What's there to discuss? A shitty third world country can't into steam catapult so they need the help of a ramp to get their one plane airborne.
>>40257063>a fucking ramp
>>40257076Ramp is cheaper, faster and more reliable. Deal with it.
>>40257063>US carrier bigger flaccid than the QE is erecto im lafin
>>40257170>requires more materials to build a ramp than a flat deckHmmm>fasterPlane takeoff speed + catapult > plane takeoff speed>more reliableGot any source to that bullshit Ahmad?
>>40257227>faster>Plane takeoff speed + catapult > plane takeoff speedAre you retarded? A ramp doesn't need to reset. You can launch more aircraft in less time.
>>40257170A ramp means aircraft cannot take off with full fuel and armament and restricts the use of larger recon and surveillance aircraft
>>40257257Wow, all three of the UKs fighters? Hold the presses.
>>40257227>requires more materials to build a ramp than a flat deckLol, what? More mechanical complexity to build a catapult.>Plane takeoff speed + catapult > plane takeoff speedCatapult needs to be recharged, ramp doesn't.>Got any source to thatA lot of mechanical complexity vs little to no mechanical complexity. Will you also demand a proof on that water is wet?
>>40257302Average loadout of a plane that can use the catapult v one that needs to use a ramp?
>>40257170build a working carrier before bragging about the ramp, Ivanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq-MDp9ImyU
>>40257261>A ramp means aircraft cannot take off with full fuel and armamentYes they can. It simply requires taking off a longer start position, which is barely relevant unless you are non-ironically implying fighters casually do missions at their MTOW.>and restricts the use of larger recon and surveillance aircraftNo, it does not.
>>40257338>A bit smoke makes eco-cucks butthurtGood.
>>40257316Depends on aircraft. Su-33 can take off a ramp at its MTOW no problem.
>>40257063ours are longer....just sayin'
>>40257354If ramps weren’t superior than militaries wouldn’t prefer them. They offer faster launch rates and can launch heavy aircraft a lot quicker, they also free up a lot of deck room. The only reason anyone uses ramps is because they’re poor or don’t have cat tech, this is historically true.>HMS Bongistan was going to have cats but they got cut for budgetary constraints>Soviet Navy was going to build a Carrier with cats but then their country collapsed>China plans on building carriers with cats but need time to flesh out their naval ops and work on cat tech as well as build airframes capable of withstanding the forces of a launch.It’s not that hard to understand. Ramps are better than flat tops like LHA’s, LHD’s, and the Izumo’s. Ramps are generally worse than cats if the country operating the catapult has the money and willpower to keep them maintained.
Bong ramps are going to be gimped by their lack of money to buy the V-22. It would have provided useful capabilities in the aerial refueling and COD roles. Now if they need more F-35 engines they'll need to ship them out to the QE instead of flying them in.
>>40257484Are you drunk?>can launch heavy aircraft a lot quickerAircraft usually don't fly combat missions at MTOW.>free up a lot of deck roomFor parade photos where takeoff positions are occupied with parked aircraft. And if not, it's not that much space compared to what a ramp takes. A ramp is relatively short unlike what you seem to believe.>Soviet Navy was going to build a Carrier with cats but then their country collapsedLol, no. Soviets were considering catapults since forever. They still opted for ramps, mainly due to doctrinal differences. Ulyanovsk was designed with a ramp too.
>>40257561Pound for pound a cat is preferable. The RN's own request validate that. The issue comes in when they had the choice between 2 ramp carriers or 1 cat carrier due to budget constraints and they chose the former (correctly). If it were 1 ramp carrier vs 1 cat carrier they'd have chosen the cat any day of the week.
>>40257561>fighters are the only aircraft being launched from carriersNo>for parade hurrrNo, for 4 launch positions instead of just two or three. Allows for more launch position availability with simultaneous recovery too. Another increase in sortie rate. The Brits don’t even have an angled deck.Why did they add catapults to the Ulyanovsk if ramps were so great? Again, it seems you know more about aircraft carrier operations than most of the world’s navies.
If ramps were fine the Chinese wouldn’t be building a catapult. Why? Because there’s no pictures of Chinese fighters launching off their ramp with anything but a very light load, most images show them launching with nothing.
