What wrong with ramps on aircraft carriers?

What wrong with ramps on aircraft carriers?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can't launch aircraft over a certain weight threshold, i.e you're limited in type you can launch, and how much fuel and armaments you can load onto the aircraft

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Can't launch aircraft over a certain weight threshold

      This is true of every launch method

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >NTA
        Yes that's true, however you're missing the critical part.
        If a bird needs to use a ramp to get off, this compounds the load issue and ultimately has a easier time stalling due to AOA on heavier loads/less twr. Have you ever seen the chinks/vatnigs with almost slick planes after their launches off the ramps? that's why.

        Significantly worse max take off loads and cadence then catapults in the big two. They're simpler if your ship is too small and tech to primitive to use catapults and any carrier is a significantly better asset for naval power projection then nothing, but catapults are absolutely superior in performance.

        this

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Except AoA isn't a problem at lower speeds as long as its in the envelope. What you're looking for is vertical momentum. Any issues with ramps dissappear when you have a STOVL aircaft to pair them with. The common comparison is F-35B vs C, but people forget that C has a much larger wing primarily to get low speed lift and secondly to boost range. If you were to send F-35A off a ramp or a hybrid F35 with reinforced gear but the A/B wing off a catapult, A B from a ramp would be the best performer.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But only one of them can launch fixed-wing AWACS and tankers

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          my homie, there were no dedicated carrier borne tankers and slapping K to fighter-bomber's name doesn't change that fact, it always has been the buddy refueling.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This is true of every launch method
        F1 = F(engine) + F (catapult)
        F2 = F ( engine)
        F1 > F2 for the same engine and F ( catapult) > 0
        F = m a -> a = F / m so since F1 > F2 then a1 > a2
        if the acceleration is greater you will get a faster speed for the same runway
        F(lift) = c1 * v^2
        if we want to fly we need lift to oppose gravity (F(gravity) = m*g) so
        F ( lift) = m(plane) * g
        m(plane) = (c2) * v^2
        v1 > v2 since for the same runway we get a faster speed. this means that m1 > m2.

        we can conclude that catapults give a greater RTOW for the same runway lenght

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Significantly worse max take off loads and cadence then catapults in the big two. They're simpler if your ship is too small and tech to primitive to use catapults and any carrier is a significantly better asset for naval power projection then nothing, but catapults are absolutely superior in performance.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How does the cadence compare to using bow cats only?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    memes will be made about you

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they look gay
    they are gay
    people are having gay sex on them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >people are having gay sex on them
      yes, we already know ships are used by the navy

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nothing, it's just a cheap and limiting solution.

    since the aircraft must take off under their own power wave goodbye to anything that's not a high thrust figher and fighter-bomber with suboptimal fuel and armament load.

    aditionally you are cucking all of your support elements because they need to be helicopter based, which will always be subpar to fixed wing contemporaries.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Will QE be getting catapult in future refits?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      For but not with.
      Current plans involve using emals on the non-ramp launch "slot" to put up UAV's for awacs/tanking/loyal wingman.

      genuinely 8/10 bait nicely done

      He's right though. F-35B's launched from ramps are better than Rafale's and Hornets in certain metrics whilst being significantly cheaper.
      Obviously they have their drawbacks but when you look at adversaries like China and Russia they're perfectly fine if not good.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >He's right though
        No, he's not. What the frick?
        >F-35B's launched from ramps are better than Rafale's and Hornets in certain metrics
        I wasn't aware of the US supercarriers equipped with Rafale's and Hornets, care to point at them? Because since the US is the ONLY nation with "large supercarriers" in operational existence that's the only one he could be referring to in "sent to the scrapheap". Holy shit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >only nation
          shiggy diggy doo

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >operational existence
            Harbor queens with cracking decks that have never so much as sailed around the cape are not operational ships. Will China eventually do so, probably in the next few years? Sure, seems likely at this point. Have they yet? lol no. Wake us up when they're doing operations in the Atlantic.

