Why don't France or the UK have something similar?

oi

Attached: Canberra Class.jpg (1024x685, 179K)

CDG generally carries well below max aircraft capacity. QE and follow on should also have additional aircraft room as, last I checked, UK intends to only run 2/3rds F-35 capacity.

>A RAMP

The budgets are the problem there.

Wow that thing looks badass, too bad we only fight fourth-world sandniggers and niggers

>as far as i can tell

So not even as far as 10 seconds on google?

Just a helicopter carrier.

Ramp isn't even used, just part of the standard ship design that was offered.

gee i dont know
maybe because they knew a ship based EW platform will be able to do the same job with far bigger range far better capabilities that can output like x10 more power
and on the plus side it can actually protect itself to some extent...

usn only now (and by now i mean 2018)they are searching a way to turn some of the AB destroyers into an all purpose open platform ew weapons

Attached: Dupuy-de-Lome-photo10.jpg (750x481, 52K)

>maybe because they knew a ship based EW platform will be able to do the same job with far bigger range

you are joking right ?

>usn only now (and by now i mean 2018)they are searching a way to turn some of the AB destroyers into an all purpose open platform ew weapons

no... you are not

do you even know the slightest thing about frequencies?

do you even know what skywave is?

How well do those frequencies work through rock brah.

>frequencies travel only horizontal

Jow Forums redefines physics

no im not joking at all how many prowlers you need for a 360 400-600km coverage? sigint/elint wise?

do the math

ausfags have no planes, doesn't make it not a carrier

Same with the UK

>Because you need big-boy carriers with capacity to spare, along with budgets for that.

No, you need a reason to buy them. There is no point in the UK or France using inferior carrier EW platforms when they can launch full-size platforms from their own runways close to and in the middle east.

>The only non-American country to field carrier AWACS is France

Wrong. carrier-based airborne early warning is possessed by the US, UK, France, India, Russia and China. The difference in capability between fixed and rotary wing AEW is grossly exaggerated by Jow Forums.

>ausfags have no planes
We just bought a shitload of F-35's tho, SOME have even been delivered!

>360 400-600km coverage

You literally have no idea what you're talking about, fuck off.

>61
Really naming it after best girl, then
>Stripped after production and renamed L02
SHAME

The difference in capability between fixed and rotary wing AEW is grossly exaggerated by Jow Forums.

It really isn't. Fixed wing carries more operators which is a major fucking deal, carries heavier thus stronger radar equipment, has a higher ceiling which also is a major fucking deal and it has better endurance.

yes obviously

oh wait still no evidence to showcase why a plane is better at ew than a ship

>rotary wing is just as good! Everyone else is just dum!

Oh god we're doing this pathetic shit again

I'll never forget being at a rest stop on a field trip, 9 or 10 years old, and two of these things flew down a gorge in a desert we were driving through. One flew under the bridge and the other rolled sideways and flew between the cables of the bridge. I had a hardon for planes at the time because I was getting these cards, it was pretty cool.

Attached: s-l300.jpg (300x299, 18K)

The EA-6B came out of the Vietnam war, at a time when ELINT was becoming a very important thing to have. No other nations were fighting major wars, especially with their navies, so no one else developed a dedicated platform.

>Ramp isn't even used, just part of the standard ship design that was offered.
If they just wanted a helicopter carrier they would have gone for Mistrals which were half the price.

Let's be honest, they got those because they can convert them to carriers quickly if needed.

>It really isn't. Fixed wing carries more operators which is a major fucking deal,

It's not the 70's anymore. we use datalinks to relay information to the fleet. Plus 3 in the back isnt anything to write home about when most helicopters will have two.

>carries heavier thus stronger radar equipment

That's a wild assumption. You don't know the weights of the radars involved and even if you did you are unable to use weight as even the vaugest method of determining capability. You could stick a AN/APG-81 in a rotating dome on a helicopter and it would be more capable than a huge list of larger and more powerful radars on fixed-wing aircraft.

>has a higher ceiling which also is a major fucking deal and it has better endurance.

Higher ceiling is an advantage, yet with a helicopter loitering at 12k ft you still have a huge area of coverage. People looks at the physical radar horizon and think that's the actual range, this is a gross oversimplification, the radar still needs to produce a usable return, both systems will give many minutes warning of hypersonic weapons.

As for Endurance, E2 has around 6 hours loiter and Merlin 5, again nothing to write home about and not really relevant when crew fatigue is a bigger factor meaning a new aircraft has to be launched anyway.