>>40257596I mean you don't need an angled deck if you're operating STOVL like the RN. The angled deck is so you don't plow into aircraft getting readied if you miss the cable. They can do simultaneous launch and recovery without it. The sortie rate on the QEs is actually pretty great, because all they need to do is roll the next planes to the launch position and throttle up. No slotting in of landing gear to cats and waiting for the cat to recharge. Just roll over, hit the throttle, see you later. I guarantee they'll have done analysis on the optimal number of launch positions. They could easily have made the ramp twice as wide as it is if it meant they'd get a higher sortie rate. The bottleneck is probably somewhere else such as transit to ready positions.
>American>Missing the tip
>>40257586>Pound for pound a cat is preferableWarload per minute, maybe. But this is a very narrow way of measuring efficiency.>If it were 1 ramp carrier vs 1 cat carrierBut it wasn't, precisely due to reasons I mentioned to which you seem to also agree.>>40257596>fighters are the only aircraft being launched from carriers>NoTrue. What's your point tho?>4 launch positions instead of just two or three3 positions that don't need to be recharged vs 4 that do.>more launch position availability with simultaneous recoveryI'd wanna watch a landing on a carrier with those two positions occupied, lol.>Another increase in sortie rateYeah, nah.>Why did they add catapults to the Ulyanovsk if ramps were so great?Because having both options is better that having only one and because of doctrinal changes in the role of the aircraft carrier in Soviet Navy.
>>40257370>such a shit nation you can't into nuclear power and resort to ugly smoke belching carriers>"lol deal with it guyz u mad ecocucks?"
>>40257778>such a shit nation you can't into nuclear powerYou
>>40257734Circumcized cocks are sexier. (not a homo btw, I just like cock)
>>40257741>Warload per minute, maybe. But this is a very narrow way of measuring efficiency.Sure, but we're talking about a hypothetical high intensity max load situation here. The RN made a conscious decision to go for a cheaper system in order to have more units available and therefore a higher theoretical surged fleet sortie output. A cat QE would have a 'higher warload per minute' than a ramp QE, but 2 ramp QEs similarly outclass 1 cat QE in that regard. The issue is that it was the treasury that ultimately made that decision, not the ministry of defence. If we had 2 cat QEs we'd be grinning ear to ear right now.
>>40257063So it's like a hard 3 vs a 7 soft?
>>40257808I'm gonna be a cheeky cunt and point out that none of those are carriers. Cool boats though.
>>40257826>Sure, but we're talking about a hypothetical high intensity max load situation hereThis again depends on doctrine. It might be an advantage worth to consider in push it to the limit WWIII scenario, but ordinary combat missions usually simply do not require aircraft to take off at MTOW. Even F-111 flew with, IIRC might be a bit off, like 2-4k kg loads during Iraq.>A cat QE would have a 'higher warload per minute' than a ramp QE, but 2 ramp QEs similarly outclass 1 cat QE in that regard. Hence my point that ramp is cheaper. Again, we seem to agree.
>>40257912Ramps are cheaper but less capable.
>>40257896His post didn't imply carriers, it simply said "such a shit nation you can't into nuclear power" which is just blatantly retarded.
>>40257921>less capableI've already addressed this: warload per minute, maybe. But this is a very narrow way of measuring efficiency.
>>40257953Jets use up most of their fuel and put the most stress on their engines during launch unless they use a cat.
>>40258035Sorry, but this is simply false, except for stress on engines point.
>>40257953Ramps also support a lesser variety of aircraft. A ramp wouldn’t allow something like a Greyhound. The V-22 alleviates that issue, but it also couldn’t support something like the upcoming MQ-25. It also forces the QE to rely on helicopter AEW instead of fixed-wing.
>has only helicopters>has jets
>>40258614This is simply false, pic related: >>40257354>The V-22 alleviates that issueYou don't need anything as sophisticated regarding rotary wing, Ka-31 is a thing.>couldn’t support something like the upcoming MQ-25Questionable, see Yak-44. Point is, specifically MQ-25 might be designed with using catapults in mind (?), but nothing says a similar design for a ramp is impossible.
>>40258833The Yak-44 never even had a real prototype built, and we have no idea what kind of performance it would have had from a ramp since it was primarily intended for use from catapults.And no helicopter can carry an aircraft engine anywhere near the distance the V-22 can reach for COD.
