That's where the fords have space for heavier potential defensive armament. It's not really used to its full potential right now but there's actually space for VLS there or for other things.
It's a near idea. But if a carrier ever had to use it's own VLS for anything other than launching some sort of jumbo sized switchblade X00 type drone, something has clearly gone very, very wrong.
They'd be exclusively for ESSMs or some similar future equivalent. The deck isn't thick enough for full length VLS cells. 32 cells would get you 128 quad packed ESSMs. Essentially some extra depth compared to the deck launchers which they currently bolt on.
Lots of carriers actually have small VLS bundles stuck on somewhere. The CDG has its in front of the island, they're easy to miss if you aren't looking.
The CdG is a piece of shit constantly docked for repairs froggy. Fr*nce has not been relevant once in its history. A single QE would MOG like ten Charles Du Goal and hundreds of Rafail after it's done mogging the Ford.
lol anon. UK right now only has like 26 F-35Bs total in Britain. Your carriers don't even have basic complement yet even if every single jet is given to them. Meteor compatibility isn't planned until 2027. Both the QEs and Ford class are pretty new, but the US is pumping out Fords and using the lessons from the lead ship to improve the ones coming after. JFK is in shake down and fitting now, Enterprise is under construction.
I mean shit, you might as well resurrect all the doomposting about the F-35. There hasn't been a major weapons system in a long time that didn't have issues that needed to get worked out, but that applies to both sides. And the capability mismatch means the Ford not operating at 100% can still be better than a QE that isn't operating at 100%.
The F-35B is superior to the F-35C. The F-35B can stop in the air to toy with the doppler and become twice as invisible to radar compared to the F-35C. The F-35C is unrealiable dogshit and can't supercruise due to a wing too large to fly faster than sound. Do the math. UK wins again.
The power budget and distribution system for high energy weapons is probably more interesting.
It's a near idea. But if a carrier ever had to use it's own VLS for anything other than launching some sort of jumbo sized switchblade X00 type drone, something has clearly gone very, very wrong.
Nah, having some missiles to extend the envelope vs incoming missiles is still a good idea vs just having phalanx particularly with all the ASMs the chinks are trying to do. Yes the battlegroup and aircraft should be primarily in charge but I don't think the carrier itself having some seasparrows and rams on hand is a bad idea even so just in case. They're not big, not like they're tomahawks, it's a relatively minimal use of space that could potentially take down another few dozen incoming missiles as a penultimate layer of the onion.
>"I want a stealth aircraft carrier" >"sir that's moronic, here's reason 1, 2, 3 etc." >"those are solvable problems, fix it and show me a model" >"here it is" >"nice, unfortunately carriers are innately non-stealthy and there was no way this was ever gonna work because you can see the wake from space"
lol what a shitty boss
>Can 2 Britbong skijump carriers defeat one Ford class? Both have max aircraft.
The scenario makes no sense because carriers are never without battlegroups and all their other support they're not solo vessels. But trying to run with it, they'd have a chance but things would lean towards the Ford. As a basic one, QE class isn't nuclear and has a max range of about 10k nmi. Ford has HEU reactors good for decades and can just flat out kite them both indefinitely until they're out of supplies (or if they're forced to go resupply they're stuck like that too). Like Nimitz, the Ford can carry 90 aircraft which is more than two QEs combined. Catapults give it greater tempo, it can launch aircraft with larger loads, which isn't just fuel but things like external fuel tanks. Both will presumably have their full complement of F-35s in this scenario, but the QEs are speced for the STOVL F-35B whereas the USN will be using the F-35C which has significantly more range and payload. Ford has better sensors and its own SAMs as well as Phalanx etc, QEs just have the guns. If you want to get into more future capabilities (so that the brits get their Meteor and full complement of F-35s) then have to consider the US equipping the Fords with DEWs, part of the whole point of the new far more powerful reactors and better energy systems was to have way more electrical budget for DEWs or railguns or whatever down the road. And I guess if you wanted to go there, the US has thermonuclear gravity bombs for their F-35s, whereas the bongs have their nuclear arsenal for submarines only.
But war always has an uncertain element and not like either ship has magic force shields. Fog of war and who discovers the other first can change history. An all out suicide attack with all the ASMs they could muster could do real damage if the dice fell right. But I'd lean towards the Ford.
You make some very sensible points to what is a silly question. And every logical neuron in my brain wishes to agree with you, but I must disagree.
You see, I'm a gambler. And I like to look at the form. And one thing that has been apparent throughout history is the British ability to pull an unlikely win out of their ass.
Whether it be against the Catholic might of Europe sending the worlds largest armada to link up with troops from several nations to trounce them, or the Germans (who lets face it, should have rolled Britain over) in ww2, or the very fact that they managed to have such a stupidly large influence on the modern world despite being a little, piss pot island. They some how come through.
I'm not claiming to know why, or how, I'm just saying my money is on them.
>You see, I'm a gambler. And I like to look at the form. And one thing that has been apparent throughout history is the British ability to pull an unlikely win out of their ass.
Except against the Americans. America was founded out of beating the odds against the British. And then doing it again. The founding of the US Navy was the six original frigates including 3 technologically advanced ones and then astonishing the world and British Navy at the height of its power and overwhelming dominance with multiple consecutive 1v1 frigate victories and no losses, even as the US Army suffered setback after setback in trying to take Canada. It completely changed public opinion and politics in America forever, even though sure eventually the RN devoted more resources and was able to bottle things up better, but not stink em: we're STILL sailing the USS Constitution 223 years later!
Sorry anon. And if we're speculating some insane scenario where US and UK are actually in a true direct war again, then again, why not just have the US putting a few B61 Mod 12s (which are done right now), 30m CEP thermonukes on their F-35s? What's your answer to that? Blue water fighting is one of the most "safe" places to use nukes too.
>America was founded out of beating the odds against the British.
No. America was founded with the help of the super powers of the day.
As for "technologically advanced ones", live oak is a wonderful wood.
I gotta back the Brits. Inventive, never say die, true warriors.
If America were even half as good, with the resources, man power and military spending it has, the world wouldn't be talking about 'the rising threat of China' or 'the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran'. We'd be talking about 'what are you doing this thanksgiving?' and 'remember all those wacky religions that weren't Christianity?'.
It's the truth. And deep down you know it.
The only notable acquisitions of clay America has managed were (in order)
1. Managing to overthrow British rule. In the days of sail, with the help of Spain and France, on home soil, with a massive numbers advantage.
