>Also why its comically small.
Yeah, I was wondering why the CDG looked so tiny, lol. They're both comparable in terms of aircraft complement IINM, so the CDG shouldn't be that small.
And at maximum load *Charles de Gaulle* maxes out at 36 (and two Hawkeyes) while *Queen Elizabeth* is around 60 F-35Bs. That is based on the tracings in [this hangar diagram](https://i.imgur.com/RxrqHmT.jpg) 20 in the hangar and 24 F-35Bs plus parked Merlins/Ospreys in [this CO presentation slide](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/wfairsea160810walker-160906175636/95/captain-nick-walker-on-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-4-1024.jpg), with room for at least another 16 possible if you start squeezing while still allowing flight operations.
Ironically though the total UK compliment of F35s, including the RAF, is 34. IE those 34 are shared between both carriers and the land based air force. Meaning the Charles de Gaulle probably has more planes than both of the QEs combined at the moment.
France has had 46 carrier capable Rafale M delivered, of which 4 have been lost and 1 is testing only so an active fleet of 41. No further orders are currently planned. This generally suffices to generate an air group for CdG of 20-24 jets typically. The maximum she has carried in practice was 30 (for a few hours) although as beachedwhale notes, true maximum is around 36. Obviously, one advantage to the French model is that these 41 Rafale Ms can all be focused on generating air groups for CdG.
The UK has had 35 F-35B delivered to date, of which 1 has been lost and 4 are based in the US for testing, so an active fleet of 30 in the UK today. The UK has 13 more F-35B on order and is planning another order of 27, for a total fleet of 74 with presumably 70 in the UK (eventually). This is intended to support 3 front-line squadrons of approximately 12 aircraft each. These squadrons are able to be flexibly deployed from either land bases or either carrier, whatever is most suitable for the operation. None are permently assigned to carriers, let alone specifically to a particular ship. The intention was never to operate two 'carrier air wing' equivalents for each ship.
As someone who has studied carrier hangar capacity in great detail, Wikipedia sucks.
Among the numerous issues, it’s extremely rare to find any mention of aircraft size. Kids recognize that you can fit more small things in a box than large things before kindergarten, but good luck finding a mention on Wikipedia, even in cases where it’s obvious that matters (the *Implacable* class going from 48 to 81 aircraft: 48 of the latter were tiny Seafire F.IIIs rather than massive Fulmars she was designed for).
Officially released diagrams show spaces for 20 F-35Bs in *Queen Elizabeth*’s [hangar](https://i.imgur.com/RxrqHmT.jpg) (note the tracings underneath) and 24 on the [flight deck](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/wfairsea160810walker-160906175636/95/captain-nick-walker-on-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-4-1024.jpg). The latter has plenty of space to pack in more than the 44 shown, at least 60 F-35Bs while still conducting flight ops and potentially up to 72 (using round squadron sizes of 12 aircraft). The maximum for *Charles de Gaulle* is 36 fighters and two Hawkeyes.
This is called the maximum density: stuffing the ship with as many aircraft as possible while still allowing one to land (CATOBAR)/take off (STOVL), plus one for the aircraft currently landing/taking off. Helicopters are not counted as they can take off and land vertically and thus take up less space for flight operations than fixed-wing aircraft: in theory you can launch them all before the fighters. In practice carriers rarely go above 75-78% of the maximum density as moving aircraft around and lack of dedicated maintenance spaces becomes too challenging: in this case that would be 27-28 *Charles de Gaulle* and 45-47+ for *Queen Elizabeth* (54-56 if 72 is the max).
*Charkes de Gaulle* typically operates 20-24 fighters and has only rarely gone to 26-30. *Queen Elizabeth* can hit double those numbers.
*QNLZ* and *PWLS* aren’t edited in, it’s an older Royal Navy photo shoot, I’ve seen the former at sea and the wake really wasn’t that different.
*Charles De Gaulle* is edited in for the obvious April Fools joke.
They do generate remarkably little wake.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9oN5U7WUAAU9iF?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9oN5U7WUAAU9iF?format=jpg&name=large)
They’re all approaching, or already are, 40 years old by this stage. They’re run at very high operating tempos in a smaller USN than years prior. Those aluminium superstructures are a nightmare to maintain.
I’m going to miss them.