>>40258999And? How does it negate its design features? Yak-44 was specifically designed to take off ramps. Are you implying the project that was cancelled solely due to the dissolution of SU and budget cuts on Navy is not valid just because there was not point to build it anymore? That's not how R&D works, the design for such an aircraft was still there and there is zero indication it was not meeting its expected characteristics.>And no helicopter can carry an aircraft engine anywhere near the distance the V-22 can reach for COD.Sorry, I was under impression you meant rotary craft AEW.Pic unrelated, I just love the scale.
>>40257936I'm the guy you were replying to both times. I should've clarified nuclear carriers, since I know the rooskies have had nuclear subs. Didn't know about that floating power station though, that's kinda neato.
>>40258999I mean E-2 is 26 tonnes MTOW and 7,600 kW. Yak-44 is 40 tonnes MTOW and 20,600 kW. You underestimate how immensely powerful these turbofan beauties are.
>>40259049The expected characteristics of an aircraft that never had a functional model built, let alone took off? Building a non-functioning model isn't much further than being on the drawing board. All you have to do is look at a program like the LCS, which spent like ten years fixing structural and engine problems, to see that just because something is designed doesn't mean it'll work very well (and unlike the Yak-44 the LCS actually got built).
>>40259132The expected characteristics might of course be slightly off, but the very design point itself is still there: fixed wing AEW that can take off ramps. Yes, the project didn't go beyond mock-up stage, but this was due to reasons completely unrelated to performance. There's nothing magical about such a design. E-2 likely can't take off a ramp, but that's because it was designed around using catapults. Yak-44 was designed around using ramps, hence immense r/w ratio compared to E-2. I don't understand your problem with the simple notion that fixed wing AEW taking off a ramp is no science fiction.
>>40257063>US flaccid penis is bigger than British erect penisThat explains a lot.
>>40257063>poor nation's with less than 3 carriers commenting on what is and isn't good carrier.Lol. It's like when the seething poorfags say x gun that I can't afford is shit.
>>40257302Why wouldn't the ramp need to be recharged? It might get tired.
>>40260957She never got tired defending her Fatherland, why would a ramp?
>>40257076The UK invented catapults, angled fight decks and the mirror landing system.
>>40257170>can only launch a certain type of plane, so you miss out on shit like real AWACs and future UAVs>if launching a CTOL plane like the retarded russians you have to send it off without a useful load, decide if you want 20 minutes worth of fuel and 4 500 lb bombs or 40 minutes of fuel and 1 AA missile
>>40257261>A ramp means aircraft cannot take off with full fuel and armament and restricts the use of larger recon and surveillance aircraftF35B can take off from a ramp with a full fuel and weapons payload. It can return to ship with a rolling landing with a full weapons load minus some fuel. it's perfectly possible to have large AWACS aircraft launched from a ramp but they are too expensive to justify the slight increase in capability over helicopter AEW. The US is ditching C2 for COD in favour for the more capable V22. A sign of things to come.
>>40261415>FatherlandIt's Motherland you dingus
>>40261763>slight increase over helosRamp cucks are a parody of themselves
>>40257813I don’t think you know what “homo” means
>>40257207Came here to say this
why didn't they use ramps in ww2, isn't that easier?
>fixed vs rotary argumentRetards, many of you.None you morons can consider things in a whole force context.One of the reasons why the RN is comfortable with rotary AEW is that they can generate platform mass (8 rotary vs 2-3 fixed) in addition to their AAW DDs having further detection range than USN AAW DDs. Those two factors make them comparable with what is generated by your typical USN CSG.
>>40262168I have no basis for this, so I am just assuming.I guess jets have it easier building up enough speed over a small distance so a ramp is sufficient. Planes in WWII probably needed the extra speed of a catapult instead of going over the ramp and into the water in a nice ballistic curve.
>>40262230Wait, did they even have catapults in WWII? It was just the flat top of the carrier, wasn't it? Maybe the planes just weren't stable enough for a ramp, I don't know.
>>40257484>HMS Bongistan was going to have cats but they got cut for budgetary constraintsNo, the intention was always to be STOVL carriers.>>40257586No, pound for pound STOVL is preferable.You get (depending on how good your airframe is) nearly 60/80% of the capability of cat.
>>40257269Your shitpost aside.As it stands, you will always generate more sorties from STOVL jets than conventional.
>>40262243They did.ww2 carrier aircraft didn't need them as they were light and prop powered. A propeller produces the same thrust regardless of whether it's stationary or moving. jets are far heavier and need speed to feed the jet engines with air, a low bypass jet engine will produce more power when it's moving at speed than it will stationary.
