Aircraft carrier catapult or ramp - which is better?

Aircraft carriers have relied on technological concepts that are decades old in order to get their aircraft into the air.
The two most common methods are catapults and ramps, which are also known as ski jumps, with some modern carriers using a mixture.
Currently, Royal Navy aircraft carriers such as the flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth employ the use of a ramp, whereas US aircraft carriers use the catapult.
But which, if any, is "better"?
More: www.forces.net/services/navy/...
#forcesnews #navy #aircraft #aircraftcarrier #warships #technology
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews

[@regarded9702]

A catapult is better, just not several billion pounds worth of better

[@soton5teve]

Not when the accidents resulting from catapults cost many billions

[@edwardfletcher7790]

A ramp NEVER FAILS !

[@gordonmac3616]

There are pros and cons to both systems. Ramps are less weather restricted which is an important factor in the Atlantic, are not suceptable to mechanical failure or battle damage and also have a high sortie rate.

[@jimfrazier8611]

Catapults are slow as hell, so if your carrier ever has to defend against a major air attack, there's no way to get a meaningful number of aircraft up in time to defend itself. It's up to the escort fleet to put up a missile shield, which is great until you fire all those missiles and realize it's a decoy feint to get the escorts to empty their unreloadable VLS cells.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

The fact that the Royal Navy has been unable to launch and operate fixed wing AWACs and EWACs even after it cost them dearly in the Falklands says all you need to know about the Royal Navy and British Military, they'd rather spend less and lose more than spend more and lose less!

[@billballbuster7186]

The Royal Navy took the Ski-Jump option because it was cheaper, but the F-35B is inferior to the CATOBAR operated F-35C built for the US Navy. A decision many in naval circles now regret as the F-35C offers greater range and payload options and being the major US Navy variant will have better future updates.

[@fToo]

Yes - rather misleading of Forces News in failing to mention the inferior performance of the F-35B

[@billballbuster7186]

@@fToo The F-35C is tougher and carried around 3,000lbs more ordnance

[@Gareth04100]

Forced news propaganda. It fails to mention that a catapult will launch non VSTOL aircraft and our carrier can only launch them. Der ...

[@danielhooke6115]

It would seem that the A and B variants should have been "built out" from the C variant, given that catapult launched/arrested recovery aircraft are the most rugged.

[@AJS86]

The A is still the best of the lot as it's the original & lightest design for traditional Air forces

[@Nauticus27]

There are pros and cons for both. The F35B has a performance penalty but still has the range of an F18 and manoeuvrability comparable to an F16, coupled with stealth and superlative sensors. It does not require the expense of catapults and carrier qualification for pilots is far easier to get and maintain. The B also offers commonality and cross-decking with the USMC. For the UK's requirements and finite budget, it's arguably the best package, having made the operation of two carriers affordable.

[@AJS86]

I would say it definitely requires carrier qualifications. Operations on the boat are a different world from the land bases

[@RaySqw785]

😂🤣

[@frank-ko6de]

The F35 does not have the fire power of the FA-18 or munitions capacity. Stop it.

[@adamcottrell6454]

Catapults give you more options of jets that can leave the deck with bigger payloads, but they are very expensive to install, maintain and are prone to breaking down. A ramp doesn’t breakdown so deck operations aren't affected. Pros and cons to both. The reality is, if the RN decided to go with the Catobar configuration they'd likely only have the budget for one carrier.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

The Catapult is half of the equation. You also need a long landing strip for arrester cables.

[@matthewmcgee]

True, but a ramp needs a long takeoff run. Both methods still need a long flight deck.

[@RJM1011]

@@matthewmcgee Not really if you look at what the UK used before and others are using now like Spain. Also the ship Thailand had with a ski jump/ramp was small.

[@incognitothing510]

Just so you know the original plan was to have HMS Prince of Wales a catapult but costs and the reliability of EMALS forced them to return to ski jumps.

