My god, she's beautiful

My god, she's beautiful

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will never like the cope slope but the two towers are very aesthetic

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wait why does it have two anyway?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        One tower is for air operations.
        Also one can be a backup for the other if either one is taken out.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wait why does it have two anyway?

          The forward bridge is for the command of the ship, the rear bridge is the air command, it has those big massive windows which look sick from the inside (pic related).

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's a big guy

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah that was the big media day they did when they were originally going for sea trials I think.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              for you

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        England wanted to show their support of the US after 9/11. Also they really like Lord of the Rings

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        it has to have 2 smokestacks anyway so splitting the tower lets them specialize one for air operations

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    A FRICKING RAMP

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Explain to me, if you would be so kind, and bearing in mind that I am an idiot, what is wrong with a ramp?
      If it launches your air assets successfully, then whatis wrong with it?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It means you're getting less payload on your plane since you won't have the same energy when you leave the deck of the ship. A good steam catapult or electromagnetic catapult gives you a lot more speed (and thus payload capacity).

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It means the jets you launch have less fuel and weaponry, basically. Also limits future upgrades you can do to the ship.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Surely they coild just add emals later if they wanted to?

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol no, emals requires MASSIVE amounts of power, and that sort of shit needs to be built into the design of the ship, you could MAYBE do some sort of major refit later, but it would take years and cost a few billion probably.

            So not really worth it.

            Steam catapults have the same problem as they require steam power which takes plumbing/power/boilers/etc. Though it would be cheaper, you still need to account for these systems in the original design and if they're not built in (or built in anticipation of) you're gonna spend hundreds of millions, or billions to put them in after the fact.

            Also, QE-class carriers WERE originally designed to be able to upgrade to catapult systems later, but it was revealed in 2016 that basically no design work had been done on catapult-related systems since 2002.

            > Chief of Defence Materiel, revealed that even though the carriers had been sold as adaptable and easy to convert for CATOBAR, no serious effort had been made in this direction since 2002

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              EMALS isn't very energy intensive especially compared to steam, technically they could implement one but it's over since they bought F-35B's and not C's
              although if they want to integrate drones they will need them in the future

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >although if they want to integrate drones they will need them in the future
                Drones, transport planes, AWACS, there are a host of reasons to get catapults installed.

                Also would allow F-35C operations if the US/UK ever wanted to deploy a US carrier air wing to a UK carrier for training purposes.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >no tattoo
        a.i. trash

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        > If it launches your air assets successfully,
        Because it doesn’t

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        it strongly restricts the enablers you can launch, ie awacs and tankers. crowsnest is sad and low energy.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes you can launch planes this way, but it's less flexible, both in terms of what planes can be launched and what kind of payload they can carry.
        It also reduces the ships range because it can't get resupplied by plane like US carriers can.
        There's nothing wrong with it, the design is functional. It's just ours is more flexible and lets us use more planes with more weapons and less fuel.

        Surely they coild just add emals later if they wanted to?

        I don't think they can, they'd have to reconfigure the whole deck, the inside of the ships would have to get redone to make room for the launchers.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          lol no, emals requires MASSIVE amounts of power, and that sort of shit needs to be built into the design of the ship, you could MAYBE do some sort of major refit later, but it would take years and cost a few billion probably.

          So not really worth it.

          Steam catapults have the same problem as they require steam power which takes plumbing/power/boilers/etc. Though it would be cheaper, you still need to account for these systems in the original design and if they're not built in (or built in anticipation of) you're gonna spend hundreds of millions, or billions to put them in after the fact.

          Also, QE-class carriers WERE originally designed to be able to upgrade to catapult systems later, but it was revealed in 2016 that basically no design work had been done on catapult-related systems since 2002.

          > Chief of Defence Materiel, revealed that even though the carriers had been sold as adaptable and easy to convert for CATOBAR, no serious effort had been made in this direction since 2002

          >I don't think they can, they'd have to reconfigure the whole deck, the inside of the ships would have to get redone to make room for the launchers.
          You're wrong. The class was designed "for but not with" catapults. As demonstrated in the Regimental thread, all the anti-bong posters are MASSIVE spastics who never know what they're talking about.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            They admitted they didn't ACTUALLY make sure the later design phases planned for catapults, no major work regarding catapults on the QE-class has been done since 2002.