There are various tactical advantages to each system, for rotary wing AEW the main advantages are numbers through reduced cost, ability to better determine close in surface threats (having the radar on the bottom decreases the surface blind spot), the ability to operate off any flight deck - you can have picket ships many miles from the fleet operating AEW, you can also have AEW for convoy escorts.

another mouth-breather who can't get his head out of turning military hardware into a game of top trumps where there is a hierarchy of systems.

What a surprise.

war isn't rock paper scissors.

I don't need to give you shit. educate yourself, it's not my job.

Do you think those pilots have a hard time keeping their erections down while flying?

>a platform with less than half the range, power generation and loiter time is just as good as fixed wing AWACS!

This is just sad

ill give you a hint
how can a massive amount of data being transmitted through a medium that tops at 238kbps? aka 29.8kb/s?
ill wait for you to give us a reasonable example of how this ever worked for usa

>Higher ceiling is an advantage, yet with a helicopter loitering at 12k ft you still have a huge area of coverage.

~140 nautical miles against a target 50ft in the air. An E-2D would give you ~220nmi if at 30kft.

>both systems will give many minutes warning of hypersonic weapons.

At the very barrier to Hypersonic (M5) thats around 2.5 minutes assuming you detected it at the exact moment it broke radar horizon, versus 4 minutes. That is not a small deal.

You can launch helicopters from a lot of surface vessels yes, but you don't want those escorts far enough from the carrier for that to have any meaningful effect. Further made irrelevant by the fact E-2Ds can patrol further out by virtue of simply being faster.

>Guess France and Britain are using larger land based aircraft primarily for EW because they're focusing on regional power projection, not global, like the US.
No, they mainly operate land based because they have enough international bases to support that mode of operation.

Yeah, because burger mutts are known for not having any foreign bases

>~140 nautical miles against a target 50ft in the air. An E-2D would give you ~220nmi if at 30kft.

As I said, the physical radar horizon is not the same as the usable radar horizon. An E2 is not going to detect a small sea skimmer at 220 miles.

>At the very barrier to Hypersonic (M5) thats around 2.5 minutes assuming you detected it at the exact moment it broke radar horizon, versus 4 minutes. That is not a small deal.

And what magical sea skimming hypersonic weapon are you referring to?

>You can launch helicopters from a lot of surface vessels yes, but you don't want those escorts far enough from the carrier for that to have any meaningful effect. Further made irrelevant by the fact E-2Ds can patrol further out by virtue of simply being faster.

Ships that aren't carriers need escorts too.

Plus a E2, while able to patrol further out, then has no coverage of it's home, meaning you need to launch more aircraft.

Multiple aircraft is the easiest solution for best coverage. This is why the UK is getting 30 AEW kits for Merlin that can be fitted in a number of hours. 30 AEW platforms over two carriers and a fleet of escorts is a very versatile system.

Both systems have benefits and drawbacks, but to completely disregard one over the other is stupid.

Their bases abroad are generally not sovereign, they can be closed down by the host. Just as Turkey did in 2003.

Attached: a2adb8ec6baa6bcf5679bac3c76d2e15c34d08e8f4fc646d4cda9f13225c1343.jpg (1501x970, 458K)

>An E2 is not going to detect a small sea skimmer at 220 miles.
they think that a ground based radar a awacs and a fucking prowler is the same

>oh look our ship can detect a missile at 150km away therefore if we launch a plane with a system that outputs like 1/3 of the power it will somehow magically detect the same missile from double the range!

Jow Forums logic

>Yeah, because burger mutts are known for not having any foreign bases
I was talking about France and UK, retard.

Sadly it's been decommissioned. They are bad ass jets.

But your helo is going to detect it at 140 miles by pumping out less radiation..

Ignorance dribbles from this post.

UK probably has more sovereign foreign bases than the US thanks to planting flags on every unoccupied island on the planet (and a whole bunch of technically-occupied-but-it-was-just-darkies-with-sharpened-fruit-so-we-got-them-to-bugger-off-har-har).

Also the Brit base in Cyprus is pretty iron clad for the middle east. They're not going anywhere any time soon.

>As I said, the physical radar horizon is not the same as the usable radar horizon
That IS the radar horizon.
>And what magical sea skimming hypersonic weapon are you referring to?
I'm not referring to any one in particular, but there's nothing magical about hypersonics. Terminal phase sprint at high speed after a sea skimming approach isn't "magic" either.

>The only non-American country to field carrier AWACS is France
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#France
The names of the planes...

Attached: 1508535465256.jpg (492x388, 39K)

>That IS the radar horizon

Just because a radar has line of sight doesn't mean it can detect, otherwise radars pointed at space could have infinite range.

>But your helo is going to detect it at 140 miles by pumping out less radiation..