[@RJM1011]

@incognitothing510 Yes I know. Thank you they also looked back at the Falklands islands war and what was done there.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@RJM1011 What was done there is that an Argentine military dictatorship decided they wanted to divert attention away from the University students that they were pushing off of airplane ramps into the sea so they invaded some islands that Argentina had occupied for two whole weeks back in their history. The Falklands have British architecture, land use patterns and culture because Argentinians have NEVER settled, or lived there, ever.

[@IMDunn-oy9cd]

The primary advantage to the catapult is the ability to launch heavier aircraft. That means your aircraft can carry more weapons and more fuel increasing their range. Not to mention, you can then also carry and launch tanker aircraft. That's very beneficial for strike missions as you can fully load up an aircraft to the top of its limits with munitions and then top it off with a full load of fuel once it is airborne.

[@1chish]

Well I get your point but in CSG21 the RAF F-35Bs were going off the ramp with 22,000 Ib of weapons. According to LM the F-35C can load 18,000 Ib of weapons because it is a heavier airframe although it has a longer range. That is a big deficit. As for refuelling remember the RN is only just getting into its stride with sufficient aircraft and aerial refuelling is on the agenda. Of course RAF Voyagers cover massive amounts of air space and actually spend a lot of time refuelling US F-18s flying off carriers.

[@austindavies6371]

@@1chish You mean relearning the skills lost in 1979 when the old Arc retired.

[@1chish]

@@austindavies6371 Well in some ways yes. But the deck handling and carrier operation skills were never lost.

[@thetruthhurts7675]

You do realise that the ALL up weight of the F35B and the other variants in what is called Beast mode from the Ford class, or the QE class is supposedly exactky the same? This is 22,000lb for all three variants, though as 1chish states for some reason the C variant can only take off from a catapult with 18,000lbs. Thus NONE CTOBAR is easily the way to go when this is required. The BIG extra on the QE class is that the deck can be used 24/7/365, unlike the larger US carriers which require time out of the day to inspect, and fix CATOBAR problems.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@thetruthhurts7675 That very true that CVN need extra time but the big extra for CVN is flexibility Due to constraints of the STOVL , the F-35 is limited on what it can use while on ship The F-35B can use weapons 1000lbs or less on ship with no issue Heavier weapons like 2000lbs GBU, JASSM and LRASM present problems for the F-35B but not for CVN aircraft as the CATOBAR but developing lighter weapons for F-35B is a simply investment The UK chose CATOBAR simply because its considerably cheaper on the ship and aircraft and future tech like EMALS wasnt ready for prime time Ironically the Russian put forth a concept of hybrid carrier with both STOVL and CATOBAR which many be something that UK many consider for their next carrier

[@matthewmcgee]

Always trade offs. Catapults are more complex for the ship, but the planes are less complex and can carry more. Ramps are simple for the ship, but the aircraft are more complex and weight limited because they need to hover.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

For americans its suits the huge variation of aircraft. For uk a ramp is better as we have an f35. Its about requirements.

[@Gottfried_Frickenberger]

Between the two carriers uk has right now vs one CATOBAR, I’d go with what we have right now. Maybe they can work in a catapult later, if defense priorities call for it

[@TheIceman567]

Are you British? Do you like the USA and Americans?

[@dnmurphy48]

@@TheIceman567 What are you?

[@TheIceman567]

@@dnmurphy48 what are you?

[@Oxley016]

@@TheIceman567 you are a bot

[@jpracing893]

CATOBAR by far, we should've had CATOBAR from the start

[@slavacernarus7083]

Definitely catapult.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Better. Catapults. Better choice. It varies. Budgets are limited, worse but more is often the best choice.

[@goelnuma6527]

Catapults give much much more flexibility, that is why rumps are being done away, China is stopping the use of ramps because of its limitations as is India. Only the UK continues to use ramps mainly because of costs and personnel

[@dannyblackwell2426]

I heard when our carriers were being built, the electronic Cat and trap. was not even in production. so we would have had to go with steam. which is old and more expensive

[@niallrussell7184]

ramp is cheaper for UK to maintain.

[@drbendover7467]

The US marines seem to lurch the and recover the F35 off a shorter deck then the queen Elizabeth carrier quite well:)

[@TheIceman567]

Are you British? Do you like the USA and Americans?

