>>64463944
From a different thread but the same video
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64323098
#Anon that doesn't know what is he talking about:
>Reheat on a very likely unarmed plane vs dry thrust with a steam cat
Sure it is you disingenuous chinkshill
#Me
80-90% of acceleration is due to the catapult, it isn't a STO with a ramp retard-kun.
The extra acceleration due to AB is only 5%
#Ignorant post
Those are fully loaded transport numbers. The share for a fighter is 70%. 65% for an empty one.
#Me
A catapult adds 100 MJ in less than 100 m, that is 1000 kN of pulling force and it's completely unrelated to the TOW, retard.
edit: upto 100MJ*
#anon tripled down with the the dogmatism, he gives a shit about the video
Right, and they use exactly that same maxed out number every time. Would not be surprised if the chinks actually do that because they have no concept of reliability.
-------- different sub-thread
#Me
>Implying there's only one anon posting that video.
It's a good clip because makes comparisons easier, regardless your emotional reaction.
#another ignorant anon that can't use google to explain the video
It is not a good clip because it is not an honest comparison:
>F-35 clip is an older steam catapult and not EMALS
>Bow of the ship can be seen rising well above the horizon, making it appear as though the F-35 dips more than it does
This is obvious to most people who watch the clip, and is why there are not in fact many other anons spamming your implessive clip
#Me
1. That simply means Type 003 EM catapults have more pulling force than a steam catapult of an US carrier, If you wanna make comparisons with the Ford then post a clip. I'm not limiting your freedom to do it.
2. The bow only begins to move up after the F-35 is around 5 m below the deck level. You aren't making a point.
#anon deniying reality instead of using google
Holy fucking reach. This is the only clip you can come up with and you can't even definitively defend it.
