standard for bong naval operations though.

the bongs literally invented steam catapults for ww2 ships

They actually can. It’s just Murricans who say you need nuclear for steam.

God I love how this board is just filled with aircraft carrier experts and designers.

Attached: RAMP.png (1402x354, 68K)

Refueling is a bitch if you're not nuclear.

i assume it is harder to do this
youtube.com/watch?v=3B8lYbp3J1c
youtube-dl not working for me so i am not going to bother to convert it to a webm

Just for reference, fase is actually phase.

Who cares for fuel when I can land in your back garden, fuck your wife, take off and blow your cuck shed away.

>BRITISH
>NAVY
PFFFTTT HAHHAHAHAHA

You pathetic brits never fail to make me laugh

Attached: 11-884x1200.jpg (884x1200, 156K)

Nuclear power creates steam. It's how a nuclear reactor generates power. This makes nuclear a natural fit for a steam catapult like the CATOBAR which requires a ton of power to launch our modern day aircraft.

The diesel turbines that British ships use do not generate steam.

Modern day steam catapults ALL use nuclear power. Every single one.

A German, waxing lyrically about naval forces; where are yours, Abdul?

>Implying you have the fuel to find a guy that qualifies.

Solar power

New Jersey? Corrie?

Negative. The last whites in Texas.

Our carriers and the strike force that guards them are intended to be cities at sea. We do this to effectively fight, if needed, other super powers. In the event of a full scale conflict with a major, well equipped opponent, it’s much easier to protect these assets in the open ocean, especially the pacific. Subs can resupply, not sure we have know aircraft fuel transports that are stealthish.

>and then they scrapped the harriers

because it works.