Instead they made two shit carriers.
Why didnt England buy one of these?
Christian Scott
Other urls found in this thread:
military.com
data.worldbank.org
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
sldinfo.com
twitter.com
Logan Richardson
They can’t afford to purchase, man, maintain, and mid-life refuel a CVN.
Thomas Wilson
How much expensive is a nuclear ship against an equivalent ship? I used to think that at least the nuclear one would save a lot of money in fuel
Adam Jenkins
uncut>cut
Lincoln Miller
Two cheaper carriers are better than one CVN, especially during refit periods.
John Smith
Aside from the initial costs of the reactor and all, the big issue is the continued cost of both maintenance and the highly-trained personnel necessary to safely operate it. Nuclear is generally more expensive than a conventional option.
Parker Roberts
The HMS Queen Elizabeth cost four billion
The USS Gerald R Ford cost twelve billion and counting
You're retarded
Wyatt Evans
For the same reason the US only buys shit manufactured in the US:
Economic stimulus.
Lincoln Rogers
Because it doesn't suit their requirements and it was never offered for export.
How are you supposed to buy something that was never for sale in the first place?
Excluding export issues, you have the huge manpower requirements, massive setup infrastructure, EMALS & AAG wasn't working (and still has issues). All of which leads to lower levels of readiness or deployability.
As it now stands, they have two 70k ton carriers - one HMS Queen Elizabeth soon to her pre-deployment CSG work up to join FONOPS with American and Japanese forces in the Pacific in 2021 and the other one, HMS Prince Wales soon to be doing her sea trials.
They are built around getting the most and best out of the F-35B - pumping out sorties rates that are comparable to a Nimitz despite only having half the fighter wing.
There's a huge level of excitement in the USN in having another ally around who can deploy a similar level of tonnage and CAW capability.
>Members of a Marine F-35B squadron are preparing to deploy on the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth in 2021. The deployment has long been in the works, Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder, head of Marine Corps aviation, said at the annual Sea-Air-Space conference just outside Washington, D.C.
>"It's going to be a wonderful new way -- and I will offer, potentially a new norm -- of doing coalition combined allied operations with a maritime partner," Rudder said.
It depends entirely on the country, but for some - the level of investment isn't simply worth the requirement.
That's also not including the programme and lifetime costs - which are the real expenses. Then there's also the cost of buying, sustaining and maintaining the air wing.
Kayden Hernandez
good post
Nathan Jones
islamic countries shouldn't own carriers.
Jace Sanders
Nothing to compensate for.
Caleb Stewart
I love the two towers design. It make so much sense and makes it very iconic.
Oliver Cooper
The US has more muslims than Britain.
Benjamin Sullivan
Jow Forums is a board devoted to weapons and military equipment.
Discussions about politics or current events belong on Jow Forums.
Matthew Cook
And I am sure that rule is enforced all the time.
Especially after mass shootings and terror attacks.
Mod = lazy fags
Dylan Russell
That doesn't make it ok.
Chase Howard
Fuck off faggot
Jason Richardson
Thanks for that.
Christian James
You'll probably see more duel two designs in the future, like take the new Italian LHD.
@41423417
@41423423
Ain't give (You)s.
Christian Cooper
>Why didnt England buy one of these?
Because the UK (and Europe in general) is in a downward spiral of defense spending and none of their non-meme political parties care about it. With that, buying two conventional carriers is a better choice- Look at how the French CVN is out of commission right now.
Luis Wilson
>Because the UK (and Europe in general) is in a downward spiral of defense spending and none of their non-meme political parties care about it.
Except that more NATO members are working towards or reaching the spending target then in recent times and the British budget taking £2bn extra last year.
>Look at how the French CVN is out of commission right now.
Except that the French CVN is right now deployed to the Indian Ocean and she was doing exercises with USS John C. Stennis last month.
Evan Price
>Except that more NATO members are working towards
Yeah, I'm sure Germany is totally going to get around to it one of these years.
>British budget taking £2bn extra last year
Not enough, they're still being forced to make huge cuts in their forces.
>Except that the French CVN is right now deployed to the Indian Ocean and she was doing exercises with USS John C. Stennis last month.
My info was not up to date but my point is correct- If you only have one CVN, you have zero carriers when it's undergoing the lengthy refueling process.
Lincoln Cox
>Look at how the French CVN is out of commission right now.
I think you might be retarded
Ryan Martinez
Why don't you read the thread before replying you worthless sack of shit? Is it that much of an effort to make for your double-digit IQ?
Michael Walker
What is the rationale behind the two towers?
Lincoln Adams
>Being this mad at being called on your bullshit
Juan Peterson
It's great how people can unironically move the goalposts of what they say and still think they have credibility
Jonathan Rogers
>Yeah, I'm sure Germany is totally going to get around to it one of these years.