            Who's talking about America? America doesn't have ramped carriers, but USMC who have worked from/operated on the QE class have stated on record that the ramps significantly improve F-35B operations with increased MTOW and longer range. Marines are already using a rolling take-off so the ramp is a no-brainer.

            >only nation with large supercarriers
            Aside from China and Britain, although that depends on whether you've changed the definition again.

            Obviously America will not forfeit catapults, ever. But countries who've previously used them and now have lower budgets/responsibilities/lack of knowledge may consider ramps. Unless there's a breakthrough in emals tech.

            >Who's talking about America?
            He (you) was.
            >Aside from China and Britain
            lmao at the suggestion either of them have deployed supercarriers. Non-nuclear short carriers with ramps are in a completely different league of performance then what America has.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The definition of a super carrier varies depending on who you ask.
              For example, the Forrestal class were deemed super carriers and could carry ~70 aircraft with a max weight of 60,000 tons.
              The QE class are generally around 65,000 tons and can carry ~72 aircraft.
              Shandong is between 60-70,000 tons and can carry roughly ~40 aircraft.

              Make your mind up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                100k+ tons and nuclear with catapults is a supercarrier. There you go. I never said there was anything wrong with regular compromise carriers, on the contrary. You're the one though who asserted they're actually superior to supercarriers and that supercarriers will all be scrapped. Don't try shift the goalposts. You can define supercarriers as what you just said there if you want, ramp using 60k ton ones, and you're still left to argue that those (and Ford class) are all to be scrapped due to even smaller ramp ones and F-35Bs. Good luck.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, so the Kitty Hawk wasn't a supercarrier?
                It's full load was 81,000 tons and it was non-nuclear.

                I never said the QE class was superior to super carriers, infact I literally said the QE class are less capable than the Nimitz/GRF (

                The QE class are less capable than Nimitz/GRF BUT that doesn't make them bad carriers.
                They're big and have lots of room to grow, they can generate comparable sortie rates and field the F-35B which is more than capable enough.

                They are compromise carriers, but making them non-nuclear and ramp and therefore being able to have two of them is a good thing. You should be happy that another Nato country is pulling their weight.

                ).

                You're replying to the wrong guy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, you're replying to the wrong guy in that case. Now stop it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I wouldn’t call the Kitty Hawk “super” anything.
                Well, “super shitty” maybe

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                (I'm not that dude from before)
                I believe that due to size and amount of modern aircraft they can carry they are supercarriers and they are absolutely a class above some of the smaller ones. However I believe that the Ford class is superior and catapult + nuclear has clear and obvious advantages, but I think nuclear is a little overstated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                QE is 65k design weight. It's actully 70.5k empty at her first survey. Once loaded that will rise further.

                Comparison of deck and hanger space tends to be a better comparison between nuclear and non nuclear because reactors and their shielding are incredibly heavy. Pretty sure lead is like 15x heavier than fuel per metre squared.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The thought of sailing around the cape or through the straits must make chink captains sweat harder than it makes my dick to picture one of their prestige projects foundered due to a laughable multitude of errors. They sure as shit aren't transiting Panama.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >operational existence
            Go home XI

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Who's talking about America? America doesn't have ramped carriers, but USMC who have worked from/operated on the QE class have stated on record that the ramps significantly improve F-35B operations with increased MTOW and longer range. Marines are already using a rolling take-off so the ramp is a no-brainer.

          >only nation with large supercarriers
          Aside from China and Britain, although that depends on whether you've changed the definition again.

          Obviously America will not forfeit catapults, ever. But countries who've previously used them and now have lower budgets/responsibilities/lack of knowledge may consider ramps. Unless there's a breakthrough in emals tech.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >operational existence
          Harbor queens with cracking decks that have never so much as sailed around the cape are not operational ships. Will China eventually do so, probably in the next few years? Sure, seems likely at this point. Have they yet? lol no. Wake us up when they're doing operations in the Atlantic.
          [...]
          >Who's talking about America?
          He (you) was.
          >Aside from China and Britain
          lmao at the suggestion either of them have deployed supercarriers. Non-nuclear short carriers with ramps are in a completely different league of performance then what America has.