No, i doubt either platform would detect a modern sea-skimming missile until 60-100 miles, the former figure being in the presence of jamming.

However you're making several wild asumptions, firstly you're asuming that one radar outpupts more power than the other - you dont have this information.

Secondly, you're assuming that power output directly correlates to detection ability.

Thirdly you're not taking into consideration radar technology. it's perfectly possible for a brand new AESA to use less power and be more effective than another brand new AESA that isn't using gallium nitride TR modules.

>Just because a radar has line of sight doesn't mean it can detect
clearly, just like being short sighted doesn't change visual horizon.
> firstly you're asuming that one radar outpupts more power than the other - you dont have this information.
Oh, you're actually saying its not possible to know if the piddly Searchwater ASaC isn't as powerful as the AN/APY-9?

Final (you) for someone thats clearly too far gone

Searchwater 2000MS has a power of 10kW. An/APS-145 has a peak power of 1mW

that's an ELINT ship, not EW.

I know that you saw the radomes and started to hyperventilate, but take a few deep breaths and return to reality.

Ummmm

Attached: pacific tracker.jpg (800x533, 108K)

Searchwater has a peak power of 250kW.

>Secondly, you're assuming that power output directly correlates to detection ability.

Would you like to argue that physicists and mathematicians around the globe have been wrong about the inverse square law for the past 400 years and that Sir Isaac Newton was just dumb because he didn't know anything about radar?

hurrr what is power efficiency

durr what is signal processing

>physics isn't real because I said so! now listen to science!

This is some really ridiculous behavior for 9:18 AM on a thursday

>Doesn't know what the inverse square law even is

ffs

I used to have both "Aircraft of the World" binders and they were full of cool shit on planes like this. I ended up selling them for $20 during a garage sale when I was like 10.

Attached: Why the fuck would my mom let me do that.png (1440x1440, 1.22M)

so you unironically think that throwing more power at a look down target will increase your chances of finding it?

You just succeed in keeping the signal to noise ratio the same as the clutter from the ground just gets stronger.

more power is not the solution.

>This is why the UK is getting 30 AEW kits for Merlin

It's 10 kits, not 30.

You're also overlooking the simple reason the UK went with rotary in your race to argue with them. It wasn't about capability, it was about availability.

The US can happily spam E-2s on account of having 10 fuckin carriers with 4 fuckin E-2s each. There's ALWAYS some available.

On the contry, countries like UK and France, well you can see the result. France has ONE carrier, that carries TWO E-2s. As such, they only have a SINGLE early warning aircraft in the sky at ANY GIVEN TIME.

And add that it has a less than 50% availability rate in the French Navy, and you can see that they often have complete gaps. These gaps don't exist for the USN, but they do on a single carrier nation. Add on that if CdG is in refit or drydock, then the ENTIRE FLEET loses ALL of its AEW.

Thats why they rather sensibly went Rotary. Because if you're a single carrier fleet, then fixed wing AEW has utter fucking garbage platforms in the air, and will spent some of every year leaving you with none. You NEED to be able to generate numbers to cover availability, both in carriers and planes.

If you can't guarentee that, then rotary is the better option because it assures you will always have platforms, always have aircraft and always have coverage.

All you guys shitposting about MUH RADAR DICK BETTER THAN YOUR RADAR DICK are overlooking that one key difference that leads to the real decisions.

Imagine going on a rant about availability and then saying that the US has 10 carriers avalible.

it's like 3/4 most of the time, with that fleet split over two sides of the world.

It's also nothing to do capability or availability, it's to do with having a short takeoff carrier.

so wait what you are saying is that the -145 has a peak power of 1mw/h?

do you even know the frequency the apu will need to run at that power? do you even know that there isnt a generator so small to fit on a plane that can provide such power?
not even the fucking a380 and its 5 massive apu's cant provide 1mw and they run at 500hz

You think I don't know that? Tht's what my post addressed. With a single carrier and 2 E-2s, you can't maintain full availability. With 10 and 4 per carrier, you can.

>It's also nothing to do capability or availability, it's to do with having a short takeoff carrier.

Same thing. It was 1 catobar (and thus lots of ddeadzones on AEW) or 2 STOVL and have persistent cover of both carriers and AEW.

>then saying that the US has 10 carriers avalible
He said *some*, *some* will be available. Nowhere did he say that the USN has ten deployable carriers.

>It's also nothing to do capability or availability, it's to do with having a short takeoff carrier.
It has plently to do with it, all those decisions play off each other and I hope you're not perpetuating that retarded myth that you require catapults to launch fixed wing AEW/AWAC.