You were talking about trends. Not specific examples, however, Germany's budget has increased by €4 billion this year.
>Not enough, they're still being forced to make huge cuts in their forces.
Except UK defense spending has increased over the last five years.
I don't know what "cuts" you are referring to. Since there have not been any reductions of manpower or equipment (unless you're talking units reroling and switching equipment).
>My info was not up to date but my point is correct- If you only have one CVN, you have zero carriers when it's undergoing the lengthy refueling process.
I mean, you didn't actually make that point though. You only said that the French CVN was out of commission.
Luis Ramirez
He does it for free
Luke Morgan
One for navigating, one for managing all the aircraft. Both can do the others job if necessary, so it can operate without either.
Nolan Ross
>I was wrong but I'm still right
>When I said they were decreasing spending I actually meant I don't care about knowing what they spend
Jesus Christ, just stop
Hudson Richardson
May intentionally fucks up everything she touches
Ethan Reyes
>Why didnt England buy one of these?
Not enough semen to man them? Nuclear carriers need a lot of men.
Leo Murphy
>Not enough
Well, you said they were in a downward spiral of spending.
Since they're actually increasing it, you were wrong. You've just ignored that fact.
Samuel Thompson
Two small islands gives more deck space /elevator room than one large island. The air intake and exhausts have to be separated.
Connor Ward
It's like Lord of the rings bruh.
Thomas Wood
She has two major engine spaces for the turbines, each tower roughly alines with an engine space.
There are also some improvements with wind-over-deck performance, which benefits sortie rates (how fast you can launch and recover aircraft).
Jaxson Phillips
>Well, you said they were in a downward spiral of spending.
data.worldbank.org
And I would be right.
Joshua Williams
Except if you use NATO's own figures, you'll see that the UK's spending never drops below 2%.
And so I take it then that you think America's is in a downward spiral of spending then?
The fact that you ignore
Is telling.
Jeremiah Lewis
/thread/
Jason Adams
It's not just the fact that the US carriers are nuclear that adds to the standard compliment. They are SUPER carriers 100-105k long tons and 80-90 aircraft (330m overall length) vs 64k long tons and maximum of 50 total aircraft (280m overall length) for the Queen E. class. The air wing alone on Nimitz-class carriers takes up more than 2,000 ppl.
Josiah Young
Busy hangers baby.
Ryder Gomez
I think the more interesting aspect of that article is the fact that they also allude to similar arrangements with the Italians and Japanese. I hadn't really considered that the U.S would supplement allied carriers or helicopter destroyers with our own F35Bs while they wait to get their own squadrons up and operational. Frankly, I'd like to hear the banter between Royal Navy pilots and swarthy Marine aviators, but the combination of them plus Royal Marines presents a pretty legitimate expeditionary force. Add on a San Antonio LPD, a couple frigates, and a missile cruiser and you've got a CSG with half the American assets we'd normally be applying. Compelling value for the money.
Lincoln Murphy
Requires at-least 2 passenger planes to take them out.
Thomas Peterson
>Except if you use NATO's own figures, you'll see that the UK's spending never drops below 2%.
Then why are the figures different? Is the world bank wrong or is NATO?
>And so I take it then that you think America's is in a downward spiral of spending then?
You used "North America", which includes all of the countries on the continent, when you should have used the United States. It also doesn't change my point.
>You were talking about trends. Not specific examples, however, Germany's budget has increased by €4 billion this year.
This doesn't actually matter if their spending has been decreased so drastically- They aren't going to fix their problems with these increases especially when they plan to decrease it later on.
>Except UK defense spending has increased over the last five years.
It hasn't.
>I don't know what "cuts" you are referring to
The amount of personnel in the UK's armed forces has been going down for years:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
>I mean, you didn't actually make that point though. You only said that the French CVN was out of commission.
I already said that my information was off, as I assumed it was still refueling; apparently that ended in September of last year.
Jackson Turner
You are derailing this thread with protecting your ego.
>Then why are the figures different? Is the world bank wrong or is NATO?
Because of different methods of accounting, but who would you rather rely on to know what is exactly being military spent? NATO or The World Bank?
>You used "North America", which includes all of the countries on the continent, when you should have used the United States. It also doesn't change my point.
1. "North America" does not include all of the countries on the continent. It is specifically for America - however, here is the US one.
2. Are you really complaining that military spending went down since the end of WW2 & the Cold War? The point was around what is being spent by Europe - which is going up.
>This doesn't actually matter if their spending has been decreased so drastically- They aren't going to fix their problems with these increases especially when they plan to decrease it later on.