2. Stealing part of Mexico.
The former you consider your greatest triumph (I'm sure the British are flattered)
Given this, and your stunning inability to beat Vietnam and the like, I've got to assume the Brits would win this naval engagement. I'm sorry it offends you, but I've got to go with the form. If you have to run away from Afghanistan, with people clinging to your transport planes, while the Taliban (the whole reason you were there) are nice enough to secure your escape, I'm struggling to believe you'd stand a chance against a modern, well trained, force.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Curious how you conveniently ignore little things like the unconditional surrender of Japan, being the sole nuclear power for years, Suez canal, etc. Yes, the US isn't an empire like the shitty bongs were, we didn't "take clay" even when we easily could. Instead we built our victories into allies and economic partners. I honestly think that's worked out way better than colonialism did.
If you actually truly think Britain has been even a vaguely comparable military power in nearly a century now that's actually kinda sad.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>If you actually truly think Britain has been even a vaguely comparable military power in nearly a century now that's actually kinda sad.
The UK won the Falklands war.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>being proud of a little scuffle vs the turdworld >suez canal >doesn't even have a single nuclear carrier >zilch space program >zilch icbms or bombs >shit logistics >scotland going to split for the EU
Congrats on avoiding irish rebellion and reunification for another few years I guess though?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>being proud of a little scuffle vs the turdworld
Argentina was a peer to peer country >suez canal
backstabbed by the Americans >doesn't even have a single nuclear carrier
no need to >zilch space program >zilch icbms or bombs
No. >shit logistics
indeed, the UK can't deploy a burger king anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours >scotland going to split for the EU
never ever
1 year ago
Anonymous
>peer to peer country
nonsense, Argentina was a client-server country, its peer to peer capability is basically still in beta
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're being played. That's not the Anon you've been talking to. He's trying to wind up up both sides.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>You're being played. That's not the Anon you've been talking to. He's trying to wind up up both sides.
Yeah I know. Assuming it's even a human. I was just kind of curious how it'd react to that and it was indeed increasingly hilarious
>being proud of a little scuffle vs the turdworld
Argentina was a peer to peer country >suez canal
backstabbed by the Americans >doesn't even have a single nuclear carrier
no need to >zilch space program >zilch icbms or bombs
No. >shit logistics
indeed, the UK can't deploy a burger king anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours >scotland going to split for the EU
never ever
. I mean it went ahead and literally claimed Argentina was a peer to Britain lol. Anyway, enough of that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Cool bro.
Glad you spotted it. He tried to play me off against you. I noticed it wasn't quite right. Catch you later /k/ommando.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>even when we easily could.
No. You couldn't. You tried, on more than one occasion. And you failed.
I'm really trying to be nice about this. But pound for pound, you suck at war.
There. I said it. Happy now?
2 on 1. You'd lose. You'd lose 2 on 1 against ragheads. You'd lose 2 on 1 against rice eaters.
To say you'd win 2 on 1 against Brits? You're insane.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Oh it's a brownoid my bad. >No. You couldn't. You tried, on more than one occasion. And you failed.
Saying the exact opposite of actual reality doesn't make it true good sir. Going to have to redeem that now.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Oh it's a brownoid my bad.
This is sad. You can't get anything right. You're the new Argentina right now. Insisting you're white, when in reality, you couldn't even conquer the Falklands.
Look at the bouncing bomb. Bongs can cope in incredible ways but somehow they’ll make it actually work. No country pulls of Hail Marys like the Brits do.
You make some very sensible points to what is a silly question. And every logical neuron in my brain wishes to agree with you, but I must disagree.
You see, I'm a gambler. And I like to look at the form. And one thing that has been apparent throughout history is the British ability to pull an unlikely win out of their ass.
Whether it be against the Catholic might of Europe sending the worlds largest armada to link up with troops from several nations to trounce them, or the Germans (who lets face it, should have rolled Britain over) in ww2, or the very fact that they managed to have such a stupidly large influence on the modern world despite being a little, piss pot island. They some how come through.
I'm not claiming to know why, or how, I'm just saying my money is on them.
The stock that generated that fighting spirit are long dead and replaced now, anon. Your country is comprised of pakis and poos now.
>:America was founded out of beating the odds against the British.
No, it was the usual scenario of backwater kicking off while on the margins of a wider conflict (which Britain won). Other brown and black people do it all the time in Africa and the Middle East.
maybe but there was a substantial power gap between britain france and spain and the US who were at the time maybe on par with the dutch, incidentally all 3 of those other powers were directly engaged against the British during the war of tax avoidance, the largest battle being the siege of gibraltar.
Anon, QE's can cary 72 aircraft, how are you getting "More than two QE's combined".
They're almost the same size, how did you even rationalise that in your head?
>Anon, QE's can cary 72 aircraft
Maximum on paper sure, normal load was envisioned at 24, but really it's looking like they'll be doing 12 normally with 18-24 in surge.
Don't even talk about 36 F-35s each, on paper maybe. In reality it'll never happen.
This is from mid 2022. > Plans for frontline F-35B squadrons had been modified and now envisaged a total of three squadrons (rather than four) each deploying 12-16 aircraft. In surge conditions 24 F-35s might be deployed on a carrier but a routine deployment would likely involve 12 aircraft
You mean all the flipfloppy bullshit you fricking bongs did in constantly changing your minds on how many fighters you wanted? >New fighter project? Sure sign us up for 138! >Ah nah never mind how about 48 lol >omg turns out hard power is still a thing maybe 74 afterall >in fact actually we might want the original order but we're not going to tell you until mid-2020s its a sekrit ;^)
Also stop dropping our babies in the fricking ocean.
>The Navy also continues to struggle with the reliability of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system and advanced arresting gear needed to meet requirements to rapidly deploy aircraft. Since our last detailed report on these systems in 2014, reliability has only slightly increased. The Navy anticipates achieving reliability goals in the 2030s. Until then, however, these low levels may prevent the ship from demonstrating one of its key requirements—rapidly deploying aircraft. The Navy declared initial operational capability for the lead ship (CVN 78) in December 2021, 5 months later than the planned date the Navy reported last year and 8 months before starting operational testing, which determines the effectiveness of ship systems. In August 2021, CVN 78 completed at-sea trials to test the ship’s ability to withstand shock from underwater explosions. Officials from the office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) said the trials were generally successful, but identified vulnerabilities in ship systems.
I'm American. EMALS is vaporware rn. Should've stuck with steam catapults. At least the Chinese were stupid enough to copy American vaporware so it will delay their newest carrier for a long time, allowing the US to keep its strategic advantage with the Nimitz and their (functioning) steam catapults for the forseeable future. A stroke of genius, really.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to have a EMALS you need a lot of power, power that only a reactor can produce, right? How on earth will the chinks be able to supply all that power with diesel engines? Not only that but keep in mind they have three catapults, not four.