[@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM]

​@TheIceman567 : I've seen you ask this a number of times now. What's your point?

[@TheIceman567]

@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM asking a question

[@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM]

@@TheIceman567 : Why does it matter?

[@Steelninja77]

@@TheIceman567 it's a very strange question to be asking over and over. Unless you are a Chinese or Russian bot.

[@jayd8743]

Need planes to be on the carriers first... And we don't have many.

[@swampeh]

UK should have gone cats & traps and bought the superior F35C rather than entirely limiting us with the B variant with it's pretty pointless (and capability stunting STOVL), it's not like they're ever going to use the F35B from austere locations with no runway.

[@1chish]

God such ignorance. In 2010 EMALS didn't work (still doesn't) and had no price or delivery guarantees. So we would have paid billions for a dud and had no carriers at all. You forgot that part. The F-35C is superior in only one way and that is range. The 'B' variant can deliver the same if not more weapon payload - 22,000Ibs on a 'B' vs 18,000Ibs on a 'C' and has exactly the same 5th gen and sensor capability. There was no operational advantage to it. The F-35B absolutely has a point and that is operational flexibility and the fact that we delivered a supercarrier for $5 Bn vs a $18 Bn boondoggle Ford. The 'B' will also stop using vertical landing now SRVL has been tested and approved for deployment on both carriers. As for not being used from austere places? Can you guarantee what Russia or China or whoever will do? If so can I have next weeks lottery numbers?

[@gordonmac3616]

@@1chish spot on. There is also crewing considerations QE class are very automated and have a fifth of the crew requirements and therefore much lower running costs. I understood the QEs cost £6 Bn for two - not each.

[@1chish]

@@gordonmac3616 I was quoting in Dollars so forgive me. But (rate of exchange dependent) the two cost nearer £7 Bn or $10 Bn at the then RoE which converts now to about $9 Bn. Either way to deliver two operating carriers for about half the cost of the first Ford is pretty damn good. Even the second Ford (USS Kennedy) is costing over $13 Bn.

[@AJS86]

China are collapsing financially now though.

[@RaySqw785]

so Helo's "Carriers" are such marvel and efficient that the blue water USN didn't make this choice, great! 😆😆

[@stuartmiddleton1972]

I wonder if this becomes an academic argument? UAVs don't need cats and traps and can fulfil roles like COD, AWACS, refuelling, ASW and Recce using secure data links etc. For instance UAVs with radar on board can do the AWACS role without the need for a crew - essentially lifting radar up to a great height and loitering while downloading the info to the CIOC aboard the carrier for intercept control. Although I agree with the comments re the payload limitations for F-35B with loyal wingmen providing extended weapons and range the RN move may prove to be a good option in the long run.

[@cypeman8037]

Big rubber band.

[@edwincathey5260]

Cat all the way 👍

[@trs4u]

An aircraft ramp makes no sense to me, except in the narrow case of fast planes - it gives them 'rotation' before their wings have lift so thrust has a vertical component earlier? I had a quick search for online discussion which made me sorry I bothered. An awful lot of people seem to explain ramps work "because otherwise aircraft carriers wouldn't have them". "Which is better" must depend on what kind of plane you're in - some planes probably shouldn't be on a catapult, like towbars on Ferraris?

[@Statueshop297]

Which is better. Depends on the aircraft carrier, aircraft, budget and what you are trying to accomplish. The ramp suits the U.K. just now as the F35b can take off and land easily. Catapult navies require loads of training constantly as it’s difficult. For the U.K. using land based pilots also it better using the ramp.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

Very clearly Catapults.

[@mauricefearon861]

I agree to a point but what if the catapult system gets damage or the system goes down

[@derekgrieve188]

That is why our old carriers had more than one set.

[@BoostedMike2]

Back ups on back ups

[@MrSatyre1]

That's what spare parts are for.

[@sogerc1]

It's like Apple explaining why 8GB of RAM is just as good as 16GB.