That is unrelated to your point about their spending - which you suggesting was downwards and not going up.
>It hasn't.
Based off?
>The amount of personnel in the UK's armed forces has been going down for years:
These are not cuts - these are recruitment numbers - totally different from what you're saying.
>I already said that my information was off, as I assumed it was still refueling; apparently that ended in September of last year.
Seemly like everything you say, strange you've accepted one thing, but not the other.
Thomas Moore
"Hangar", it's "hangar".
Kayden Nelson
> Frankly, I'd like to hear the banter between Royal Navy pilots and swarthy Marine aviators
This has been something in the works for a long, long time. It came close with the harriers, but not perfect since the differences in built and software.
sldinfo.com
Christopher Richardson
shut up, muslim
Matthew White
It's an Albany expression. Regional dialect.
Charles Wilson
A USN CV won't fit in here.
Anthony Torres
>You are derailing this thread with protecting your ego.
Yeah, this great thread got "derailed" because people are retarded and can't understand a simple point I made.
>It is specifically for America
No it isn't, it includes the other countries that have tracked military spending.
>The point was around what is being spent by Europe - which is going up.
As a percentage of GDP it has been trending down for years.
>These are not cuts - these are recruitment numbers - totally different from what you're saying.
The world bank also tracks personnel numbers, which have been trending down as well.
>Seemly like everything you say, strange you've accepted one thing, but not the other.
Yeah, silly me for assuming people can pick up on what I inferred. Unless you have some information that everyone else doesn't, a CVN is a bad choice for countries with a low budget that can only afford 1-2 carriers.
Michael Evans
>Yeah, this great thread got "derailed" because people are retarded and can't understand a simple point I made.
You didn't make a point. You made two statements that were wrong.
>No it isn't, it includes the other countries that have tracked military spending.
The graph shows if there is a difference, it is basically meaningless. So would you agree that American defense spending is downward spiral?
>As a percentage of GDP it has been trending down for years.
Except as we know, by NATO's own figures, more nations are reaching towards their 2% NATO commitment - Germany included.
>The world bank also tracks personnel numbers, which have been trending down as well.
As it would logically do so since WW2 & The Cold War ending, but that is unrelated to your claim that recruitment numbers being lower are equal to "cuts"s.
>Yeah, silly me for assuming people can pick up on what I inferred.
If people cannot understand what you are saying, the fault is with you and you alone.
>Unless you have some information that everyone else doesn't, a CVN is a bad choice for countries with a low budget that can only afford 1-2 carriers.
Glad we're in agreement then.
Luke Brooks
They are very similar sizes. it would fit with plenty of room to spare. I'm pretty sure USS Nimitz visted pompey a few decades ago.
Austin Gray
No point in buying one, we would need at least two and realistically three in order to have one available at any time.
Jordan Gomez
I served on the Reagan 2008-2012. I might have been standing a conflag watch in the hangar bay during this ammo onload/offload lol
Aaron Baker
>why didnt England
reeeeeeeee
Adam Reyes
Isn't it a foregone conclusion that Scotland is going to leave the UK?
Samuel Allen
No.
Logan Ortiz
>ye will nae 'av a dram wi' those lads
Feels bad lad
Michael Walker
If the UK leaves the EU, it is a distinct possibility. Not a certainty, but it would buoy support for the loons around here, unfortunately.
I might be a remainer, and SNP might support remain, but like fuck could I ever bring myself to like those maniacs. Even if/when the UK leaves the EU, I'd rather keep the UK together. That matters more than the EU, much as I'd rather have both.
Oh for the days when binary questions aren't wit fuckin defines us, jimmy.
Eli Hall
>Oh for the days when binary questions aren't wit fuckin defines us, jimmy.
It was all easier when Britons were Welsh, Scots, English, and Northern Irish and not every every other cunt on the planet that could afford a plane ticket. Same with politics in the states, that ship has sailed for now and it won't return to port without some serious storms that lie on the horizon.
William Long
>If the UK leaves the EU, it is a distinct possibility. Not a certainty, but it would buoy support for the loons around here, unfortunately.
From what I can see it's a total fuck up, but it will happen at some point.
Carter Campbell
Never forget
Lucas Clark
Should the Australians purchase one considering they aren't too expensive and they've been buying a lot of british ships recently?
Brandon Wright
The real question is why didn’t any of our allies try to purchase the Ranger, Orsikany or Kittyhawk? They were diesel powered but almost as big as the Nimitz class.
Yeah they were old but they were kept in mothballed reserve for decades until pretty recently.
Luke Ross
Between refit and upkeep costs its cheaper to build new ships.
Carter Barnes
Because they're in fucking terrible state. The Bongs want a ship that'll last them 50 years from now. Those three weren't even lasting years ago.