You can make that much power using conventional, they just use storage batteries just like the nuclear ones do.
You think a nuclear reactor is going to spool up just for one EMAL? moron.
Well I remember reading that the Gerald Ford right now is using only a 1/3 of the total power it can output, since they wanted to future proof it and in order to use the EMALS non stop. I doubt the chinknasium carrier can launch 40 aircraft using just batteries and a diesel engine as fast a the Ford can.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Diesel electric generators are apparently magic to you, they absolutely can power an EMAL.
Yes, i'm just saying, it's got nothing to do with the US not delivering jets, it's to do with the UK not ordering enough or at the right time.
You mean all the flipfloppy bullshit you fricking bongs did in constantly changing your minds on how many fighters you wanted? >New fighter project? Sure sign us up for 138! >Ah nah never mind how about 48 lol >omg turns out hard power is still a thing maybe 74 afterall >in fact actually we might want the original order but we're not going to tell you until mid-2020s its a sekrit ;^)
Also stop dropping our babies in the fricking ocean.
It's still not a jsutification for outright ignoring the actual max combat load in OP's scenario when he outright stated max.
1 year ago
Anonymous
How the frick isn't?
Are you gonna tell a fully loaded ford to wait until you've bought enough jets to fill both boats?
Lmao
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Muh hypertheticals >Ignores the hypothetical and falls back to reality
Please anon, just off yourself.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Diesel electric generators are apparently magic to you, they absolutely can power an EMAL.
Chink carrier diesel engines are magic its seems, I doubt they can power the 3 catapults, plus radar, plus the ship, plus all the equipment that could be use in the future like lasers and shit during a high intensity conflict.
Bongs at least don't have the issue with the catapults since >a fricking ramp but at least it's smart to have a fricking ramp on a diesel carrier.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Lazers might be difficult. But they can be powered by medium tier generators with batterypacks.
You have to understand the generators do not need to have high capacity if they have a battery bank they can slowly fill over time, as long as it covers the power requirements for general use, and for short high intensity conflict.
If old "steam" engines (No true steam but created as a bonus) could be used for steam cats, an EMAL or three is not out of the question with more efficient fuels and engines.
1 year ago
Anonymous
oh god they are gonna rely on a massive frickoff battery bank?
With THEIR QC?
I mean, fair is fair there is NO comparison with the subhuman russians.
But that is a HELL of a fricking fire risk and if something causes a short or similar discharge you have LOST ALL LAUNCH capability.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>It's still not a jsutification for outright ignoring the actual max combat load in OP's scenario when he outright stated max.
I didn't ignore it at all jackass, but it applies to both sides. If you want to assume a silly emergency load for the QE that it can't even support then you should do the same thing for the Ford class. It's not even as if the US doesn't have actual combat history here, we stuffed B-25Bs onto the fricking Hornet to bomb tokyo, of course we could do the silly paper number thing. They aren't the same size either unless you only looked at length. But I went with the numbers that both aircraft carriers are actually designed for normal complement to service and operate.
But if you want then sure, use the inflated number for the QEs, which Britain doesn't even intend right now to acquire fighters for at all. Not "planned but not yet" but literally "not even planned". OK, now they have more fighters. Said fighters are still worse, and if we're talking that kind of bonus to the QEs then whichever Ford is fighting (probably Enterprise at that point) also has its full SAMs, full operational EMAL, nukes, etc.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You really have never been to sea if you've not seen a flooded compartment.
1 year ago
Anonymous
a flooded engine room is a common sight?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not a fun thing but you're required to cope with that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
doesn't look like an engine room to me
1 year ago
Anonymous
Isn't the Ford using flywheels for the surge requirement right now?
It feels oddly low tech to have them
Will they eventually be replaced with a capacitor bank?
You can make that much power using conventional, they just use storage batteries just like the nuclear ones do.
You think a nuclear reactor is going to spool up just for one EMAL? moron.
I'm American. EMALS is vaporware rn. Should've stuck with steam catapults. At least the Chinese were stupid enough to copy American vaporware so it will delay their newest carrier for a long time, allowing the US to keep its strategic advantage with the Nimitz and their (functioning) steam catapults for the forseeable future. A stroke of genius, really.
lol anon. UK right now only has like 26 F-35Bs total in Britain. Your carriers don't even have basic complement yet even if every single jet is given to them. Meteor compatibility isn't planned until 2027. Both the QEs and Ford class are pretty new, but the US is pumping out Fords and using the lessons from the lead ship to improve the ones coming after. JFK is in shake down and fitting now, Enterprise is under construction.
I mean shit, you might as well resurrect all the doomposting about the F-35. There hasn't been a major weapons system in a long time that didn't have issues that needed to get worked out, but that applies to both sides. And the capability mismatch means the Ford not operating at 100% can still be better than a QE that isn't operating at 100%.
>And ford isn't operational
By what standard? They've been naturally taking their time with it doing serious testing and ongoing development. Builder trials, heavy shock trials etc are all expected for the lead ship. But the Navy said she had met IOC last fall and they did her maiden deployment too.
If you want to talk practicalities right now vs in a few year than the QEs barely count as operational either since they're aircraft carriers WITHOUT THEIR FRICKING AIRCRAFT. I assumed this question was in at least a few years when both aircraft carrier classes are actually reaching full capability. Or soon but both sides rush to fully outfit them because somehow they suddenly find themselves at war? It's a dumb theoretical but you're making it stupider. >Its only "deployment" was 30 days in the Western Atlantic.
Closer to 60 days if you're counting. She left Norfolk like October 6th or something and returned end of November. Like frick you anon she visited Britain itself mid-November.
>ford isn't operational and has never carried more than a handful of jets
They doing COMPTUEX like now for deployment in a few weeks with a full airwing.
>"boats" have been around for thousands of years >therefore a brand new military ship can be expected to have zero problems of any kind because there must be nothing new about it
But you're talking about F35Bs vs F35Cs. More fuel and weapons for the Ford. Not to mention the higher sortie on the Ford. Also if your assuming 3 squadrons each for the QE2 you're heavily limiting deck and hangar space. The Ford with its additional AEW and electronic jamming capabilities is going to have a pretty big advantage.
Probably, and long term it only gets worse for the brits as the F-35B takes about 7.7 hours of maintenance per hour in the air, whereas the the F-35C is only at about 6.5 hours of maitance per hour in the air.