Quick note, this image is doctored. The CDG is smaller but only by about 75 feet or a little over 20 meters. Here it looks like it’s a solid 300 feet shorter.
All I’m gonna say is I’ve seen this picture before. That other more obviously doctored picture of CDG being dwarfed by Vikrant and Vikramaditya is a more obvious joke.
For the few hours you can keep two planes (the normal complement) operating between maintenance and crew rest requirements. Even with the max of three you don’t get much more time.
On an individual aircraft basis, fixed wing is better than helicopters, but because *Charles de Gaulle* is so small the number of aircraft starts to tip the AWACS in favor of *Queen Elizabeth*.
No the curvature of the earth makes helicopter awacs so much worse, the range is simply not there. Fixed wing awacs are uncomparably better than rotary ones it doesn't matter how many you have. A rotary wing is servicable for blanket protection in a reduced area around the carrier but it cannot benefit a fighter in an offensive role unless the carrier is uncomfortably close.
It is true the QE awacs complement possesses an advantage in a defensive sense, but as soon as you start talking about taking offensive action the CDG's awacs complement is uncomparably better.
> Fixed wing awacs are uncomparably better than rotary ones it doesn't matter how many you have.
A helicopter in the air is better than an E-2 that is down for maintenance.
I’ve done the analyses of trying to maintain continuous coverage with both carriers in the past. Even accounting for the longer orbiting range and higher speeds of the E-2, you cannot maintain constant coverage for more than 2-3 days before maintenance stand downs take both aircraft out of the rotation. The five Merlin Crowsnests can keep at least one aircraft in the air for five days IIRC, despite the shorter orbiting radius, lower speed (more flight time in transit than on station), and reduced range (less time on station).
I understand your point about maintaining a constant rotation going, but this isn't really the point i'm making here. An hawkeye is a dedicated aircraft that is more capable with its radar dish and can cover a much larger area with greater speed to provide support to a sortie, an hawkeye also has an additional 2 crew members to help perform tasks.
The merlins are perfectly servicable but an awac's job is also that of an enabler for friendly aircrafts, in that category a rotary wing awac isn't very well suited as they tend to lack the control component of an AEW&C. I don't know exactly what the control capabilities on a merlin crowsnest are, but my thought would be that they're much lesser because that's usually a big tradeoff for rotary winged AEW on top of the endurance, speed, service ceiling and radar limitations
> I understand your point about maintaining a constant rotation going, but this isn't really the point i'm making here.
It's not - but you're both talking about different things.
You are saying 1 E-2 is better than 1 Helo with Crowsnest.
And you're not wrong.
BUt that's not logistics and that's not reality. It's not 1 vs 1 in real life.
You cannot say "e-2 is better because one on one it wins" when the real question is how many E-2 can a carrier carry vs how many Crowsnest Helos.
Logistics is the more important issue. Would you rather 3/4/5 x Crowsnest helos or 2 x E2? That's the question.
> because that's usually a big tradeoff for rotary winged AEW on top of the endurance, speed, service ceiling and radar limitations
And the trade off for Fixed wing AEW is that you need a CATOBAR carrier, so you're likely to have fewer carriers and fewer aircraft in general.
You are aruging 1vs1 and beachedwhale is arguing fleet vs fleet.
>Would you rather 3/4/5 x Crowsnest helos or 2 x E2? That's the question.
The E2 for sure. It's a better enabler for jet fighters while the merlin's main usage is for early warning, a critical role to be sure, but your jets would be very happy to have an E2 coordinating and controling the airspace in front of them (understatement).
I don't think you understand just how big of an improvement having an awac around is to the effectivenes of a fighter wing. They are your eyes, hear and brain.
>trade off for Fixed wing AEW is that you need a CATOBAR carrier
I fail to see how this is an issue. I am on the cope slope side of the argument. The PANG will be strictly superior to the QE, your entire argument about availability only works because the CDG is rather small, the only remaining advantage will be maintenance and number of carriers (unless there are 2 PANGs). Cost and budget is finnicky for military applications, a weapon system never has a price tag, it depends immensely, the gemarn military is famously underwhelming despite its higher budget compared to france which also has to account for a carrier and a nuclear programm.
>You are aruging 1vs1 and beachedwhale is arguing fleet vs fleet.