            You're welcome to dust off the plans and check, but I'd be willing to bet they are 36+ months and at least a billion + dollars from catapults being installed. That's not exactly ready to go.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Erm, ACTUALLY it wasn't built for catapults despite being explicitly designed for them because.... it just isn't ok!
              >Well maybe it was but they can't install it because.... they just can't ok!

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you responding to the local Asperger's resident

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                See

                lol no, emals requires MASSIVE amounts of power, and that sort of shit needs to be built into the design of the ship, you could MAYBE do some sort of major refit later, but it would take years and cost a few billion probably.

                So not really worth it.

                Steam catapults have the same problem as they require steam power which takes plumbing/power/boilers/etc. Though it would be cheaper, you still need to account for these systems in the original design and if they're not built in (or built in anticipation of) you're gonna spend hundreds of millions, or billions to put them in after the fact.

                Also, QE-class carriers WERE originally designed to be able to upgrade to catapult systems later, but it was revealed in 2016 that basically no design work had been done on catapult-related systems since 2002.

                > Chief of Defence Materiel, revealed that even though the carriers had been sold as adaptable and easy to convert for CATOBAR, no serious effort had been made in this direction since 2002

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                BAE was forced to admit this to the defence select committie, its a matter of public record.

                The rational was that due to Rolls Royce being involved in F-35B (And the RAF being invested in STOVL due to wanting a harrier replacement) it was in the national interest for as many F-35Bs to be in circulation as possible and that is was never going to be the case that MOD changed its mind over which varient to procure.

                BAE therefore cut corners in design and ignored the contactual stipulation that either would be possible to a very late stage (Whether this was possible or not from an engineering standpoint is another debate). When they were asked to make the change they found it would requiring taking the ship practically back to the naked hull sections and wouldn't be easy or cheap. That compounded with Rolls Royce's predictable bleating over the lift fan saga left the government to revert to the Ramp.

                TL:DR the governemt greased up for BAE as it has done in all procurement fiascos for the last 40 years.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's always amusing to see someone talking out their arse and getting basic facts wrong. BAE didn't design or build the carriers, Babwiener did. BAE just did some fitting out.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus, warriortard is such a homosexual. He gets destroyed in every thread but he keeps going.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            she looks pretty happy

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It can't launch the single most important plane on a carrier, the fixed wing AEW.
        Realistically the old and shitty GdG mogs this brit pos because the British cheaped out hard and build Soviet tier fail carriers.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          You do realise it was literally a short term cost measure so they could get two carriers built for less instead of one for lots right
          https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-aircraft-carriers-may-be-fitted-with-catapults/

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >short term cost measure
            YWNHAC

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fact this is AI pains me greatly as I haven’t seen a decent hand drawn marichka in a long time.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Flat is justice, anon.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you need breasts the size of watermelons to get hard, find another waifu.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >RAMP
      A Traditional English Design for the Queen.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like battleships more than carriers honestly. Makes naval combat more intense with big canons rather than jets zooming around dogfighting

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's true. Big guns are just cooler. Honestly the coolest thing would be a battleship aircraft carrier hybrid. But from what I understand it's a dumb idea and the only ones ever built are some Japanese WW2 ships and if you want to count it the Russian aircraft carrier that has a bunch of missiles on it in addition to the planes.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Then why don't you join then. Like you're only getting attached to pixels like an autist.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd love to join the Royal Navy, but I don't qualify

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    RULE BRITANNIA
    BRITANNIA RULE THE WAVES

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fricking bish.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >cope slope

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Now curious; how the frick *do* Wasps operate F-35s with no catapults AND no ramp?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The F-35B is VTOL isn't it?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, it's STOVL

          short take-off, vertical landing.

          It can only do vertical take-off for testing/demo purposes, it has no appreciable fuel or weapon loadout if it were to actually try to take off vertically in some sort of actual operational way.

          That being said, the Wasps are still long enough for the F-35B to get enough speed for takeoff with an okay fuel loadout and weapon loadout, and if needed they can arrange to ariel refuel shortly after take-off and prioritize weapon load, but I doubt they'd do this in normal operations outside of training.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            It can do VTOL, but the value of the extra fuel and ammo means it effectively wont unless its being launched from really small vessels.