So you have to do more labor for each hour you fly an F-35B, on top of the F-35B having worse flight performance characteristics due to it's increased size and weight, which also heavily impacts fuel load and weapon loads.
This is more a debate on if Bs can match Cs since those are the primary weapons of the two respective ships. When boiled down to that level, F35Cs absolutely body the Bs in just about every category
>So EMALs works I guess
I've been one of the Ford defenders but "works" here deserves some scarequotes. Part of the advantage of aiming high is that falling below expectations can still leave enough margin to work with vs the old solutions, particularly in peace time when operational tempo isn't that demanding and nobody is actually planning operations around it yet. EMALS is now good enough to at least go on training with. They hit the 10k mark last year, it has been improving. But even the Navy says they don't expect to hit their initial targets for reliability and speed until the 2030s. The initial performance was FRICKING ABYSMAL too. Can't even make 200 cycles? Embarrassing. General Atomics definitely fricked up on that project, even if it looks like they can definitely salvage it eventually.
I mean at this point they have to make it work, I don't think they're gonna be able to change the design to support steam catapults with the existing ship design.
So either they make it work or they replace it with an electromagnetic launch system that DOES work. Cause again, I don't see how you route enough steam there in the current internal power/water/steam routing.
Sure, but the rate of improvement has been real, and, well, that "real" bit is undoubtedly helpful. Having the thing actually there IRL under the microscope focuses minds, the performance is now 100% objective at any given time and impossible to brush over and do optimistic management reports on. Navy and GAO know exactly what was ordered and promised and what existing systems can do and what the current state of it is. More generously, engineers also now get to have real feedback and see how things are working for real and then react to that. So that's definitely speeding up the iteration cycle. And I mean, fundamentally it's not like this is some radical new physics or whatever. We know how magnetic acceleration and high energy power systems work. We use them worldwide in a variety of places. The reactors and ship work, so the energy, mass and space is there. There is definitely a solution it's just going to be more expensive and take longer which should result in some sort of contractual punishment but it's definitely not getting abandoned. And I guess at least given the nature of capital construction and how everything comes together most of the ships will never have the problem. There are slated to be 10 Ford-class and 7 of them aren't even laid down yet, they'll be building these things into the 2040s by their own plans. By the time they get to CVN-82 or even 81 a lot of this will probably all be sorted.
Still another unfortunate example of a bungled legacy of some bad ideas in the 2000s. Hopefully that's learned from going forward.
It will either be a CAT conversion, but more likely a potentially new design. The idea is to use the GA EMALS and AAG once the issues are fixed, Kawasaki batteries for power storage, and the Mitsubishi SMR for power generation.
From what I understand is they left the option for cat conversion, when America sorts its own cat problems out.
https://i.imgur.com/Zan2dkV.png
It will either be a CAT conversion, but more likely a potentially new design. The idea is to use the GA EMALS and AAG once the issues are fixed, Kawasaki batteries for power storage, and the Mitsubishi SMR for power generation.
I should also point out that in the render a unique F-35 variant is shown. An F-35C with an internal gun. The US also just approved another batch of E-2Ds for Japan so it seems more and more likely.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/dsei-japan-2023/2023/03/us-approves-additional-e-2d-aew-aircraft-for-japan/
I could jump into a huge post OP and speculate but instead I'll just say what jumps out to me is that the QE class lacks a good AWACs which is a key part of any successful carrier operations. The crowsnest system had a decent amount of issues but even in a working state has >inferior range and altitude compared to fixed wing >less endurance >slower speed and thus poor repositioning time and threat reaction
it forces them to either accept shittier AWACs in an information dominated warfare environment or rely on land based fixed wing craft.
People love shitting on the bongs for ramps etc. but the issue of a capable airborne early warning craft has been the main shitter for me that and the pretty damn shit tier self defense, even if supported by other warships it should at least have one launcher for short to medium range missiles. I'd be real nervous of saturation attack sea skimmers with inferior awacs and only 3 phalanx systems in case my supporting destroyers frick up.
The brit carriers don't have E-2 Hawkeyes and have to use choppers for AEW (limitation of STOBAR carriers), which means that the US CSG will find them and sink them first
so 72 vs 90, Ford has a higher sortie rate than a individual QE but the QEs actually have a pretty god sortie rate so 2 QEs combined can get more aircraft up quicker.
main advantage the brits have is redundancy, they can afford to take more hits before losing all their launch/landing capability especially given STOVL wwhereas if the Ford takes a deck hit then launching and recovery of anything becomes more problematical.
assuming all sides are committed to engaging the british probably take some damage but get at least enough through to put Fords aviation capability down for a follow up strike.
Except the Ford can literally attack from outside of the QE's fighter range and never even once come within a few hundred miles. How do the QEs even precisely LOCATE the Ford in the ocean and keep track of it when their fighters can be kept so far away from it? Radar horizon for something at 50k feet is about 275 nmi. F-35C has 3000lbs more weapons payload capacity then the B, if it devotes all that to fuel tanks it can have the exact same weapon load but about a 270 nmi bigger combat radius. Having more energy to work with is huge with fighters, they can afford to go faster, higher, and be more aggressive about envelope which makes their weapons more effective. >well uh only the carriers are fighting but they can communicate with command
OK so now the Americans get to bring all of their ludicrous amounts of orbital assets into play? Which side do you think THAT favors?
Granted each side ultimately has to bring down each other's fighters or the ship, but if they're fighting carefully the range and endurance advantage for the Ford is just big. It might not be able to win, but it basically can't lose because if it just sails away they can literally never catch it. Each side goes the same speed but the Ford can go for decades not a few weeks and it can see with its own aircraft for hundreds of miles farther around itself. It can just shadow and harass.
Although I guess OP could then say "well I'm starting them off 10 miles apart and they must fight like gentlemen in the mediterranean and never leave!" since this is all a silly scenario anyway. But even then there is still "ok so the Americans just use their nukes now what".
They actually did tests on using the carrier nuclear reactor to convert seawater into fuel for the rest of the surface fleet. Idk if they got around to trying to make jet fuel though.
They did both, last I heard in 2020 it was being scaled up for industrial scale
Are they trying to have the ships run on hydrogen, or are they trying to actually manufacture diesel?
Where did they get the carbon from? Carbon recapture from the other ships?
Some air products centrifuge running on deck?
Otherwise I suppose they can catch fish to react or go back to whaling. What a weird anachronistic rabbit hole I've just gone down.
Carbon capture from the air is part of it from what I heard since the air force is also interested in using similar tech at air bases to create jet fuel with recaptured carbon from the atmosphere.