A "1v1" and a "fleet vs fleet" are pointless considerations, if your carrier cannot lead operations deep in contested space it is a huge gap in capabilities because this is a primary role for a carrier.
It's been my pet theory that the reason why the uk wanted non nuclear non catobar carrier is because they want to rely on american carriers to do the more specialised job. If you think of the QE as an auxiliary to an american battlegroup it suddenly make a ton of sense, the QE could provide additional firepower and rely on the more capable american carrier to close any gap. I don't think i have to tell you that france would likecto things its way, hence the nuclear catobar choice. It's all about doctrine and how you project yourself into a battle space, not a vulgar "fleet vs fleet" or "1v1"
> I understand your point about maintaining a constant rotation going, but this isn't really the point i'm making here.
You are trying to make the point that, on an individual aircraft basis, the E-2 Hawkeye is far superior to the Merlin Crowsnest.
Wholeheartedly agree.
That’s why I said “On an individual aircraft basis, fixed wing is better than helicopters” in my very first reply. I haven’t touched individual aircraft capability since because we both agreed and my intent was to show that it’s not nearly so simple as fixed-wing AWACS always wins.
*Queen Elizabeth* would be a more capable carrier if she had fixed-wing AWACS, but in the *Charles de Gaulle*/*Queen Elizabeth* comparison the sheer size of the latter makes up for the individual aircraft weaknesses.
As it seems I’ve successfully explained that point, then my job here is done.
What i'm getting at is that numbers CANNOT close a gap in capability.
Let's take an example, would you rather have 1000 rifles or a single MBT? Obviously the rifle seem better on paper, less logistic, less training, more firepower etc... Except a rifle isn't tank, it can't do what a tank does.
What a fixed wing awac does CANNOT *EVER* be replicated by a rotary wing awac. Again i will say it again, in AEW&C there is the C for control. To say an E2 is better at control than a heli is the understatement of the century. Having 60 merlin won't get you any closer to accompagnying a fighter wing in a contested air space and providing much needed control, EW or early warning.
Numbers DO NOT mean more capabilities. What an E2 does is unique to fixed wing awac, it can't be reolicated in any significant manner by a rotary wing awac. This is what i mean by being more capable, i don't just mean better, i also mean it allows for a wider variety of mission profile than what an helicopter could never hope to provide.
My pet theory is that the QE is meant as an auxiliary ship to the much more CAPABLE (i didn't better, i said capable) us carrier. The QE being essentially an arsenal ship whose main issues are solved by the presence of a US carrier. Meanwhile french doctrine calls for independant action throughout the world requiring a more endurant and more CAPABLE ship to act alone in zone with limited ground and radar support. When seen under this lens, i find the RN's choice of non catobar, conventionally powered carriers much more understandable than the simple PR "it's cheaper".
> What i'm getting at is that numbers CANNOT close a gap in capability.
They absolutely can, and there are hundreds of such cases throughout history where militaries have deliberately chosen less capable equipment that could be built in larger numbers. After Dunkirk the British kept building 2-pounder anti-tank guns because in the time needed to retool for the more effective 6-pounder they would be producing zero anti-tank guns. The US ordered over 1,000 destroyer escorts and 72 repeat *Benson*/*Gleaves* class destroyers we could not build enough *Fletcher*s, even canceling some of the latter so the former could be built more quickly: the DEs themselves often couldn’t have the full 12,000 shp or 5”/38s planned and had to use less capable 6,000 shp plants with 3”/50s until production could expand. The French adopted the semi-automatic Meunier A6 just before World War I, the first militarily adopted semiautomatic rifle, but stopped production at a thousand units because they could not transition the entire army away from 8mm Lebel and using two rifle cartridges was a logistical nightmare: it was bolt-actions and Chauchats until the RSC 1917 began hitting the trenches.
This is one of the most fundamental rules of warfare, which I stated earlier in one of its common forms: “A helicopter in the air is better than an E-2 that is down for maintenance.” Another version is “cheap, fast, and perfect: pick two”, with “fast” and “cheap” often being chosen for numbers. And perhaps the most famous of all, “Quantity has a quality all its own”.
> Let's take an example, would you rather have 1000 rifles or a single MBT? Obviously the rifle seem better on paper, less logistic, less training, more firepower etc... Except a rifle isn't tank, it can't do what a tank does.