That and they're build to older standards, horrendously lower efficiency compared to modern ships, lack power generation for modern systems, are louder in the water, likely have known wakes, aren't future proofed, aren't digital systemed and a thousand other things that defines the differences in shipbuilding with a 50 year gap in design age.
Henry Rogers
I used to see them tied up in mothballed reserve in Bremerton all the time. They looked pretty good for having been built in the 1950s. But yeah you are right, too expensive to bother with them.
Cameron Howard
Yes. Australians should purchase a Queen Elizabeth and fill her full of Australian seamen.
Oliver Gonzalez
>he wants to remain being Brussels' bitch
>he wants to remain getting migrants jammed up his ass at Merkel's directive
Jace Russell
Friendly reminder that if your country's aircraft carriers have ski jumps, you are a joke country.
Adrian Butler
based
Jonathan Green
we have yet to give up the magnetic catapult tech for that supreme flatness, apparently.
Dominic Jones
Nah, it doesn't suit them. Wait until they have a light carrier first.
Gavin Johnson
>They were diesel powered
No, they used oil fired steam boilers.
Even then modern vessels don't use Diesel, they use aviation fuel and marine gas turbines - jet engines.
Isaiah Torres
Did they use heavy bunker C Or a lighter fuel oil?
Easton Fisher
They couldn't afford it, they got us into WW2 and tried to make us bleed for their empire, but we had a shrewd cunt gimp that made them pay at the end. They are just an Island now living in the past. They got what they deserved. Churchill started the war and we finished it and now 'great' britain is nothing but our bitch. perfect.
Never forget those jew limey fucks and their 'underbelly of hitler' bullshit.
Ayden Mitchell
based
Evan Cruz
>Churchill started the war and we finished it
Germany started it and the soviets finished it.
Luis Nguyen
I like how your fiction portrays America as power and mighty, but somehow it was "made" to join a war it didn't want to join.
Joseph Miller
>Implying that France is not a joke country
>Implying that Argentina is not a joke country
>Implying that 1970s Britain was not a joke country
Strange metric desu
Christian Gomez
They also could have made their carriers CATOBAR or EMALS, but they didnt
Blake Wright
>Instead they made two shit carriers.
Implying that Ford is any better then their 2 shity carriers.
Until carriers can actually take off from the sea and fly like in Avengers, they are all the same, big, fat and limited to costal areas of operations.
Hunter Rogers
Because of the build schedule, they would have been the first operators of EMALS and AAG - with all the problems, delays and cost overruns that entails.
Would you knowing buy a product that:
1. Doesn't work.
2. You get possibly three years later than you ordered.
Oliver Carter
Top post
>Costs 3 times as much
>Requires almost twice the crew
>Only carries 50% more aircraft
Obviously the aircraft are going to be somewhat better armed since lolramp but the brits absolutely made the right choice given their circumstances.
Logan Collins
That looks so neat and nice
I wonder how feasible it would be to build a supercarrier like a bigass cargo ship, for even more hugeness?
Benjamin King
We'd be better served heat-treating the deck of our existing LHD to withstand F35Bs or buying couple more with dedicated light carrier roles.
If the Juan Carlos is any indication they can fit 25 F35s and only cost us 1.5b each
Charles Foster
That's probably max capacity and will lead to a low sortie rate.
Ian Evans
There has been no Advantage to Nuclear Propelled Carriers since the 1960s, Nuke carriers were originally intended to operate in an all Nuclear battle group with nuclear powered DDGs, Cruisers and Subs, with this an all Nuclear CBG would have relatively minimal logistical constraints and substantial endurance to a conventionally CBG. Integrating a Nuclear powered carrier into a conventionally powered battle group effectively nullifies the advantages of a nuclear powered carrier, as the carrier cannot operate independently of these assets the rest of the battle group effectively becomes a deadweight that the carrier cannot live without, this leaves the nuclear powered carrier with all the disadvantages of nuclear propulsion (cost, MTBF, high maintenance, restrictions on ports) with none of the advantages.
Jacob Ward
overkill, if they really want they could just build another Juan Carlos I hull or convert their existing LHDs
Hunter Young
>Why didnt England buy one of these?
Carriers and subs operate on a high enriched uranium. Almost weapon grade enrichment. You don't sell shit like that to anyone.
Carson Wood
Haha imagine us selling nuclear weapons to the British...
Jack Mitchell
To trigger Americans
Angel King
I believe the US Navy did a cost study back when practically everything they had was nuclear and decided the only ships it was cost effective for were capital ships and submarines
Carson Reed
The warheads are British, but the delivery system is American.
Dominic Butler
Never knew that, thought is was all American made.