Navy and airforce have been pushing various technologies in this vein for 15+ years and we're getting closer to real applications though it'll still probably be small scale even for the military for the next 20 years.
God damn I wish the carrier pilots did not force the navy into the rear deck cut outs.
That's where the fords have space for heavier potential defensive armament. It's not really used to its full potential right now but there's actually space for VLS there or for other things.
It's a near idea. But if a carrier ever had to use it's own VLS for anything other than launching some sort of jumbo sized switchblade X00 type drone, something has clearly gone very, very wrong.
They'd be exclusively for ESSMs or some similar future equivalent. The deck isn't thick enough for full length VLS cells. 32 cells would get you 128 quad packed ESSMs. Essentially some extra depth compared to the deck launchers which they currently bolt on.
Lots of carriers actually have small VLS bundles stuck on somewhere. The CDG has its in front of the island, they're easy to miss if you aren't looking.
Yeah, I was surprised when Japan did their 2nd gen helicopter destroyers they removed the VLS cells.
Still on the Hyuga-class though
The CdG is a piece of shit constantly docked for repairs froggy. Fr*nce has not been relevant once in its history. A single QE would MOG like ten Charles Du Goal and hundreds of Rafail after it's done mogging the Ford.
The F-35B is superior to the F-35C. The F-35B can stop in the air to toy with the doppler and become twice as invisible to radar compared to the F-35C. The F-35C is unrealiable dogshit and can't supercruise due to a wing too large to fly faster than sound. Do the math. UK wins again.
Burgers and frogs BTFO.
Oh, no, it's the return of VIFF! VIFF beats everything!
too obvious, no (you)
The power budget and distribution system for high energy weapons is probably more interesting.
Nah, having some missiles to extend the envelope vs incoming missiles is still a good idea vs just having phalanx particularly with all the ASMs the chinks are trying to do. Yes the battlegroup and aircraft should be primarily in charge but I don't think the carrier itself having some seasparrows and rams on hand is a bad idea even so just in case. They're not big, not like they're tomahawks, it's a relatively minimal use of space that could potentially take down another few dozen incoming missiles as a penultimate layer of the onion.
>"I want a stealth aircraft carrier"
>"sir that's moronic, here's reason 1, 2, 3 etc."
>"those are solvable problems, fix it and show me a model"
>"here it is"
>"nice, unfortunately carriers are innately non-stealthy and there was no way this was ever gonna work because you can see the wake from space"
lol what a shitty boss
>Can 2 Britbong skijump carriers defeat one Ford class? Both have max aircraft.
The scenario makes no sense because carriers are never without battlegroups and all their other support they're not solo vessels. But trying to run with it, they'd have a chance but things would lean towards the Ford. As a basic one, QE class isn't nuclear and has a max range of about 10k nmi. Ford has HEU reactors good for decades and can just flat out kite them both indefinitely until they're out of supplies (or if they're forced to go resupply they're stuck like that too). Like Nimitz, the Ford can carry 90 aircraft which is more than two QEs combined. Catapults give it greater tempo, it can launch aircraft with larger loads, which isn't just fuel but things like external fuel tanks. Both will presumably have their full complement of F-35s in this scenario, but the QEs are speced for the STOVL F-35B whereas the USN will be using the F-35C which has significantly more range and payload. Ford has better sensors and its own SAMs as well as Phalanx etc, QEs just have the guns. If you want to get into more future capabilities (so that the brits get their Meteor and full complement of F-35s) then have to consider the US equipping the Fords with DEWs, part of the whole point of the new far more powerful reactors and better energy systems was to have way more electrical budget for DEWs or railguns or whatever down the road. And I guess if you wanted to go there, the US has thermonuclear gravity bombs for their F-35s, whereas the bongs have their nuclear arsenal for submarines only.
But war always has an uncertain element and not like either ship has magic force shields. Fog of war and who discovers the other first can change history. An all out suicide attack with all the ASMs they could muster could do real damage if the dice fell right. But I'd lean towards the Ford.
You make some very sensible points to what is a silly question. And every logical neuron in my brain wishes to agree with you, but I must disagree.
You see, I'm a gambler. And I like to look at the form. And one thing that has been apparent throughout history is the British ability to pull an unlikely win out of their ass.
Whether it be against the Catholic might of Europe sending the worlds largest armada to link up with troops from several nations to trounce them, or the Germans (who lets face it, should have rolled Britain over) in ww2, or the very fact that they managed to have such a stupidly large influence on the modern world despite being a little, piss pot island. They some how come through.
I'm not claiming to know why, or how, I'm just saying my money is on them.
>You see, I'm a gambler. And I like to look at the form. And one thing that has been apparent throughout history is the British ability to pull an unlikely win out of their ass.
Except against the Americans. America was founded out of beating the odds against the British. And then doing it again. The founding of the US Navy was the six original frigates including 3 technologically advanced ones and then astonishing the world and British Navy at the height of its power and overwhelming dominance with multiple consecutive 1v1 frigate victories and no losses, even as the US Army suffered setback after setback in trying to take Canada. It completely changed public opinion and politics in America forever, even though sure eventually the RN devoted more resources and was able to bottle things up better, but not stink em: we're STILL sailing the USS Constitution 223 years later!
Sorry anon. And if we're speculating some insane scenario where US and UK are actually in a true direct war again, then again, why not just have the US putting a few B61 Mod 12s (which are done right now), 30m CEP thermonukes on their F-35s? What's your answer to that? Blue water fighting is one of the most "safe" places to use nukes too.
>America was founded out of beating the odds against the British.
No. America was founded with the help of the super powers of the day.
As for "technologically advanced ones", live oak is a wonderful wood.
I gotta back the Brits. Inventive, never say die, true warriors.
If America were even half as good, with the resources, man power and military spending it has, the world wouldn't be talking about 'the rising threat of China' or 'the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran'. We'd be talking about 'what are you doing this thanksgiving?' and 'remember all those wacky religions that weren't Christianity?'.
wtf limey copeposting is this
It's the truth. And deep down you know it.
The only notable acquisitions of clay America has managed were (in order)
1. Managing to overthrow British rule. In the days of sail, with the help of Spain and France, on home soil, with a massive numbers advantage.
2. Stealing part of Mexico.
The former you consider your greatest triumph (I'm sure the British are flattered)
Given this, and your stunning inability to beat Vietnam and the like, I've got to assume the Brits would win this naval engagement. I'm sorry it offends you, but I've got to go with the form. If you have to run away from Afghanistan, with people clinging to your transport planes, while the Taliban (the whole reason you were there) are nice enough to secure your escape, I'm struggling to believe you'd stand a chance against a modern, well trained, force.
