user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The 100,000 tonnes is fully loaded so the ship is actually 90,000 tonnes as to the proposed 65,000 tonnes of the new British carriers, deck wise not alot of difference in size to brag about.
by isay on Tue Aug 08, 06 6:07pm
[+]
well the carrier definition is classed by its unloaded weight..
You have got to be kidding me.
The key word here is "claim." We all claim a lot of stuff and we're all armchair economists, tacticians, athletes, politicians, diplomats and military experts on this site.
So our closest and most trusted ally is building 2 super carriers. Awesome! If it makes you feel better, we have 12 with I think 3 more being built. :) They're an ally, remember? What is the one nation and the one people the United States can trust always? The British. Applaud their might and success!
Ya all i know is the U.S is nuclear powered but both China and the U.S have huge carriers and from what i seen are way bigger than that. Chinas aircraft carriers arent as new and up to date but are a little bigger in size and i dont know if there nuclear powered.
The U.S should give Britain one of our nuclear powered carriers. That would help a lot for them traveling at sea.
Why the fuck didnt WE build nuclear powered carriers is the question!? Why pick diesel?
These new carriers will increase Britain's budget deficit and defend them against nothing. Meanwhile, Muslim terrorists will bring nuclear dirty bombs into London in the trunk of a BMW.
The picture is an artist impression for fucks sake.
We don't need help travelling at sea, the UK doesnt require Nuclear carriers just for the sake of it.
by isay on Wed Aug 09, 06 7:58am
[+]
Usmarinecorps where are you getting your info? China has no carriers and they are definately not larger than American carriers. US carriers are the largest warships to ever set sail in the history of man.
And isay i didnt get my info from staring at the picture...I got it from the royal navy website.
It's more than likely that they will have more than 40 aircraft on them USRocks.
I think it's great that we are getting these new multi-purpose carriers but it also means losing the Invincible class carriers.
There are claims that they will hold 60, 50, 45, 40 and 30 aircraft, all from different sources so it could be anything. I think they would hold 60 F-35s at the most.
spartan I got 40 from your actual navies website. i have only ever seen 40 so I dont know where are getting your info.
to small to hold 60
quotes from various nobs in the Navy. They will only be a little smaller than your Nimitz carriers so they cant be too small.
they are only smaller by about 50 meters.
your nimitz can hold about 90, yes? Well a ship that rivals the size of a nimitz must be able to hold 60 fighters with ease.
no not really spartan it will be diesel powered major disadvantage. Takes up much more room those large engines. Also needs to store huge amounts of fuel as uranium is in small doses with large amounts of power. They will in fact be a lot smaller.
hmmm, my question would be that if these are meant to be advanced carriers, why dont they have engines like the Nimitz.
They are gonna hold the same amount of aircraft as the Charles de Gaulle and yet it is smaller and has less desplacement, that doesn't make sense to me. anyway there is another 6-8 years to go so we'll see, to me, it sounds like we have these huge ships on the way but we cant be arsed to equip them properly.
It also says that the placement of the rolls royce engines is being examined and will most likely be placed under the two towers, making room for extra aircraft. The shape of the aircraft carrier hasn't been decided yet nor how many aircraft it will carry, there all estimates at the moment.
I have noticed that the US military love to use Roll Royce engines alot.
Well to answer your question the nimitz doesn't really have engines it has 2 nuclear reactors. The carrier the Brits are making is diesel. I don't know how they could possibly manage to put massive engines under the towers by the way. An impressive challenge. Ususally engines must be centered for propeller shaft efficiency and a good center of gravity for the ship. Even if they managed to put the engines under the towers it solves nothing. The problem is the massive feul tanks for the diesel engines. Nuclear reactors don't need this. Plus this ships range would be limited.
I seriously can't believe that we are gonna build these new advanced carriers and not install reacters. It just doesn't make sense.
yeah well spartan your biggest worries should be that currently Britain does not have a shipyard that can build a ship that large.
They are building a shipyard for it at the moment.
USRocks....yeah the biggest of the two is 75,000 mate not 65,000...check the royal navy site yeah.
|
|
