GRcade

Lagamorph wrote:And no planes.

Even if we had the F-35's now they wouldn't be onboard as this is just the testing phase for the carrier.

im sorry is this the aircraft carrier & jets thread?

<]:^D wrote:im sorry is this the aircraft carrier & jets thread?

It is now!

► Link

Couldn't enjoy that because I was convinced a massive spider was about to jump out of it.

i was thinking the exact same thing

Another great cake gif:

The spoiler was when you spoilered it.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I still get annoyed whenever I see the Queen Elizabeth carrier. It should have had Cats and Traps, the F35A as its jet. Could even have gone for the F18A super hornet to save some money. It would also have allowed us to work togetherness with the US, France and other allies as their planes could have landed on our ships if required. The F35A also has a much better range and payload than the F35B.

Sorry for the late reply but I have to completely disagree with you on the cats and traps. The ship is not powered by steam so would either need a separate steam boiler or use the US EMALS system which at the time of construction was massively expensive and untested in live conditions. Cats and traps also reduces the lifespan of the aircraft because of the extra stress on the frame and it's untrue that we can't join with US ships with the F-35B as the US marines will use it on assault ships which are pretty much mini carriers.

The F-35B also has the benefit of being able to land on areas of ground the A model would find impossible so it can make use of tiny forward refuelling bases and the carriers will most of the time carry a mixed bag of newly acquired replacement Apache helicopters (we're getting 50 super cheap as they're buying as part of a giant US production order with the UK getting some production work on all global production (5%) and any future repair and servicing of UK aircraft done in the UK) and the new Wildcat helicopters.

The force mix of the new carriers will be massively impressive and the only nation with better kit is the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... nch_System
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... -america/#
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod- ... s-for-army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWes ... 59_Wildcat

boondoggle

Kezzer wrote:boondoggle

While initially expensive carriers are actually pretty good value as they can be used for the next 50 years and the UK design has masses of automation (it uses the same system as airport baggage systems to move ammo for aircraft about) it has way less people on it and this also gives extra room for embarking troops.

The Queen Elizabeth will need 679 crew (without the air wing) whereas the Gerald R. Ford needs 2,600 crew again without the air wing so massively less.

Peter Crisp wrote:(it uses the same system as airport baggage systems to move ammo for aircraft about)

There'll be nothing left to fire at the enemy.

smurphy wrote:

Peter Crisp wrote:(it uses the same system as airport baggage systems to move ammo for aircraft about)

There'll be nothing left to fire at the enemy.

I'm sorry sir, it seems there's been a bit of a mix up and we've sent the incendiary bombs to the kitchen. We'll create a ticket about this and let you know when you can expect your ammunition to arrive. As a token of our sincere apology we can offer you $10 in QEII cash for your next shipment.

Rightey wrote:

smurphy wrote:

Peter Crisp wrote:(it uses the same system as airport baggage systems to move ammo for aircraft about)

There'll be nothing left to fire at the enemy.

I'm sorry sir, it seems there's been a bit of a mix up and we've sent the incendiary bombs to the kitchen. We'll create a ticket about this and let you know when you can expect your ammunition to arrive. As a token of our sincere apology we can offer you $10 in QEII cash for your next shipment.

► Link

Is that new British carrier nuclear powered?