Curious how you conveniently ignore little things like the unconditional surrender of Japan, being the sole nuclear power for years, Suez canal, etc. Yes, the US isn't an empire like the shitty bongs were, we didn't "take clay" even when we easily could. Instead we built our victories into allies and economic partners. I honestly think that's worked out way better than colonialism did.
If you actually truly think Britain has been even a vaguely comparable military power in nearly a century now that's actually kinda sad.
>If you actually truly think Britain has been even a vaguely comparable military power in nearly a century now that's actually kinda sad.
The UK won the Falklands war.
>being proud of a little scuffle vs the turdworld
>suez canal
>doesn't even have a single nuclear carrier
>zilch space program
>zilch icbms or bombs
>shit logistics
>scotland going to split for the EU
Congrats on avoiding irish rebellion and reunification for another few years I guess though?
>being proud of a little scuffle vs the turdworld
Argentina was a peer to peer country
>suez canal
backstabbed by the Americans
>doesn't even have a single nuclear carrier
no need to
>zilch space program
>zilch icbms or bombs
No.
>shit logistics
indeed, the UK can't deploy a burger king anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours
>scotland going to split for the EU
never ever
>peer to peer country
nonsense, Argentina was a client-server country, its peer to peer capability is basically still in beta
You're being played. That's not the Anon you've been talking to. He's trying to wind up up both sides.
>You're being played. That's not the Anon you've been talking to. He's trying to wind up up both sides.
Yeah I know. Assuming it's even a human. I was just kind of curious how it'd react to that and it was indeed increasingly hilarious
. I mean it went ahead and literally claimed Argentina was a peer to Britain lol. Anyway, enough of that.
Cool bro.
Glad you spotted it. He tried to play me off against you. I noticed it wasn't quite right. Catch you later /k/ommando.
>even when we easily could.
No. You couldn't. You tried, on more than one occasion. And you failed.
I'm really trying to be nice about this. But pound for pound, you suck at war.
There. I said it. Happy now?
2 on 1. You'd lose. You'd lose 2 on 1 against ragheads. You'd lose 2 on 1 against rice eaters.
To say you'd win 2 on 1 against Brits? You're insane.
Oh it's a brownoid my bad.
>No. You couldn't. You tried, on more than one occasion. And you failed.
Saying the exact opposite of actual reality doesn't make it true good sir. Going to have to redeem that now.
>Oh it's a brownoid my bad.
This is sad. You can't get anything right. You're the new Argentina right now. Insisting you're white, when in reality, you couldn't even conquer the Falklands.
Look at the bouncing bomb. Bongs can cope in incredible ways but somehow they’ll make it actually work. No country pulls of Hail Marys like the Brits do.
The stock that generated that fighting spirit are long dead and replaced now, anon. Your country is comprised of pakis and poos now.
Ah yes I'm feeling very demoralised when America literally has a higher mutt %
You DnC? I think DnC.
>:America was founded out of beating the odds against the British.
No, it was the usual scenario of backwater kicking off while on the margins of a wider conflict (which Britain won). Other brown and black people do it all the time in Africa and the Middle East.
The 13 colonies was one of the most industrialized regions in the world and had top 10 GDP at the time. The US was not a backwater country.
maybe but there was a substantial power gap between britain france and spain and the US who were at the time maybe on par with the dutch, incidentally all 3 of those other powers were directly engaged against the British during the war of tax avoidance, the largest battle being the siege of gibraltar.
Anon, QE's can cary 72 aircraft, how are you getting "More than two QE's combined".
They're almost the same size, how did you even rationalise that in your head?
>Anon, QE's can cary 72 aircraft
Maximum on paper sure, normal load was envisioned at 24, but really it's looking like they'll be doing 12 normally with 18-24 in surge.
Don't even talk about 36 F-35s each, on paper maybe. In reality it'll never happen.
This is from mid 2022.
> Plans for frontline F-35B squadrons had been modified and now envisaged a total of three squadrons (rather than four) each deploying 12-16 aircraft. In surge conditions 24 F-35s might be deployed on a carrier but a routine deployment would likely involve 12 aircraft
Yeah because the US aquisition of F35s is taking too long, not because the carrier can't store that many.
you mean UK
UK aquisition of US jets
Yes, i'm just saying, it's got nothing to do with the US not delivering jets, it's to do with the UK not ordering enough or at the right time.
You mean all the flipfloppy bullshit you fricking bongs did in constantly changing your minds on how many fighters you wanted?
>New fighter project? Sure sign us up for 138!
>Ah nah never mind how about 48 lol
>omg turns out hard power is still a thing maybe 74 afterall
>in fact actually we might want the original order but we're not going to tell you until mid-2020s its a sekrit ;^)
Also stop dropping our babies in the fricking ocean.
Probably yes, because the Ford is unreliable.
>The Navy also continues to struggle with the reliability of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system and advanced arresting gear needed to meet requirements to rapidly deploy aircraft. Since our last detailed report on these systems in 2014, reliability has only slightly increased. The Navy anticipates achieving reliability goals in the 2030s. Until then, however, these low levels may prevent the ship from demonstrating one of its key requirements—rapidly deploying aircraft. The Navy declared initial operational capability for the lead ship (CVN 78) in December 2021, 5 months later than the planned date the Navy reported last year and 8 months before starting operational testing, which determines the effectiveness of ship systems. In August 2021, CVN 78 completed at-sea trials to test the ship’s ability to withstand shock from underwater explosions. Officials from the office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) said the trials were generally successful, but identified vulnerabilities in ship systems.
>Probably yes, because the Ford is unreliable.
Wash your teeth. Prince of Wales is a floating wreckage like your country.
Because an American made part broke and it went for early maintanace period?
Call us when Ford is operational.
So the hull flooding is also to blame on the US?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to have a EMALS you need a lot of power, power that only a reactor can produce, right? How on earth will the chinks be able to supply all that power with diesel engines? Not only that but keep in mind they have three catapults, not four.
A seawater pipe bursting isn't the hull flooding. Its clear you've never been to sea.
pic related
Well I remember reading that the Gerald Ford right now is using only a 1/3 of the total power it can output, since they wanted to future proof it and in order to use the EMALS non stop. I doubt the chinknasium carrier can launch 40 aircraft using just batteries and a diesel engine as fast a the Ford can.
Diesel electric generators are apparently magic to you, they absolutely can power an EMAL.
It's still not a jsutification for outright ignoring the actual max combat load in OP's scenario when he outright stated max.
How the frick isn't?
Are you gonna tell a fully loaded ford to wait until you've bought enough jets to fill both boats?