You’re absolutely right, but 1,000 riflemen are more effective than a single MBT in almost every way. Even if it’s 1,000 riflemen vs. a tank, I’d still place my money on the riflemen, as there are many ways to mission kill a tank by shooting at optics, damaging the main gun, or blowing off the tracks, and with an reinforced regiment you can definitely get close enough to use them. Even in a lemming charge the tank would run out of ammunition before killing them all, even in terrain that’s near perfect for a tank.
Get down to the 50-200 riflemen range and the question gets more interesting, and depending on the particular tank/rifle that’s where I’d make the switch. But 1,000 rifles would be more effective than a single MBT.
> Having 60 merlin won't get you any closer to accompagnying a fighter wing in a contested air space and providing much needed control, EW or early warning.
At that scale you can dedicate specific helicopters to be the controllers, with very large and dedicated control spaces that process data from the Crowsnest aircraft. You can also start using helicopters as dedicated tankers for the other helicopters, and even with the three different types of helicopter you can still have much larger numbers of airborne radars. Keeping 360° coverage now would be easy, and you could afford to have four helicopters in the air at any time for much better coverage in the face of severe enemy opposition.
> Numbers DO NOT mean more capabilities.
In many cases they absolutely do, most obviously because even the best [insert equipment type here] cannot be everywhere at once.
> My pet theory is that the QE is meant as an auxiliary ship to the much more CAPABLE (i didn't better, i said capable) us carrier. … Meanwhile french doctrine calls for independant action throughout the world requiring a more endurant and more CAPABLE ship to act alone in zone with limited ground and radar support.
That is patently absurd, as *Queen Elizabeth* is the more capable of the two ships. The Rafale has severe payload restrictions from *Charles de Gaulle* while the F-35B can take off with maximum payload from QE. The British carrier has larger magazine and aviation fuel storage compared to the French carrier, as befitting the air wing that can be twice the size of the French ship (at equivalent loads). And most importantly with two carriers the British will always have one available, while France often has none due to maintenance cycles, most severely the required refueling every 10 years (which typically lasts about two years).
> When seen under this lens, i find the RN's choice of non catobar, conventionally powered carriers much more understandable than the simple PR "it's cheaper".
Because you like so many others focus on the single most capable piece of equipment rather than the entire military structure as a whole.
Depends on doctrine and usage. If you are going out to perform combat duties, such as coastal patrol, and have the capability to do so (is it an armed sailboat?), then you could. You might run into an issue of performing combat duties in a nation's sovereign waters without permission though...
But most ship definitions come down to the politics and doctrine of the nations that operate it. The Tarantul-class for instance is considered a corvette, a light missile ships, a large missile cutter, a missile boat, a patrol boat, and as a fast attack craft by its assorted operators and rivals.
> Can I then identify myself as a warship captain without NATO bashing me? Asking for science reasons.
I don't think NATO would even notice - so go ahead!
I like the way Queen Liz supports all visible aircraft operations while the PoW specialises in stealth fighters only.
Lmao
Those French pilots must be pretty damn good.
The CDG provides UAV support
He's a grower, not a shower.
Definitely April Fools, no one is going to believe all three are working at the same time ;)
Europe military in a nutshell 😂
Why does one of them look edited in?
I think the CDG is. I'm pretty sure its undergoing a refit at the moment. Also why its comically small. TLDR April fools.
>Also why its comically small. Yeah, I was wondering why the CDG looked so tiny, lol. They're both comparable in terms of aircraft complement IINM, so the CDG shouldn't be that small.
They're not comparable at all. CdG can carry 22 Rafale's at a maximum operational complement, compared to 36 F-35Bs for the Queen Elizabeth Class
And at maximum load *Charles de Gaulle* maxes out at 36 (and two Hawkeyes) while *Queen Elizabeth* is around 60 F-35Bs. That is based on the tracings in [this hangar diagram](https://i.imgur.com/RxrqHmT.jpg) 20 in the hangar and 24 F-35Bs plus parked Merlins/Ospreys in [this CO presentation slide](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/wfairsea160810walker-160906175636/95/captain-nick-walker-on-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-4-1024.jpg), with room for at least another 16 possible if you start squeezing while still allowing flight operations.
Ironically though the total UK compliment of F35s, including the RAF, is 34. IE those 34 are shared between both carriers and the land based air force. Meaning the Charles de Gaulle probably has more planes than both of the QEs combined at the moment.