          >operational existence
          Go home XI

          https://i.imgur.com/PFPifu1.jpeg

          What wrong with ramps on aircraft carriers?

          Yeah: https://youtu.be/soEpAprko7w

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is that the coast of France I see in the distance? No? Nice PR vid though about something you may someday have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            implessive

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it actually floats
            implessive.

            No aircraft have ever been launched off of the thing. Also,
            >Builds modern aircraft carrier
            >magnetic rail launcher
            >not nuclear powered

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >not nuclear powered
              I thought that was part of being a modern navy was having nuclear boats.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My name is Steve Lincoln from the province of California, and I have to say very impressed with the advances of Chinese military and technology over these last decades. I am deeply fearful of the enviable day that China closes the gap between USA. This is why I am contacting my regional committee leader right now, to tell him to stop these senseless trade wars which nothing more than an attack on innocent and peaceful country by the cowardly USA because they want to stop our rise, but they can not do such things only slow the enviable.
            And I can't wait to go fishing with my American son this weekend.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing. In fact with the advent ot true supersonic SOTVL planes loek F-35B it won't be long before we're seeing large supercarrier being sent to the scrapheap in favor of smaller, sleeker A/C with ramps

    A brand new class of A/C between the size of Izumo and QE would be an ideal next gen aircraft carrier

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. no water opinion

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      genuinely 8/10 bait nicely done

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Should have been half pipe

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this
      everyone knows its about looking cool af anyway
      show me one thing that is cooler than an harrier doing 720 corks

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s just a really easy way to tell if a country sucks at building aircraft carriers

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The contents of the OP lets me know that there will be multiple upset British posters in this thread. They don’t like that ramped carriers are less capable than flattops

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The QE class are less capable than Nimitz/GRF BUT that doesn't make them bad carriers.
      They're big and have lots of room to grow, they can generate comparable sortie rates and field the F-35B which is more than capable enough.

      They are compromise carriers, but making them non-nuclear and ramp and therefore being able to have two of them is a good thing. You should be happy that another Nato country is pulling their weight.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    cope ramps

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      cope slopes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The only cope is you living vicariously on PrepHole.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >everyone is one guy

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I understand the ramps are inferior to CATOBAR for large aircraft carriers, but why doesn't the US Navy use ramps to launch from on their smaller assault ships with just has an ordinary straight deck for STOVL aircraft like the F-35B?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      MICs feared the navy will smarten up and decides to pursue smaller vessels instead of the 100,000 ton white elephant that is nimitz/gerald ford class

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ramps take up deck space, and the amphib assault carriers are carrying more than just F-35Bs. They have various helicopters and V-22s that need to operate on the deck as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This. Amphibious assault ships are much more valuable for supporting ship to shore movements of troops and equipment in a short period of time. Cucking them to have a mini carrier isn’t worth it when you have multiple super carriers already

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The primary "weapon" of a phib flattop is transport helos. A ramp takes up space that could be used to carry/launch/land helos.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      retrofitting them with hardened decks and ramp is prolly more effort than its worth

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    seems like a good idea to me, lets you take off with less run-up to gain speed

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have no problem with ramps, except for the morons coping and desperately trying to rationalize they're somehow superior to catapults.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pros: doubles as a skateboard ramp when not launching
    Cons: probably insignificant in the face of a free skateboard ramp

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What wrong with ramps on aircraft carriers?
    Nothing. Its a trade-off like everything.

    Pros are that they are cheaper while not really affecting the F35 - I think the stats are that it can takeoff with 80% or more of its combat load. So, if you're poor and you want to into carriers and you have F35's you can save a lot of money by not buying cats and you can save a lot of money in not having to maintain cats. And because you have less maintenance to do you get more availability.

    Cons are that you cant launch large fixed-wing aircraft so you will suffer big time in terms of AWAC's and logistical support (C-2 Greyhound is the backbone of the USN CSG's). But there are work-arounds. Pic related is the bong AWACS solution and they have been using this type of AWACs since the 1980's so clearly they think its sufficient for their needs. Also, with the F35 you can fly it naked (max fuel) and set up a picket line with it because its sensors are so fricking good.