[@TeaDrinkersRuledTheWorld]

No one here ever watched top gun? Ramps don’t break down

[@zozita.]

❤👍

[@bootlegpete7984]

Europe really needs to stop relying on the US for tech. We were miles ahead of them before war debt and reparations. Seem like these carriers flight decks have been developed around the F-35's which seems very restrictive. The UK needs its aviation industry back, these politicians have gutted our countries industry almost beyond repair.

[@jimfrazier8611]

You were ahead until Pearl Harbor happened, and the US had to pull its head out of the isolationist sand. We had relatively little involvement in WW1, while Britain, France, Germany, and Russia bled themselves white both militarily and economically. You always had somebody's empire to worry about, while we were fat, dumb, and happy with our cars and washing machines. Our defense priorities were always a back-burner issue compared to the European powers, to the point where the court-martialed Billy Mitchell for pointing out the truth. Once we chose to join the fight though, we built more carriers in the next 4 years than the world had ever seen, and we've never looked back. I'm not saying the US won the war single handed, but our production capacity definitely kept the allies from losing it, although the UK definitely made some game-changing technical contributions. We're all allies now, except for dictatorships like Russia and China, so take the best tech you can get regardless of the source. You'll still have to buy the gear, but at least you don't have to spend the money developing it.

[@bootlegpete7984]

@@jimfrazier8611 Well i cant deny anything you said tbh. That was pretty well put. Besides who am i kidding, just look at the UK's AJAX ifv development. Back handers, misplaced funds, and way over budget. We couldn't even organise a pi** up in a brewery in all honesty.

[@jimfrazier8611]

@@bootlegpete7984 like the F35 program came together on time and under budget? Some things are universal, and defense industry boondoggles are at the top of the list. Once somebody else pays for the R & D though, might as well buy what works.

[@bootlegpete7984]

@@jimfrazier8611 Yeah but at least America has a generational loop of skilled and talented engineers who are always required by their industry and government to keep pushing the boundaries of innovation and tech. Britain hasn't had that for almost 30 years or more now.

[@Rat-nl1xe]

just wish we could afford a 3rd.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

A ramp takes up precious deck space that would otherwise be used to park additional aircraft or equipment.

[@Dr.D00p]

Which is only relevant to the USN as neither of the other countries that operate carriers can afford the extra aircraft to fill those spaces...

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@@Dr.D00p They can certainly afford to put more helicopters on deck. And drones in the near future.

[@EnglishScripter]

HMS QE can already carry 72, dont need anymore space.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@@EnglishScripter Carriers never have enough space. Future requirements always demand more deck space.

[@1chish]

Errrr .... if it was CATOBAR and you parked aircraft there you can't use the Cats.... 🤦‍♂ The RN have already published a parking plan with 45 F-35s on deck and full flying operation in progress and more stored in the hanger deck.

[@andrewhayes7055]

Catapult obviously or you end up with a compromised carrier like the UK that has inferior aircraft with less range and payload, no proper early warning aircraft etc. No better off than the old through deck carriers and Sea Harriers.

[@Steelninja77]

Your very ignorant aren't you. Totally wrong this was the best carrier for the Brits. Unless we was gonna have steam catapult which was all there was when this was built. The f3b is only inferior in range and everything else is the same. Nothing wrong with our carriers. Least we have them. Unlike say Russia.

[@thenoobcannon9830]

In my view, we would benefit from a third carrier. Were this to be built, i think she would benefit from a proper CATOBAR system. We could then refit Liz with the same system and leave the prince of Wales with the ramp to use the existing stock of f35b's

[@davidrobertsemail]

Of course catapult is better for large carriers. For small aircraft carriers a ski ramp is appropriate. The range and ordinance needed to project power off large carriers is a necessity. The US six Gen. fighters are being designed with 50% more range because otherwise carriers will be destroyed by longer range anti ship missiles. Small carriers can’t go anywhere close to near pier adversaries. The fact that large British carriers have ski jumps is a testament to incompetent government.

[@AA-xo9uw]

"ordinance "(sic) ordnance

[@phucknuts.7065]

Ramp because its less to maintain and deck space does not matter because we will never buy the correct amount of F35’s to have a full capacity.