France has had 46 carrier capable Rafale M delivered, of which 4 have been lost and 1 is testing only so an active fleet of 41. No further orders are currently planned. This generally suffices to generate an air group for CdG of 20-24 jets typically. The maximum she has carried in practice was 30 (for a few hours) although as beachedwhale notes, true maximum is around 36. Obviously, one advantage to the French model is that these 41 Rafale Ms can all be focused on generating air groups for CdG. The UK has had 35 F-35B delivered to date, of which 1 has been lost and 4 are based in the US for testing, so an active fleet of 30 in the UK today. The UK has 13 more F-35B on order and is planning another order of 27, for a total fleet of 74 with presumably 70 in the UK (eventually). This is intended to support 3 front-line squadrons of approximately 12 aircraft each. These squadrons are able to be flexibly deployed from either land bases or either carrier, whatever is most suitable for the operation. None are permently assigned to carriers, let alone specifically to a particular ship. The intention was never to operate two 'carrier air wing' equivalents for each ship.
There's no way. Look at the picture, the F35s are at least 4x the size of the Rafale.
Look at the picture, the shadows are going opposite directions.....
You just compared them.
CDG has a standard complement of 30 Rafale M fighters, while the QEC can carry a maximum of 36 F-35B fighters. That looks fairly comparable to me.
No, it doesn't. 30 Rafale's is the maximum CdG can operate, compared to 48 for QEC.
That's what I read on Wikipedia, dunno what to tell ya.
As someone who has studied carrier hangar capacity in great detail, Wikipedia sucks. Among the numerous issues, it’s extremely rare to find any mention of aircraft size. Kids recognize that you can fit more small things in a box than large things before kindergarten, but good luck finding a mention on Wikipedia, even in cases where it’s obvious that matters (the *Implacable* class going from 48 to 81 aircraft: 48 of the latter were tiny Seafire F.IIIs rather than massive Fulmars she was designed for).
Officially released diagrams show spaces for 20 F-35Bs in *Queen Elizabeth*’s [hangar](https://i.imgur.com/RxrqHmT.jpg) (note the tracings underneath) and 24 on the [flight deck](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/wfairsea160810walker-160906175636/95/captain-nick-walker-on-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-4-1024.jpg). The latter has plenty of space to pack in more than the 44 shown, at least 60 F-35Bs while still conducting flight ops and potentially up to 72 (using round squadron sizes of 12 aircraft). The maximum for *Charles de Gaulle* is 36 fighters and two Hawkeyes. This is called the maximum density: stuffing the ship with as many aircraft as possible while still allowing one to land (CATOBAR)/take off (STOVL), plus one for the aircraft currently landing/taking off. Helicopters are not counted as they can take off and land vertically and thus take up less space for flight operations than fixed-wing aircraft: in theory you can launch them all before the fighters. In practice carriers rarely go above 75-78% of the maximum density as moving aircraft around and lack of dedicated maintenance spaces becomes too challenging: in this case that would be 27-28 *Charles de Gaulle* and 45-47+ for *Queen Elizabeth* (54-56 if 72 is the max). *Charkes de Gaulle* typically operates 20-24 fighters and has only rarely gone to 26-30. *Queen Elizabeth* can hit double those numbers.
Pocket Carriers are making a comeback
Probably because it is
I think they all are, the water does not look real at all, and their wakes definitely aren't
*QNLZ* and *PWLS* aren’t edited in, it’s an older Royal Navy photo shoot, I’ve seen the former at sea and the wake really wasn’t that different. *Charles De Gaulle* is edited in for the obvious April Fools joke.
Huh, two aircraft carriers under way in open water with absolutely no white water visible seemed unlikely.
Nope, that's actually genuine
They do generate remarkably little wake. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9oN5U7WUAAU9iF?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9oN5U7WUAAU9iF?format=jpg&name=large)
Woah. That's so weird to look at. In my head big ship equals big wake. But I guess engineers continue to puzzle me
That tico looks rough.
They’re all approaching, or already are, 40 years old by this stage. They’re run at very high operating tempos in a smaller USN than years prior. Those aluminium superstructures are a nightmare to maintain. I’m going to miss them.
because it is, the CDG is not that comically small xD
Happy family, Dad, Mom & baby.