>>40257063>when his carrier cant support strategic support craft
>>40262355>strategic support craftwhat is that
>>40261430Wrong>Then why don't you use them :)
>>40257170Why would use a picture of one of the worst carrier examples you could think of?
>>40263203>one of the worst carrier examplesAccording to whom?
>>40262362Non-tactical, i.e. transports and AWACS
>>40263996Are you retarded?Rotary transport and AEW/AWAC exist.I hope you realize that the USN is replacing its transport with V-22s and there are mumbles of a possible V-22 AEW solution.
>>40264022>Rotary transport and AEW/AWAC exist.Not as effective as Hawkeyes and Greyhounds
>>40257076It needed to save the money those catapults would have cost to pay for Ahmed and his family.
>>402641681. That's not what was argued.2. Effectiveness is related to output, not input. You can generate the same level of coverage with rotary that you can with fixed wing.3. The Greyhounds are being replaced with rotary - not a fixed-wing craft, so interpret that as you will.
>>40262659>t. Butthurt britcuck posting no evidence as alwaysDon't forget to pray, the next call is in a few hours or your wife's boyfriend will beat you again!
>>40264479S E E T H I N G must be pretty lonely watching for petty mistakes because you have no argument, eh Archie?
Without fixed-wing AEW&C you can't effectively project force, so you may as well not even bother with carriers. Ski jump carriers are a waste of money.
Discus. Specifically how do we weaponize the discus for maximum suffering of victims caught in it's path?
>>40264651no. please educate yourself. helicopter AEW is more versatile. any airborne control is a joke, all information should be datalinked to the CIC on the flagship and to allied aircraft.
>>40264651>Without fixed-wing AEW&C you can't effectively project force, so you may as well not even bother with carriers. Ski jump carriers are a waste of money.Why?
>This rampfagIt's already on the same level of the rafalefag.
>>40264915>weShut the fuck up dude, don't live through the achievements of things that have nothing to do with you.
>>40264241>One post says V-22s are being replaced>Next post says Greyhounds are being replaced>Neither post mentions Greyhounds being replaced with V-22s
>>40265038Reread the post sequence.At no point was it suggested the V-22s are being retired.
>>40257302>Catapult needs to be recharged,you do realize that that time is small and is less than the time it takes from the first aircraft launching untill the next aircraft taxis into position and is ready for launch? even whne using the ramp aircraft have to take time to taxi into position, set up against the holdbacks, power up and then launch?
>>40264915tldr, image makes me assume it's some /pol/ garbage. angled flight deck, steam catapult and mirror landing system all all British. sorry if tha upsets you. Catapults >The steam catapult originated in the 1930s with both navies, but the idea was not developed further until after the war was over.The British again revived the concept, generating steam pressure of 24.2bar (350lb/in2) off the boilers feeding the carrier's engines, Hone says.Angled decks >The British, however, had a different idea. In August, Boddington for the first time heard a proposal from a British carrier pilot, then-Royal Navy Capt Dennis Cambell. "Together, they came up with this idea of angling the deck," Hone says. In one stroke, the problem was solvedMirror landing system >Royal Navy Rear Adm Nicholas Goodhart is credited with inventing the solution to this problem. It was called the mirror landing aid, and it uses a system of lights that are only visible to the pilot on a correct glideslope.My first post is completely vindicated and your pride is in tatters. fuck off mate, you shouldn't challenge your betters.
>>40265134So why can you generate a higher sortie rate with STOVL jets?
>>40265134>even whne using the ramp aircraft have to take time to taxi into position, set up against the holdbacks, power up and then launch?F35B off a ramp will be lined nose to tail with no hold backs since they aren't needed. QE can launch 24 aircaft in 15 minuites and recover 24 in 24 minuites.
>>40264915ignore the faggots, anon
>>40257063Fuck off Ivan
>>40262423>>40264355>>40264915Mate I can't hear you. Where's my apology?
>>40264995>Says the guy talking about aircraft carry shit the British don't use and of which they have 2 Oof
>>40265254For being wrong? No apology necessary m8, we know you're a huge faggot. Enjoy the American weapons board my friend, I'll be busy shooting guns you can only jerk off over. And probably not that before your liosense runs out :)
>>40263309the dockworkers that drowned when it sunk.
>>40257370>carrier literally bursting into flames is goodthe absolute state of the RN.
>>40257063>a fucking bundle of sticks