{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/3/2014 12:39:41 PM
17
That's so cute, it's like a baby Nimitz (or Ford) class carrier.
English
-
Look at dat girth on the Queen Elizabeth tho.
-
Bearbeitet von TheNobleWolf: 7/3/2014 1:33:10 PMThe pic is deceiving, it makes it look like the Queen Elizabeth is bigger then it is. The Queen Elizabeth is 54m tall, a Nimitz class is 74m tall. (As high as a 24 story building).
-
The US is obsessed with making everything huge and non-efficient.
-
non-efficient LOL that's why we have the strongest and most advanced military?
-
Bearbeitet von Nixeris: 7/3/2014 2:32:53 PMI never said you didn't I meant the size isn't necessary Edit: and I wouldn't say advanced
-
[quote]I'm not sure if more efficient is the right word... If you compare the size (length and displacement), amount of aircraft stored (both fixed wing and rotary), and the fact that it's basically small floating city. It's pretty amazing that they can do what they do with only 6,000 people on board. Not to mention that they are nuclear powered, so they only have to be refueled every 25+ Years.[/quote] [spoiler]I didn't hear anyone complaining about it when we where stoping the Soviet Union from rolling across Europe. [/spoiler]
-
slightly smaller sure, but far more efficient, needs a 1/5 of the crew to run.
-
If she relies on tankers, then that efficiency (when it comes to force projection and fast-steaming to a location 2 oceans away) is less effective. She will only be as fast (on long hauls) as the slowest ship in her task force. I'm impressed by the QE. She's a modern vessel made for a proud and well respected navy. The same can be said of the Gerald R. Ford (who is undergoing trials right now). For example, the electromagnetic catapults are likely to be a game changer for the USN. The older steam catapults were incredibly loud, and due to the pressures involved, sometimes failed. I couldn't find information as to the QE's launch system. Is she 100% dependent on the slope deck and V/STOL aircraft or can she launch fixed winged aircraft with a catapult? If she can't, then her aircraft (their loadouts and performance) are correspondingly limited (in number of options) as well. I recall that she's planned to operate F-35B's and without a catapult, their takeoff weight will be a factor. Or, the whole flight deck would need to be dedicated to launch or retrieval, not both at the same time.
-
Bearbeitet von lonepaul2441: 7/3/2014 3:38:33 PMShe doesn't use Tankers, she uses electricity also I think she uses the catapult so all NATO forces using the new jets can use her and for the planes to work on other NATO carriers. [quote]Although the size of the Queen Elizabeth class would enable it to accommodate most current and projected carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft it is only capable of operating STOVL aircraft. [/quote] Also [quote]he Ministry of Defence decided not to use nuclear propulsion due to its high cost,[39] so power is supplied by two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW (48,000 hp) gas turbine generator units and four Wärtsilä diesel generator sets (two 9 MW (12,000 hp) and two 11 MW (15,000 hp) sets). The Trents and diesels are the largest ever supplied to the Royal Navy, and together they feed the low-voltage electrical systems as well as four Converteam 20MW Advanced Induction Motor (arranged in tandem) electric propulsion motors that drive the twin fixed-pitch propellers.[40][/quote]
-
A Ford class Carrier uses the heat generated from its nuclear reactor to creat steam that is used to spin its stem turbines that in turn, turn the propeller. Because it uses nuclear power it only needs to be refueled every 25+ years. A Queen Elizabeth class on the other hand uses a diesel engine to create electricity that is in turn used to spin the propeller. The difference is, one is very efficient and only needs to be refueled every 25+ years, thus being able to travel freely and independently from the rest of the fleet and it's support group. And the other might be efficient but it still needs to be refueled frequently thus it is in need of its support group. Its kind of like fighting with one foot in a bucket, after all a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
-
Those electric motors drive the screws, but it's the gas turbine and diesels that are generating the electricity. So she needs fuel. So she needs tankers.
-
Fair enough, couldn't make sense of it myself lol. Still there is always support ships in close vicinity anyway, from shows I have watched there never seems to be a support ship around the fleet, its almost like they are stationed in set places so they can meet up along the way to do what they need to do.
-
I'm not sure if more efficient is the right word... If you compare the size (length and displacement), amount of aircraft stored (both fixed wing and rotary), and the fact that it's basically small floating city. It's pretty amazing that they can do what they do with only 6,000 people on board. Not to mention that they are nuclear powered, so they only have to be refueled every 25+ Years.
-
Look at the 2 carriers, yours is about 60m longer yet need 3500 more people to run it and can hold about double the UK carrier. The only major difference is the Nuclear power but that won't need 3500 extra people to make it work.
-
Bearbeitet von TheNobleWolf: 7/3/2014 1:26:10 PMThe average Nimitz class carrier displaces over 100,000 tuns (look it up if you don't believe me) and in the world of sea going vessels displacement > overall length, not to mention that they carry 90 aircraft and their air crew (to the Queen Elizabeth's 40)... The fact of the matter is, a Nimitz (or ford class) is almost twice the ship (in hight, length, and width combined. and in displacement).
-
-
Displacement > overall length (and the Nimitz is longer then the QE). 104,000 tuns > 65,000 tuns. Nimitz and Ford class > Queen Elizabeth class. [spoiler]If you combined the overall length, width, and hight on a U.S. Supercarrier it adds up to almost twice the ship. [/spoiler] -ShadowWolf