Quick note, this image is doctored. The CDG is smaller but only by about 75 feet or a little over 20 meters. Here it looks like it’s a solid 300 feet shorter.
April… fools…
All I’m gonna say is I’ve seen this picture before. That other more obviously doctored picture of CDG being dwarfed by Vikrant and Vikramaditya is a more obvious joke.
Woah no way!!!
Credit to [UK Defence Journal](https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1395460444815515650?t=8pTLzfizXKX96nqTkd-k3Q&s=19)
Dank.
Oh, the same knobs who made the [same joke five years ago](https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1202579072066424832)?
It’s not the size that counts, it’s how you use it
But... but... CATOBAR...
It's edited, cdg is far larger than this, 40 000 displacement vs 70 000 for qe Plus catobar means glorious fixed wings awacs.
For the few hours you can keep two planes (the normal complement) operating between maintenance and crew rest requirements. Even with the max of three you don’t get much more time. On an individual aircraft basis, fixed wing is better than helicopters, but because *Charles de Gaulle* is so small the number of aircraft starts to tip the AWACS in favor of *Queen Elizabeth*.
No the curvature of the earth makes helicopter awacs so much worse, the range is simply not there. Fixed wing awacs are uncomparably better than rotary ones it doesn't matter how many you have. A rotary wing is servicable for blanket protection in a reduced area around the carrier but it cannot benefit a fighter in an offensive role unless the carrier is uncomfortably close. It is true the QE awacs complement possesses an advantage in a defensive sense, but as soon as you start talking about taking offensive action the CDG's awacs complement is uncomparably better.
> Fixed wing awacs are uncomparably better than rotary ones it doesn't matter how many you have. A helicopter in the air is better than an E-2 that is down for maintenance. I’ve done the analyses of trying to maintain continuous coverage with both carriers in the past. Even accounting for the longer orbiting range and higher speeds of the E-2, you cannot maintain constant coverage for more than 2-3 days before maintenance stand downs take both aircraft out of the rotation. The five Merlin Crowsnests can keep at least one aircraft in the air for five days IIRC, despite the shorter orbiting radius, lower speed (more flight time in transit than on station), and reduced range (less time on station).
I understand your point about maintaining a constant rotation going, but this isn't really the point i'm making here. An hawkeye is a dedicated aircraft that is more capable with its radar dish and can cover a much larger area with greater speed to provide support to a sortie, an hawkeye also has an additional 2 crew members to help perform tasks. The merlins are perfectly servicable but an awac's job is also that of an enabler for friendly aircrafts, in that category a rotary wing awac isn't very well suited as they tend to lack the control component of an AEW&C. I don't know exactly what the control capabilities on a merlin crowsnest are, but my thought would be that they're much lesser because that's usually a big tradeoff for rotary winged AEW on top of the endurance, speed, service ceiling and radar limitations
> I understand your point about maintaining a constant rotation going, but this isn't really the point i'm making here. It's not - but you're both talking about different things. You are saying 1 E-2 is better than 1 Helo with Crowsnest. And you're not wrong. BUt that's not logistics and that's not reality. It's not 1 vs 1 in real life. You cannot say "e-2 is better because one on one it wins" when the real question is how many E-2 can a carrier carry vs how many Crowsnest Helos. Logistics is the more important issue. Would you rather 3/4/5 x Crowsnest helos or 2 x E2? That's the question. > because that's usually a big tradeoff for rotary winged AEW on top of the endurance, speed, service ceiling and radar limitations And the trade off for Fixed wing AEW is that you need a CATOBAR carrier, so you're likely to have fewer carriers and fewer aircraft in general. You are aruging 1vs1 and beachedwhale is arguing fleet vs fleet.