            There is rarely a place where they can't just do a really short STOVL, so they only do that because they can.
            F35 has the power for VTOL, you can do he calculations yourself, it just doesn't use it because why would you.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              I though that with a basic weapon loadout attempting a purely vertical takeoff would result in something moronic like 120 miles of flight range or some shit. Might as well just not bother at that point.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think it was around 300km for pure VTOL from what I understand, but that's similar to the harrier in that respect that we all praise for being "true" VTOL.
                The point is more it can launch from virtually anywhere for interception or close air, or get refuelled by a stealth tanker and go further.
                Its use at the current time is in non total war scenarios, it is likely to only ever see STOVL use, purely because of the value of extra range from the fuel. But that doesn't mean it isn't VTOL by name.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But that doesn't mean it isn't VTOL by name
                it isn't

                Basically everything official calls it STOVL or at best, V/STOL. The only people who call it VTOL are boomers, normies, and the media that don't know any better.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      damn, I love Wasps.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    no she isnt

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Gee, Bill

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It does look like it would be fun to go off the ramp.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Funny that.

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Have you all forgotten the best part about this ship?

    It has super fun happy slides

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >one is being cannibalised to keep the other afloat
    It'd be funny if it weren't so tragically moronic

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Daily Mail article published on 23rd April claiming that PWLS has been “reduced to acting as a scrap yard to keep sister ship Queen Elizabeth afloat” is juvenile clickbait and a distortion of the facts. In an ideal world, the RN would have a complete inventory of spare parts for all of its vessels but budgetary constraints mean that spares are taken from non-active vessels to ensure vessels on the front line can go to sea. STOROB is a routine, if not ideal, practice in most navies and taking selected equipment from PWLS for use on HMS Queen Elizabeth is a sensible short-term solution. This is not an indication that the PWLS has been reduced to some kind of donor hulk and is being cannibalised before she is scrapped. Equipment is not “ripped out” in haste, rather it is very carefully removed and transported to the sister vessel.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Many of the parts manufactured for the aircraft carriers (and indeed most naval vessels) are bespoke designs produced in very small numbers and it can be very expensive or impossible to obtain replacements at short notice. It is a prudent use of limited funds to remove the part from a ship that does not immediately need it and move it onto a frontline platform. The replacements will then be cheaper as the supplier has more time to manufacture them. In the case of some particularly expensive items such as parts for the Type 45 destroyers, new spares will not be purchased at all and they are cycled between ships of the same class as they move between operations and upkeep. This kind of STOROB is not a permanent long-term solution for the two aircraft carriers when it is planned to have periods when both ships will be operational and new spares will have to be purchased.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          In the case of QNLZ, the two main items transferred from her sister ship were fuel coalescer filters and the chains used in the aircraft lifts. The filters are used to coalesce very fine water particles that may be present in the fuel into larger droplets than can then be removed more easily. The MT 30 Gas Turbines require fuel of extreme purity.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >she

            >her
            Oof.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >daily mail

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      1 has broken bit
      2 has different broken bit

      take working bit from 2 to put in 1 so 1 works

      fix both problems on 2 whilst maintaining the utility of 1

      what's so remarkable about that

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >one goes in for repairs
      >use functioning parts to keep the other one operational since you're procuring replacements anyway
      >moronic journos and thirdies can't into basic logistics and think this is somehow noteworthy
      A surprisingly good litmus test for outing morons

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        If they're cannibalising the other ship, that means there are no replacements.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          you are aware that things can be manufactured, right?

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            You got any spare carrier parts knocking around we could borrow?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              what the frick are you talking about

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thirdies can't into literacy either apparently

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Daily Mail comments don't disappoint as usual

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    That boat should host an X-Games with that fricking ramp. Pathetic.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    COPE
    SLOPE

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Went from the biggest empire in the world to completely irrelevant building cope slopes lol.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Chill out burger not everyone can have 13 carriers

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >R-r-rule da waves Britannia!
        What happened? Your shitty empire crumbled, your navy is a joke and your country which is the size of one state is ruled by a Paki

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          MORNING SIR 🙂

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The USA does the hard work for us.

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >cope slope

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *