Please don't RAMP our women. Thanks

Please don't RAMP our women. Thanks.

Attached: Capture.png (898x759, 855K)

Other urls found in this thread:

defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/192795/gao-reports-highlight-new-f_35-deficiencies.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Knowing your standard Royal Navy seaman as I do they'll already be balls deep as I type.

So they've burnt well over a million liters of fuel ... just to visit New York.

>just to visit New York

They're providing much-needed comic relief.
The "ramp" sketch is the funniest thing to have come from the British isles since Monty Python (though "Brexit" is close).

US Sailor: "hey, did you ship run into an iceberg or something on the way here? want us to fix that bent bow for you?"

Tbh the ramp is logical thing. You dont want your planes to drop into the water. The ramp should help with that.

Attached: 1539887175298.jpg (700x3352, 254K)

Does your navy use ramps, too?

Attached: 9fa49cabb5.jpg (249x225, 14K)

OR, you can build a real ship and fly real planes from it.

Know them intimately do you?

What?

You white people have too much money to burn.

ahahahaha ramps hahahaha so funny they use a ramp hahahaha on a carrier omg i can't even a fucking ramp hahahahah oh my this is absolute comedy gold can you believe there's a ramp? jesus christ i need to go outside for some fresh air hahaha i can hardly breathe right now this is just too funny hahahaha

>he filled out a captcha for this post

Attached: 1510601376869.png (645x968, 84K)

Why is there 2 towers?
Why isn't it nuclear powered?
Do brits even have modern aircrafts for it?

the ramp is the cheap solution to the problem and restricts the weight of the planes that are able to launch off it, making them have less range or payload. The carriers without ramps use catapults to launch their aircraft and while it takes a longer time to get the planes in the air, they can be far more effective once they are up there.

hahahahahahhahaahhaahahahahaha fuuuuuuuuuuuuck ahahahahahahhaahahahaha a rampppppp hahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahaha

They plan to use F-35B, which is a watered-down version of the F-35 with STOVL capabilities. But they only have nine of them so far. So, it's an aircraft carrier which can't carry real aircraft, and doesn't even have toy ones on it.

Attached: 1520138663164.jpg (392x419, 38K)

>a watered-down version of the F-35
So even the planes on it will be a joke? truly, a floating circus. Do they have seals and clowns too?
Should have named her "HMS Bozo"

Ramps are for navies that don't have the money or technology to make catapults.

I am almost sure we would have given them the technology if they bought rafales.

>its not even nuclear propulsed

Attached: stock_photo_a_concerned_man_194337725.jpg (450x320, 22K)

This is our bestest navy cars carrier on Lipno in action.

Attached: 95trajekt.jpg (800x600, 472K)

>Countries without aircraft carriers posting.

Attached: 1540080094092.png (720x1000, 1.02M)

we would probably have sold it for a fraction of the development costs, yes.
They would have had better planes (and operational), too. And those planned air group exchanges could have taken place.
Good days of the Jaguar are gone, I guess.

Attached: Sepecat_Jaguar.jpg (800x530, 88K)

>countries who claim their rotorcraft carrier counts as an aircraft carrier

Attached: 1536263964286.gif (288x231, 1.32M)

>b-b-but guys it carries flying things so it counts

Attached: 1532456545432.png (298x289, 160K)

So, two carriers walk in to a bar, and then
[...]
and then, the other carrier says, "Hey man, I know, but it's because of my ramp".

>a fucking ramp
>not even nuclear
What a colossal waste of money

Attached: 1537772345432.png (710x750, 196K)

Why did they go all-out on the submarines yet make huge cuts with the aircraft carriers? complete piece of shit desu

Because nuclear subs are actually useful in a real war, Aircraft Carriers are a waste of space and are only useful when you want to bomb some third world shithole thousands of miles away.

Attached: giphy.gif (375x375, 178K)

>huge cuts with the aircraft carriers?

Not even. Final cost was over £6 billion, more than 50% more than initially planned.

>when you want to bomb some third world shithole thousands of miles away

Which happens quite frequently, believe us.

Is that thing even nuclear? Can Britain waste that much fuel?

They have already been busted bonging it up

Attached: bong.png (981x1119, 895K)

So because they have no planes, they made the trip with five helicopters?
Awe-inspiring. I bet Moldavia is getting less uppity.

That is even more expensive than burger ones, wtf?

If the US had only built one Ford-class carrier, it would have cost about $50 billion.
The development costs are huge - typically two or three times the cost of a ship.

RULE BRITANNIA
BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES
BRITONS NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES

Attached: rule britannia.jpg (640x757, 217K)

So, as long as F35 still has problems, that ship is completely useless?
defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/192795/gao-reports-highlight-new-f_35-deficiencies.html