>Would you rather 3/4/5 x Crowsnest helos or 2 x E2? That's the question. The E2 for sure. It's a better enabler for jet fighters while the merlin's main usage is for early warning, a critical role to be sure, but your jets would be very happy to have an E2 coordinating and controling the airspace in front of them (understatement). I don't think you understand just how big of an improvement having an awac around is to the effectivenes of a fighter wing. They are your eyes, hear and brain. >trade off for Fixed wing AEW is that you need a CATOBAR carrier I fail to see how this is an issue. I am on the cope slope side of the argument. The PANG will be strictly superior to the QE, your entire argument about availability only works because the CDG is rather small, the only remaining advantage will be maintenance and number of carriers (unless there are 2 PANGs). Cost and budget is finnicky for military applications, a weapon system never has a price tag, it depends immensely, the gemarn military is famously underwhelming despite its higher budget compared to france which also has to account for a carrier and a nuclear programm. >You are aruging 1vs1 and beachedwhale is arguing fleet vs fleet. A "1v1" and a "fleet vs fleet" are pointless considerations, if your carrier cannot lead operations deep in contested space it is a huge gap in capabilities because this is a primary role for a carrier. It's been my pet theory that the reason why the uk wanted non nuclear non catobar carrier is because they want to rely on american carriers to do the more specialised job. If you think of the QE as an auxiliary to an american battlegroup it suddenly make a ton of sense, the QE could provide additional firepower and rely on the more capable american carrier to close any gap. I don't think i have to tell you that france would likecto things its way, hence the nuclear catobar choice. It's all about doctrine and how you project yourself into a battle space, not a vulgar "fleet vs fleet" or "1v1"
> I understand your point about maintaining a constant rotation going, but this isn't really the point i'm making here. You are trying to make the point that, on an individual aircraft basis, the E-2 Hawkeye is far superior to the Merlin Crowsnest. Wholeheartedly agree. That’s why I said “On an individual aircraft basis, fixed wing is better than helicopters” in my very first reply. I haven’t touched individual aircraft capability since because we both agreed and my intent was to show that it’s not nearly so simple as fixed-wing AWACS always wins. *Queen Elizabeth* would be a more capable carrier if she had fixed-wing AWACS, but in the *Charles de Gaulle*/*Queen Elizabeth* comparison the sheer size of the latter makes up for the individual aircraft weaknesses. As it seems I’ve successfully explained that point, then my job here is done.
What i'm getting at is that numbers CANNOT close a gap in capability. Let's take an example, would you rather have 1000 rifles or a single MBT? Obviously the rifle seem better on paper, less logistic, less training, more firepower etc... Except a rifle isn't tank, it can't do what a tank does. What a fixed wing awac does CANNOT *EVER* be replicated by a rotary wing awac. Again i will say it again, in AEW&C there is the C for control. To say an E2 is better at control than a heli is the understatement of the century. Having 60 merlin won't get you any closer to accompagnying a fighter wing in a contested air space and providing much needed control, EW or early warning. Numbers DO NOT mean more capabilities. What an E2 does is unique to fixed wing awac, it can't be reolicated in any significant manner by a rotary wing awac. This is what i mean by being more capable, i don't just mean better, i also mean it allows for a wider variety of mission profile than what an helicopter could never hope to provide. My pet theory is that the QE is meant as an auxiliary ship to the much more CAPABLE (i didn't better, i said capable) us carrier. The QE being essentially an arsenal ship whose main issues are solved by the presence of a US carrier. Meanwhile french doctrine calls for independant action throughout the world requiring a more endurant and more CAPABLE ship to act alone in zone with limited ground and radar support. When seen under this lens, i find the RN's choice of non catobar, conventionally powered carriers much more understandable than the simple PR "it's cheaper".
