Thread 64083563

Why is
>a fucking RAMP
bad?

>>64083563 (OP)
>lower payload
>higher static thrust required (bigger engines eating into space for fuel)
>can't launch slow aircraft like AWACS and transports

It isn't a deal breaker and can be worked around but loosing transport plane capability sucks.

>>64083576
No the real deal breaker is no AWACS or having to cope with helicopter AEW which is comprehensively worse

Payload weapons/fuel is limited by the ramp
You just have to increase torque with a catapult.

You also don't really need to rely on the pilot to be aware of what planes are about to take off or are near the ramp which reduces collisions and reduces launch time/how long it takes to get x number of planes airborne.

The ramp also gets worn down due to the downward thrust from the engines.

>>64083618
>You also don't really need to rely on the pilot to be aware of what planes are about to take off or are near the ramp which reduces collisions and reduces launch time
Is there really a faster sortie time with the CATOBAR? Seems like a lot more faffing around to get it hooked up compared to just holding the brakes and throttling up near the ski jump

The real fuckers are lower payload and slower launch cycles. The only benefit of ramps is being cheaper and simpler, at the cost of comprising on everything else

>>64083563 (OP)
it's not. everybody else is just jealous they can't do sick flips off their runways

>>64083582
you can have awacs with a ramp if you want. jato will get you there.

>>64083563 (OP)
Lower payloads and you can't really do fixed wing AWACS/AEW&C, which is massively superior to helicopter AEW&C. On the upside, they have a faster sortie rate due to not needing to wait for catapults, but catapults are generally better.

>>64083688
Makes me wonder why we don't do a hybrid cat/slope design. That way we can do heavier launches and have quick, temperature proof sorties

>>64083688

They absolutely do not have a faster sortie rate than catapults. 4 deck yeeters vs everyone having to line up for the same ramp and wait for each jet to roll down the deck.

>>64083705
QEs can do 72 jet sorties a day vs 120 for a Nimitz. That's comparable ton-ton and slightly better for the fighter compliment. QEs generally take no more than 36 F-35s outside of a war scenario, while a Nimitz or Ford will generally carry ~60 fighters and 8ish Growlers.

>>64083721
Should note this is sustained sortie rates, the Nimitz has a better surge rate for certain.

>>64083695
>ramp wide enough for 2 lanes
>single catapult down the middle to get 1 heavier aircraft a running start
might work

>>64083695
It'd be overengineering imo. No reason to not just choose one or the other and commit to it.

>>64083695
>catapult ramp for launching Navy B1s

>>64083563 (OP)
if it was "just as good" the countries that could afford CATOBAR wouldn't be using CATOBAR

basically, you're poor, and coping

>>64083748
>Navy B1Rs
This wasn't the Tomcat comeback I was expecting, but it's a welcome one all the same

>>64083641
>Is there really a faster sortie time with the CATOBAR?
No. Anons's talking out his ass. Faster sortie rates are one of the few advantages of STOVL carriers.

>>64083768
catapults and em are for rocketlets who are just coping

>>64083641
>Is there really a faster sortie time with the CATOBAR?
Sure is. The fact that you only need half the deck for catapult launches means you can use the rear of the deck for staging. Ramp carriers need their planes to use the whole deck.

>>64083748
>>64083845
>A scaled up supercarrier catapult-launching updated B-1s

real nations don't need a cope slope, simple as.

>>64083854
Would it be logistically viable to need JATO bottles for every MTOW takeoff?

>>64083648
You misunderstand the order of magnitude of cheapness. CATOBAR is not just a couple springs and a cable, the entire ship must be designed around it, how to power and accomodate it. Not to mention that the steam used to propel the sling comes from the nuclear reactor itself, which means that in order to have a CATOBAR with the specifics of a US supercarrier, you need also a robust nuclear sector behind, and many countries don't have that. We're talking about hundreds of billions of investments and decades of industrial and logistical renovation just to have your planes carry 100 kg worth of bombs more, than with a rebar ramp.

Elbonian naval engineer here. CATOBAR is better than ramps, but both pale in the face of Elbonian engineering. Space shuttle rocket boosters attached to each plane. Only 10 feet required for launch, we can launch 30 fighters at once from all sides of the deck at the same time. Each rocket booster launches the plane for five seconds, detaches, and then using GPS guidance with radar terminals, acts as an AShM. 30 Elbonian jets in the air AND a salvo of IRBM-sized vampires zipping towards enemy surface targets all in under a minute.

>>64083865
A steam catapult has supposedly 30s recharge time between launch.
How is that slower than the whole wind having to get in position and wait for each other to use the ramp???

Limits the type of aircraft that the carrier can launch. Not a good thing

What if you combined the catapult and the ramp?

>>64085714
It's a good thing the fords are using EMALS then isn't it?

>>64083576
>lower payload
Isn't the ramp there precisely to maintain the payload.

>>64085908
The alternative is not having any aircraft carriers at all though for places like Britain

>>64086132
I’m not sure the UK is the standard to compare against when it comes to naval tech. I believe their destroyers lack land attack capability

>>64086396
fitted for but not with

>>64086396
That's driven by doctrine. No UK DDG has had land attack with the exception of a main gun. It's been always been delivered by carrier strike or SSN.

>>64083582
>>64083679
>>64083688
Wasn't there a concept for a V-22 AWACS? What happened with that?

>>64086836
I don't recall anything about an AWACS/AEW&C version since the US already uses the E-2, but there was a proposed anti-submarine version.

>>64083768
US Marines can't afford CATOBAR either.
Why didn't they put a ramp on the America class?

>>64086875
because it's the short bus of the navy

>>64086670
It’s not doctrine related. It’s a cost issue. There is no sound doctrine on earth that says to purposely neuter your destroyers

>>64083563 (OP)
Dirty PALAstinian hands wrote this post

the AGM-99 is on the way

>>64087650
>the AGM-99 is on the w- ACK!!

>>64085605

Thanks for your very necessary contribution of a retarded economics flavoured strawman as if I hadn't already mentioned the economic benefit. Very cool!

>>64083868
>updated B-1s
They didn't name it the B-OneR for nothing

>>64085627
Ask me how I know that carrier is Iranian.

>>64083679
>There is no ramp, only ZELL

>>64086875It would only need a ramp if it was a carrier and it's much too small for that.

>>64088601
It carries up to 20 F-35.

>>64088962
Still not a carrier.

>>64088467
You seem mad for some reason

>>64085946
I wouldn't do that if I were you, that's how my cousin died.

>>64088573
>we will never have a VLS to launch planes
Reality can be a bit boring.