    Tl;dr: Its a shortcut for smaller nations to get carriers and with the F35 you can kind of pull it off. If you dont have access to the F35 having carriers without cats, ramp or not, does not make any fricking sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tiltrotor tech is coming and would replace both greyhound and E-2 after the navy offer enough sacrifice offerings to appease the tiltrotor spirit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        5 years ago I would have thought the same, but after recent high-profile events I FRICKING DOUBT IT. Yes, I am aware that orders have been signed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        clang hungers for marines

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what’s wrong with ramps
      >nothing
      bongoloid detected

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >C-2 Greyhound

      Replaced by a tiltroter

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thing is its kind of moot because I dont think the Bongs could afford the V-22 and I think that they would be equally dubious of its effectiveness.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bongs are skipping manned AEW and going right for AEW UAV's

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They most likely won’t implement them correctly. The British are pretty bad at modern military engineering

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              [...]

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              [...]

              Thing is, yet again, you've embarrassed yourself but announcing to the entire thread your complete and utter subject-matter ignorance.

              MQ-9B STOL is made by General Atomics.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they work in only one direction. that severely limits your deck space

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I understand that you are upset because you have, yet again, embarrassed yourself

    >you
    Burger who loves our bong allies. Deal with it.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >How do you explain my 4 current threads
    Mental illness.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but my reporting skills
      LMAO

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nta loser.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hello NTA anon, I was wondering when you would show up

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We wouldn't need ramps if we just put carriers in the sky.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    F-35B operators can get away with not running catapults — but that’s only “getting away with it”. If you want to see what happens with a non-catapult design for everyone else look no further than China being unable to launch all but the lightest combat loads; to launch something even remotely combat-useful I bet they have to run full speed into a stiff wind. That’s WHY they ended up spending a fortune (probably) building the 003s. The UK doesn’t spend money on the military anymore do they were FORCED to gimp themselves on the QE. Anyone serious about carrier ops has to run catapults, end of story.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What an insanely ignorant post.

      >Aviators with the US Marine Corps (USMC) flew the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the fifth-generation fighter from HMS Prince of Wales, completing a rolling vertical landing – a first aboard the ship – and ski-jump-assisted launch of an F-35B carrying an ultra-heavy payload.
      >The F-35’s standard weapons load is 6,800kg (15,000lb), according to Lockheed’s website. However, under a configuration the RN colloquially calls “beast mode”, maxed-out F-35Bs can carry 9,980kg of payload – roughly three times more than the UK’s final Harrier GR9 variant, the service says.
      >To accomplish the heavy take-off, test pilots executed a so-called “run-up” launch, starting from the aft end of the flight deck and rocketing toward the ship’s ski jump ramp. It was the first run-up launch conducted from either Prince of Wales or its sister ship Queen Elizabeth.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    bad angle if a jet slows down too much on a botched landing and cant take off again... slower you are, the less nose pitch you want to try landing again

    also if a mishap breaks the deck, you can fix it easier if it's flat

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its like manual action on a car, inferior to modern automatic technology but some fuddy duddy's who don't even drive professionally think they know better.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It limits the types of aircraft you can fly but other than that there's nothing particularly wrong.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao I thought the jannies were on your side warriortard?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Please stay on topic. If you want to talk about your tulpa go to /x/.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing really if it's all you can afford, problem with the RN is that the British government could afford but refused to pay out. That's what makes it so pathetic for the RN, the carriers should have had EMALS but instead got given the less capable ramp.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're the
    >rivets
    meme just for the navy, if you're not a completely clueless shill like the people parroting these memes it's best to ignore those who obsess over the features any time a non-american aircraft/ship is posted.
    It's also a Reddit meme that has been spammed to Hell and back on r/noncredibledefense, r/combatfootage and some other airforce and navy enthusiast subs so that tells you all you need to know about the newbies who are keep repeating these lines they were fed.

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