Lmao
>Muh hypertheticals
>Ignores the hypothetical and falls back to reality
Please anon, just off yourself.
>Diesel electric generators are apparently magic to you, they absolutely can power an EMAL.
Chink carrier diesel engines are magic its seems, I doubt they can power the 3 catapults, plus radar, plus the ship, plus all the equipment that could be use in the future like lasers and shit during a high intensity conflict.
Bongs at least don't have the issue with the catapults since >a fricking ramp but at least it's smart to have a fricking ramp on a diesel carrier.
Lazers might be difficult. But they can be powered by medium tier generators with batterypacks.
You have to understand the generators do not need to have high capacity if they have a battery bank they can slowly fill over time, as long as it covers the power requirements for general use, and for short high intensity conflict.
If old "steam" engines (No true steam but created as a bonus) could be used for steam cats, an EMAL or three is not out of the question with more efficient fuels and engines.
oh god they are gonna rely on a massive frickoff battery bank?
With THEIR QC?
I mean, fair is fair there is NO comparison with the subhuman russians.
But that is a HELL of a fricking fire risk and if something causes a short or similar discharge you have LOST ALL LAUNCH capability.
>It's still not a jsutification for outright ignoring the actual max combat load in OP's scenario when he outright stated max.
I didn't ignore it at all jackass, but it applies to both sides. If you want to assume a silly emergency load for the QE that it can't even support then you should do the same thing for the Ford class. It's not even as if the US doesn't have actual combat history here, we stuffed B-25Bs onto the fricking Hornet to bomb tokyo, of course we could do the silly paper number thing. They aren't the same size either unless you only looked at length. But I went with the numbers that both aircraft carriers are actually designed for normal complement to service and operate.
But if you want then sure, use the inflated number for the QEs, which Britain doesn't even intend right now to acquire fighters for at all. Not "planned but not yet" but literally "not even planned". OK, now they have more fighters. Said fighters are still worse, and if we're talking that kind of bonus to the QEs then whichever Ford is fighting (probably Enterprise at that point) also has its full SAMs, full operational EMAL, nukes, etc.
You really have never been to sea if you've not seen a flooded compartment.
a flooded engine room is a common sight?
Not a fun thing but you're required to cope with that.
doesn't look like an engine room to me
Isn't the Ford using flywheels for the surge requirement right now?
It feels oddly low tech to have them
Will they eventually be replaced with a capacitor bank?
You can make that much power using conventional, they just use storage batteries just like the nuclear ones do.
You think a nuclear reactor is going to spool up just for one EMAL? moron.
I'm American. EMALS is vaporware rn. Should've stuck with steam catapults. At least the Chinese were stupid enough to copy American vaporware so it will delay their newest carrier for a long time, allowing the US to keep its strategic advantage with the Nimitz and their (functioning) steam catapults for the forseeable future. A stroke of genius, really.
lol anon. UK right now only has like 26 F-35Bs total in Britain. Your carriers don't even have basic complement yet even if every single jet is given to them. Meteor compatibility isn't planned until 2027. Both the QEs and Ford class are pretty new, but the US is pumping out Fords and using the lessons from the lead ship to improve the ones coming after. JFK is in shake down and fitting now, Enterprise is under construction.
I mean shit, you might as well resurrect all the doomposting about the F-35. There hasn't been a major weapons system in a long time that didn't have issues that needed to get worked out, but that applies to both sides. And the capability mismatch means the Ford not operating at 100% can still be better than a QE that isn't operating at 100%.
And ford isn't operational and has never carried more than a handful of jets. Its only "deployment" was 30 days in the Western Atlantic.
>And ford isn't operational
By what standard? They've been naturally taking their time with it doing serious testing and ongoing development. Builder trials, heavy shock trials etc are all expected for the lead ship. But the Navy said she had met IOC last fall and they did her maiden deployment too.
If you want to talk practicalities right now vs in a few year than the QEs barely count as operational either since they're aircraft carriers WITHOUT THEIR FRICKING AIRCRAFT. I assumed this question was in at least a few years when both aircraft carrier classes are actually reaching full capability. Or soon but both sides rush to fully outfit them because somehow they suddenly find themselves at war? It's a dumb theoretical but you're making it stupider.
>Its only "deployment" was 30 days in the Western Atlantic.
Closer to 60 days if you're counting. She left Norfolk like October 6th or something and returned end of November. Like frick you anon she visited Britain itself mid-November.
>ford isn't operational and has never carried more than a handful of jets
They doing COMPTUEX like now for deployment in a few weeks with a full airwing.
>There hasn't been a major weapons system in a long time
>major weapons system
>carrier
lol
carriers been around for a hundred years
>"boats" have been around for thousands of years
>therefore a brand new military ship can be expected to have zero problems of any kind because there must be nothing new about it
6 squadrons of F35 diapered over two ships beats 4 squadrons on a single ship.
AEW has no benefit to 5th gen aircaft in a hunt for a surface vessel.
But you're talking about F35Bs vs F35Cs. More fuel and weapons for the Ford. Not to mention the higher sortie on the Ford. Also if your assuming 3 squadrons each for the QE2 you're heavily limiting deck and hangar space. The Ford with its additional AEW and electronic jamming capabilities is going to have a pretty big advantage.
>Not to mention the higher sortie on the Ford.
Does it have higher sortie rate than two QEs?
Probably, and long term it only gets worse for the brits as the F-35B takes about 7.7 hours of maintenance per hour in the air, whereas the the F-35C is only at about 6.5 hours of maitance per hour in the air.
So you have to do more labor for each hour you fly an F-35B, on top of the F-35B having worse flight performance characteristics due to it's increased size and weight, which also heavily impacts fuel load and weapon loads.
Uh, the Ford is not fit for combat, so the QE wins.
This is more a debate on if Bs can match Cs since those are the primary weapons of the two respective ships. When boiled down to that level, F35Cs absolutely body the Bs in just about every category
The Ford is currently on its month long Graduation Exercise(Since March 2) before its cleared for global deployment (as per USNI Fleet News)
So EMALs works I guess
>So EMALs works I guess
I had heard it was improving pretty quickly in 2021/2
>So EMALs works I guess
I've been one of the Ford defenders but "works" here deserves some scarequotes. Part of the advantage of aiming high is that falling below expectations can still leave enough margin to work with vs the old solutions, particularly in peace time when operational tempo isn't that demanding and nobody is actually planning operations around it yet. EMALS is now good enough to at least go on training with. They hit the 10k mark last year, it has been improving. But even the Navy says they don't expect to hit their initial targets for reliability and speed until the 2030s. The initial performance was FRICKING ABYSMAL too. Can't even make 200 cycles? Embarrassing. General Atomics definitely fricked up on that project, even if it looks like they can definitely salvage it eventually.