[@1chish]

We already have 31 (OK so the 3 in California will never go on Ops) so we have 2 x Squadrons and spares. The full first Tranche of 48 will be delivered by 2025. The RAF already have the funds for the second tranche order (30 aircraft).

[@phucknuts.7065]

@@1chish wont happen.

[@1chish]

@@phucknuts.7065 What won't happen? It already has. We paid for the 48 some years ago and the RAF confirmed to the Defence committee and a defence Minister confirmed to Parliament that the RAF had funds to negotiate the next tranche of aircraft. Why argue?

[@carlbowers8159]

There is no question, it has to be catapult. Huge mistake not designing these ships with one!

[@RJM1011]

Ramp is BETTER THANKS to the ski jump the UK was able to win the Falklands war in 1982 with an aircraft that most were saying was no good. Ramp is cheaper to run not much to go wrong and you are able to launch aircraft a lot quicker and safer. You also need to produce a lot of energy to run a catapult system and if it goes wrong can do a lot of damage to the ship, aircraft and people on the ship. You also need to ask about landing aircraft at speed it's NOT just about having a catapult and everything is better for the aircraft and ship.

[@Gareth04100]

Funny view... I am pretty sure there were more reasons for the hard won victory in 1982. Ie. Superior Submarine tactics for one.

[@RJM1011]

@@Gareth04100 I am talking of the aircraft side of it that made a difference. NOTHING funny about it at all !

[@Axispaw1]

Am I not right in thinking that the benefits of the ramp are carriers can launch jets in worse weather conditions and launch jets faster than CATOBAR? Of course I'd have still rather we went CATOBAR with our carriers but just saying it's not all bad with the ski jump. Plus with the latest announcement of project Ark Royal we'll have the best of both.

[@normanboyes4983]

No, you are not right.

[@TheIceman567]

Are you British? Do you like the USA and Americans?

[@TommyBahama84]

Catapult = more range. But the politicians didn't want to pay for it

[@1chish]

Would you buy a system that (in 2010) had no price, performance or delivery guarantees on a project that was time and cost critical?

[@TommyBahama84]

@@1chish to ensure we could have the same reach as a Ford class carrier operating F35C, then yes

[@1chish]

@@TommyBahama84 Well I am glad you aren't spending my taxpayer pounds then .... As for the Ford that would be no reach at all reliably because EMALS on the Ford still doesn't work. Apart from which the QEs have exactly the same reach and performance as a Nimitz provided the US delivers the aircraft.

[@TommyBahama84]

@1chish The RN QE class operates the F35B, which has a shorter range than the F35C operated, using cats and traps, by the USN carriers.

[@1chish]

@@TommyBahama84 So there is a shorter range. Never heard of aerial refuelling? Buddy Up Tanking? You forgot to mention that the 'B' variant was lifting off with 22,000 Ib of weapons in CSG21 while the 'C' variant can only lift 18,000 Ib (LM website). The 'C' also costs $10 Mn more than a 'B' variant. Again LM figures for LRIP 15 - 17. Add in the huge costs and risks of EMALS, the extra cost per unit and the lower payload we made the right choice with the 'B' and STOVL / SRVL

[@MrSatyre1]

Is this seriously being posed as a serious question? Or has this channel stooped to clickbait now?

[@davidhouseman4328]

Because you know doesn't mean others do too. But it its also i good intro to the pros and cons of each

[@joyousland]

As long as F35C is a good plane, it gives the Navy more option to a flexible platform in the war time eg, modified oil tanker or small carrier. The minor sacrifice in loading and mileage has gives the future war on the sea much more landing, maintaining and storage option to the NAVY.

[@AA-xo9uw]

"As long as F35C is a good plane, it gives the Navy more option to a flexible platform in the war time eg, modified oil tanker or small carrier."(sic) You've confused the B and the C.