ALL of their naval EW is done by rotary wing (which is a bad idea due to range and loiter time restrictions).

> hope you're not perpetuating that retarded myth that you require catapults to launch fixed wing AEW/AWAC.

I'm the guy who posted the thing about 10 carriers. You wouldn't want to operate them without them.

Theoretical launch and practical surge operations off a ramped carrier are not a good place for them.

It was based on availability, nothing else.

UK doesn't have Carrier ops.

We don't have fucking fixed wing carrier planes, asking why we don't have ECW carier planes is like asking a man dying of thirst in the desert whether he'd prefer tap or bottled water.

>You wouldn't want to operate them without them.
Okay? I certainly wasn't arguing that.

>Theoretical launch and practical surge operations off a ramped carrier are not a good place for them.
Would you mind elaborating on that?

>It was based on availability, nothing else.
Availability is one factor, a weighed for sure, but one of many.

>budgets doesnt exist: the post

If your options are helicopter borne EW or no EW, helicopter born EW is the way to go.

>UK doesn't have Carrier ops.
Well, it does. The recently decommissioned HMS Ocean had a flight deck and the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth doing her flight trials counts for sure.

And the UK has 14~ F-35B, which will be flying over to the UK in the coming week. There's also a handful of harriers in a nondeployable state, but that's not here or there.

USMC still uses 'em.

>Same thing. It was 1 catobar (and thus lots of ddeadzones on AEW) or 2 STOVL and have persistent cover of both carriers and AEW.

That was never the case.the media were purely speculating in hysteria about selling a carrier.

Going CATOBAR would have offered a lower sortie rate for £1bn extra and at least another year's delay.

The QE class was designed from the beginning to operate three squadrons (36) F35B and supporting aircraft (~4 Merlin Crowsnest) at maximum efficiency

>ALL of their naval EW

I wish burgers would stop dropping 'NAVAL' into everything. European nations can strike the middle east and russia from their own runways, it's irrelevant if there isn't a carrier version of an aircraft when you can launch an airliner variant from tarmac and have a more effective aircraft on station.

Europe has about as much interest in China as the US has in Madagascar.

Looking at the EMALS delays on the Gerald Ford, the delays on the F-35C, and the fact that steam was never a viable option, I think STOVL was the least worst choice. What I would like to see is if the US creates a refuelling variant of the V-280 (as they have for the V-22), which would be perfect to procure for the QE.

you don't need to risk a full carrier with rotary wings though, just put a cruiser with an aft flight deck out and you've got a ECW support platform.

The entire point is force projection, if you're relying on ground based AWACs you might as well be launching ground based fighters too

>Europoor gets butthurt that his nation doesn’t have carriers, tells burgers to stop mentioning that they have a naval aircraft

Kek

look at Europe can project it's military to literally everywhere that matters to Europe.

As long as those isolated air fields hold. If they're reliably going to stay there, then the carriers were a waste.

But they're not a waste, and their not built to rely on ground based AWACs.

>burger gets mad when he needs expensive carriers to preform a job euros can preform much cheaper and safer.

Hearty chuckle

>has no idea what the inverse square law means

Jesus titty fucking Christ this is embarrassing

>euros
>able to project power anywhere

Lots of chuckles today, ty dude.

Perhaps you dont need to project as much power when the rest of the world doesnt hate you.

Perhaps you don't need to project power if you import the rest of the world to you.

Attached: reece.jpg (504x415, 27K)

euros cant do force projection at all. hell, they have trouble with it INSIDE of europe.

ohm's law isnt a law, either

>Perhaps you don't need to project power if you import the rest of the world to you.
>Implying you dont also do that

So do you.

Only on Jow Forums, would I see people claim that a group of nations, (two of which are recognized for being able to deploy at divisional strength anywhere in the world) are unable to power project with access to two supercarriers, one medium carrier and six light/amphibious carriers and ten large amphibious warships.

This

If you're honestly going to draw equivalence between the US immigration problem to the EUs, you need to back off that Krokadil.

Sure, we've got a border migration issue and yes it's changing our demographics but typically Mexicans don't explosively self immolate as religious ceremony.

>If you're honestly going to draw equivalence between the US immigration problem to the EUs

I dont need to, your nation has been filled with shitskins for 200 years, Mr 56%.

Attached: 1336564545136.jpg (800x497, 134K)

>implying you don't also do that

No, I live in a sensible country that doesn't do that, thanks. Even if I was a burger, I'd still be in better position than you. Tell me how many riots the mutts have had by poor, oppressed refugees.

Can you just fuck off please before you derail the thread any further? We're talking about weapons. Not politics.