I mean at this point they have to make it work, I don't think they're gonna be able to change the design to support steam catapults with the existing ship design.
So either they make it work or they replace it with an electromagnetic launch system that DOES work. Cause again, I don't see how you route enough steam there in the current internal power/water/steam routing.
Sure, but the rate of improvement has been real, and, well, that "real" bit is undoubtedly helpful. Having the thing actually there IRL under the microscope focuses minds, the performance is now 100% objective at any given time and impossible to brush over and do optimistic management reports on. Navy and GAO know exactly what was ordered and promised and what existing systems can do and what the current state of it is. More generously, engineers also now get to have real feedback and see how things are working for real and then react to that. So that's definitely speeding up the iteration cycle. And I mean, fundamentally it's not like this is some radical new physics or whatever. We know how magnetic acceleration and high energy power systems work. We use them worldwide in a variety of places. The reactors and ship work, so the energy, mass and space is there. There is definitely a solution it's just going to be more expensive and take longer which should result in some sort of contractual punishment but it's definitely not getting abandoned. And I guess at least given the nature of capital construction and how everything comes together most of the ships will never have the problem. There are slated to be 10 Ford-class and 7 of them aren't even laid down yet, they'll be building these things into the 2040s by their own plans. By the time they get to CVN-82 or even 81 a lot of this will probably all be sorted.
Still another unfortunate example of a bungled legacy of some bad ideas in the 2000s. Hopefully that's learned from going forward.
As a coaster-autist they should have just fricking went with a LIM/LSM expert Like Intamin or Gerstlauer
Sometimes you just gotta let the weird niche guys do the weird niche shit.
There will be an Astute in the water. The carrier only has to defend itself.
Yeah cause we all know american carriers always operate without a sub escort
Of course. These what ifs come with a fricking huge list of buts....
>A ramp
NGMI
From what I understand is they left the option for cat conversion, when America sorts its own cat problems out.
It will either be a CAT conversion, but more likely a potentially new design. The idea is to use the GA EMALS and AAG once the issues are fixed, Kawasaki batteries for power storage, and the Mitsubishi SMR for power generation.
that was the original plan, but the yard fricked up - they're just ramps without re doing several decks deep
I should also point out that in the render a unique F-35 variant is shown. An F-35C with an internal gun. The US also just approved another batch of E-2Ds for Japan so it seems more and more likely.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/dsei-japan-2023/2023/03/us-approves-additional-e-2d-aew-aircraft-for-japan/
I could jump into a huge post OP and speculate but instead I'll just say what jumps out to me is that the QE class lacks a good AWACs which is a key part of any successful carrier operations. The crowsnest system had a decent amount of issues but even in a working state has
>inferior range and altitude compared to fixed wing
>less endurance
>slower speed and thus poor repositioning time and threat reaction
it forces them to either accept shittier AWACs in an information dominated warfare environment or rely on land based fixed wing craft.
People love shitting on the bongs for ramps etc. but the issue of a capable airborne early warning craft has been the main shitter for me that and the pretty damn shit tier self defense, even if supported by other warships it should at least have one launcher for short to medium range missiles. I'd be real nervous of saturation attack sea skimmers with inferior awacs and only 3 phalanx systems in case my supporting destroyers frick up.
The brit carriers don't have E-2 Hawkeyes and have to use choppers for AEW (limitation of STOBAR carriers), which means that the US CSG will find them and sink them first
A British Carrier actually having maximum aircraft? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one anon, good one.
so 72 vs 90, Ford has a higher sortie rate than a individual QE but the QEs actually have a pretty god sortie rate so 2 QEs combined can get more aircraft up quicker.
main advantage the brits have is redundancy, they can afford to take more hits before losing all their launch/landing capability especially given STOVL wwhereas if the Ford takes a deck hit then launching and recovery of anything becomes more problematical.
assuming all sides are committed to engaging the british probably take some damage but get at least enough through to put Fords aviation capability down for a follow up strike.
Except the Ford can literally attack from outside of the QE's fighter range and never even once come within a few hundred miles. How do the QEs even precisely LOCATE the Ford in the ocean and keep track of it when their fighters can be kept so far away from it? Radar horizon for something at 50k feet is about 275 nmi. F-35C has 3000lbs more weapons payload capacity then the B, if it devotes all that to fuel tanks it can have the exact same weapon load but about a 270 nmi bigger combat radius. Having more energy to work with is huge with fighters, they can afford to go faster, higher, and be more aggressive about envelope which makes their weapons more effective.
>well uh only the carriers are fighting but they can communicate with command
OK so now the Americans get to bring all of their ludicrous amounts of orbital assets into play? Which side do you think THAT favors?
Granted each side ultimately has to bring down each other's fighters or the ship, but if they're fighting carefully the range and endurance advantage for the Ford is just big. It might not be able to win, but it basically can't lose because if it just sails away they can literally never catch it. Each side goes the same speed but the Ford can go for decades not a few weeks and it can see with its own aircraft for hundreds of miles farther around itself. It can just shadow and harass.
Although I guess OP could then say "well I'm starting them off 10 miles apart and they must fight like gentlemen in the mediterranean and never leave!" since this is all a silly scenario anyway. But even then there is still "ok so the Americans just use their nukes now what".
>the Ford can go for decades
with its nuclear-powered F-35Cs, hydroponic garden and saltwater jet fuel desalination plant 😉
They actually did tests on using the carrier nuclear reactor to convert seawater into fuel for the rest of the surface fleet. Idk if they got around to trying to make jet fuel though.
They did both, last I heard in 2020 it was being scaled up for industrial scale
I heard they did tests using nuclear reactor to make F-35s out of sea water and it's now in beta.
No need to make yourself look even more moronic.
It's okay to admit the US is by far leading the world in sustainable fuel research.
Are they trying to have the ships run on hydrogen, or are they trying to actually manufacture diesel?
Where did they get the carbon from? Carbon recapture from the other ships?
Some air products centrifuge running on deck?
Otherwise I suppose they can catch fish to react or go back to whaling. What a weird anachronistic rabbit hole I've just gone down.
They're looking at multiple avenues.
Carbon capture from the air is part of it from what I heard since the air force is also interested in using similar tech at air bases to create jet fuel with recaptured carbon from the atmosphere.
Navy and airforce have been pushing various technologies in this vein for 15+ years and we're getting closer to real applications though it'll still probably be small scale even for the military for the next 20 years.