[@captain-Dan]

Less to go wrong but the F35 is a tiny aircraft anyway. Reliable CATOBAR aircraft with a larger multirole such as Rafael, F18, Su33 does make sense. Seeing as the RN is only operating lighter multiroles I think the ramp is acceptable

[@steveh5005]

This guy didnt come across very confident on his subject matter. He should have mentioned that POW and QE have a redundant ( not fitted) electronic catapult built into the structure of both ships. Originally they were meant to be catapult. As usual changes were made. But talks are still on going to buy the remaining UK F35C as catapult launch versions. As opposed to more expensive, slower and less payload F35B. Think of it as another Ajax armoured vehicle, Wegdetail AEW Mk1 ect MOD procurement bodge job..

[@1chish]

Not quite right at all Steve. 1. The QEs were passively engineered for later fitment of CATOBAR if proven necessary. They have machinery spaces and extra cabling but thats it. Certainly no catapults as the two options (EMALS and EMCATS) are quite different. 2. The carriers were never designed as CATOBAR but always designed as STOVL carriers right from the first iterations because the F-35B was the chosen aircraft for both RAF and FAA use and we had huge experience of ramp carriers. 3. The only decision on CATOBAR made was in 2010 when they looked at electric cats but decided (rightly) they were far too risky and the savings buying fewer 'C' variants were just not there. 4. No changes were actually made in 2010 or even earlier. 5. Talks are not 'going on' to buy the 'C' variant at all and never were. In fact the RAF have recently been funded for the second tranche order for the 'B' variant. 6. What is being planned is a catapult system for larger UAVs. 7. The 'B' variant is not slower and has an equivalent payload. LMs own website says: "The F-35C can carry more than 5,000 lbs of internal weapons, or more than 18,000 lbs of combined internal and external weapons." On CSG21 and before RAF F-35Bs were going off with 22,000Ibs of weapons, internal and external, in what is called 'Beast Mode'. 8. Neither is it not more expensive. Again from an LM spokesman: "For the airframe and mission equipment only, the Lot 15-17 cost of F-35s ranges “from $70.2 million to $69.9 million for the F-35A, $80.9 million to $78.3 million for the F-35B, and $90 to $89.3 million for the F-35C" So the F-35B is some $10 Mn cheaper. 9. No Steve think of it as a very long term plan that has delivered everything it was designed to do with the only failure a lamentable supply rate from the USA.

[@Statueshop297]

Well that was a lovely story. Not much truth in it but still why let that get in the way 😂😂😂😂

[@Steelninja77]

@@Statueshop297 your just a troll.obviously. Those were facts 😁

[@phooogle]

Trampoline.

[@noisyboy87]

You need a nuclear reactor to be efficient with a CATOBAR system. Unfortunately, we don’t have the funds like our American cousins 🇺🇸

[@dan79600]

US national debt is something like $33 trillion. That’s 11 times the size of the entire UK economy and the largest debt of all time. Don’t have the funds either.

[@derekgrieve188]

Catapult is the best option. Carriers are a power projection asset. If their teeth are restricted by the restrictions placed on their aircraft because of the ramp system. What’s the point of having them at all?

[@Dr.D00p]

Gee, it's as if the RN didn't win a war with VSTOL aircraft & carriers, 9000 miles from home in 1982.

[@davidhouseman4328]

A shark with half it's teeth is still scary. What less scary is not having one part of the time. The extra cost would have driven us to only 1 carrier like France.

[@1chish]

Cats are not always the best option by any means. the QEs can project 5th Gen power like no other Navy right now. So what restrictions do the F-35Bs have? They can launch initial strike sorties far faster than a Nimitz / Ford class carrier for example and they can deliver the same if not more weapon loads than a 'C' variant.

[@nigelmacbug6678]

ramp and the less personnel required for the upkeep is better for a country with a manning shortage and shrinking military budget. on AWACS , l'm surprised a redesigned Vought XF5U "Flying Flapjack" with AESA panel for STOVL carriers hasn't been suggested

[@MsIceBreaker]

Bungee

[@johnlustig4322]

I am a cat person🤔

[@Dr.D00p]

Lol...this will trigger loads of Yanks & Frenchies to stick their noses in and tell us all how CATOBAR is infinitely superior.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

Yanks have far greater global commitments to deal with. Yanks have to plan to deal with simultaneous attacks from China, Russia, Iran.

[@MrSatyre1]

If you had the slightest idea what you're talking about, you'd know that it is. The Royal Navy knows it is, or they wouldn't have designed the new carriers to be able to be easily retrofitted for it or EMALS.

[@Dr.D00p]

EMALS was a tech disaster at the time the decision had to be made about what launch system to hold for. The RN was right not to go with it. It would have delayed the carriers by years and added billions to the cost.

[@1chish]

@@MrSatyre1 Oh he has more than the slightest idea because he is right. The Ford has cost $18 Bn to deliver and it STILL isn't right. It was only allowed out of US waters in late 2022 some 4 years after the QE first sailed the Atlantic, had done so 4 times and gone round the world in full CSG mode. The Ford is so unreliable the US Navy had to send a second carrier group to the Med. as part of its support for Israel. To passively engineer a ship for later fitment admits nothing. Its called clever engineering without the risks.

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@MrSatyre1 "easily retrofitted"(sic) Only in the mind of a neophyte. Adding cats and traps to the UK boats would be extremely expensive and take both boats out of service for well over a year at minimum.

[@soton5teve]

Catapults cause a lot more accidents and therefore cost way more in lost planes

[@matthewmcgee]

I'm curious what the current accident rates are. But don't forget to factor in the overall accident rates for conventional vs STOVL aircraft. The Harrier accident rate was much worse than the Hornet. I'm interested to see how the F-35B & C accident rates differ over time.

[@simonbird1973]

The QE class aircraft carrier can launch jets faster than a catapult. That said the US carriers need cats to launch its array of different aircraft.

[@AA-xo9uw]

"The QE class aircraft carrier can launch jets faster than a catapult."(sic) Incorrect.

[@BazingaTing]

Catapult. If youre doing it,do it right. Unlike our tight polititions who gave us ramps to save money ond ony F35b can use... stupid 😂😂

[@1chish]

Always good to see an armchair Admiral pontificating and calling things 'stupid'. The QEs were always designed to be STOVL because a) we had massive experience and b) the F-35B was the preferred variant for both RAF and FAA to replace the Harrier. Even by 2010 EMALS was an unproven design with no guarantees. Far too risky and why should British taxpayers develop a Yank system for them? And whats wrong with the F-35B?

[@BazingaTing]

@@1chishyou best salute me then 😁 and because we're military partners ..... we dont own enough F35bs to even fill our ships ..theyre basically built for the USMC to fly theres from.... with a cat atleast we couldve had the cheaper , better less complicated F35c and host all of NATOS Navy aircraft 😁

[@1chish]

@@BazingaTing As an ex Flight Sergeant I will always salute anyone on the Dark Side. But why are we 'military partners' 🙄 As to the rest of your comment: The issue with numbers of aircraft is because the Yanks are simply not delivering as contracted. Because 'Biden politics'. We paid for 48 years ago and we have had 32 delivered. Having said that its enough for 2 x Squadrons, spares and keeping the 3 in California testing F-35 weapon systems. We aren't at war so we don't need to 'fill' them but the 48 will be here by 2025 and the next 30 will have been ordered (already funded). To suggest the QEs were built for the USMC is just not worth a response. Plain stupidity. You then descend further into stupidity when you suggest: a) The Cats & Traps were risk and cost free in 2010 (they weren't) b) the F-35C costs less when according to LM they cost $10 Mn more than an F-35B in LRIP 15 - 17 c) it is better when its payload is 18,000 Ib compared to the B off a ramp already doing 22,000 Ib d) The only fighter aircraft operated off CATOBAR in NATO are the Rafale (there are only 38 of them), the F-18 and a few F-35Cs. We already have 5th gen F-35s so whats to gain?

[@Naval-Gazing]

Ramps don't break down.

[@michelmichel6292]

This is not a serious video- you are saying that the us navy doesn't know what they are doing

[@1chish]

Errrr ... no its not. Next daft question?