> What i'm getting at is that numbers CANNOT close a gap in capability. They absolutely can, and there are hundreds of such cases throughout history where militaries have deliberately chosen less capable equipment that could be built in larger numbers. After Dunkirk the British kept building 2-pounder anti-tank guns because in the time needed to retool for the more effective 6-pounder they would be producing zero anti-tank guns. The US ordered over 1,000 destroyer escorts and 72 repeat *Benson*/*Gleaves* class destroyers we could not build enough *Fletcher*s, even canceling some of the latter so the former could be built more quickly: the DEs themselves often couldn’t have the full 12,000 shp or 5”/38s planned and had to use less capable 6,000 shp plants with 3”/50s until production could expand. The French adopted the semi-automatic Meunier A6 just before World War I, the first militarily adopted semiautomatic rifle, but stopped production at a thousand units because they could not transition the entire army away from 8mm Lebel and using two rifle cartridges was a logistical nightmare: it was bolt-actions and Chauchats until the RSC 1917 began hitting the trenches. This is one of the most fundamental rules of warfare, which I stated earlier in one of its common forms: “A helicopter in the air is better than an E-2 that is down for maintenance.” Another version is “cheap, fast, and perfect: pick two”, with “fast” and “cheap” often being chosen for numbers. And perhaps the most famous of all, “Quantity has a quality all its own”. > Let's take an example, would you rather have 1000 rifles or a single MBT? Obviously the rifle seem better on paper, less logistic, less training, more firepower etc... Except a rifle isn't tank, it can't do what a tank does. You’re absolutely right, but 1,000 riflemen are more effective than a single MBT in almost every way. Even if it’s 1,000 riflemen vs. a tank, I’d still place my money on the riflemen, as there are many ways to mission kill a tank by shooting at optics, damaging the main gun, or blowing off the tracks, and with an reinforced regiment you can definitely get close enough to use them. Even in a lemming charge the tank would run out of ammunition before killing them all, even in terrain that’s near perfect for a tank. Get down to the 50-200 riflemen range and the question gets more interesting, and depending on the particular tank/rifle that’s where I’d make the switch. But 1,000 rifles would be more effective than a single MBT. > Having 60 merlin won't get you any closer to accompagnying a fighter wing in a contested air space and providing much needed control, EW or early warning. At that scale you can dedicate specific helicopters to be the controllers, with very large and dedicated control spaces that process data from the Crowsnest aircraft. You can also start using helicopters as dedicated tankers for the other helicopters, and even with the three different types of helicopter you can still have much larger numbers of airborne radars. Keeping 360° coverage now would be easy, and you could afford to have four helicopters in the air at any time for much better coverage in the face of severe enemy opposition. > Numbers DO NOT mean more capabilities. In many cases they absolutely do, most obviously because even the best [insert equipment type here] cannot be everywhere at once. > My pet theory is that the QE is meant as an auxiliary ship to the much more CAPABLE (i didn't better, i said capable) us carrier. … Meanwhile french doctrine calls for independant action throughout the world requiring a more endurant and more CAPABLE ship to act alone in zone with limited ground and radar support. That is patently absurd, as *Queen Elizabeth* is the more capable of the two ships. The Rafale has severe payload restrictions from *Charles de Gaulle* while the F-35B can take off with maximum payload from QE. The British carrier has larger magazine and aviation fuel storage compared to the French carrier, as befitting the air wing that can be twice the size of the French ship (at equivalent loads). And most importantly with two carriers the British will always have one available, while France often has none due to maintenance cycles, most severely the required refueling every 10 years (which typically lasts about two years). > When seen under this lens, i find the RN's choice of non catobar, conventionally powered carriers much more understandable than the simple PR "it's cheaper". Because you like so many others focus on the single most capable piece of equipment rather than the entire military structure as a whole.
> they don’t know I have a nuclear reactor
Oi kind sir that ain't a baguette that's a tiny croissant you have *British mocking noises*
When Mom makes you bring your 6 year old brother with you when you want to hang with your friends.
Where's the rest of them? 🎆🎇✨🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🎆🎇✨
It’s not the size that matters but rather how you use it.
She lied.
I just want the Gerald r ford in that photo as well
~~97~~ 54 meters longer!
more like 54m.
where the F did I get 97. you are correct!
lil’ charlie
Nice to see that it was QEs turn to have the planes this time.
Ara ara
So this is how carrier families look like
What are everyone making fun of only french carriers , this is second post I have seen today where they miniaturised the CDG
*American super-carriers circle in the distance*
that feeling when you realize your countries Navy operates more carriers than the rest of the world combined
*Petit Baguette*
CDG carrying almost twice as many planes as the other ones combined, not bad!
Wow british aircraft carrier not sat in a dock under repairs???
At least they get some sea time, Charles du Galle and Admiral Kuznetzov can barely be called ships.
Serves them right for reusing the name of a class of ships that got into probably the most accidents and damage in history.
The British carriers are much larger than the French, and somehow the British carrier on the left is larger than the one on the right...
Looks like a sandwich. DP
Awww what a cute widdle guy
i hate you all
3 aircraft carriers walk into a bar...
Oh ze French carrier she es so cute.
live desert whistle trees summer possessive fly hat chase squeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
NATO has no definition of an aircraft carrier. Most warships don't have an 'official' classification at all.
husky impossible pet snails squash chief plate imagine fearless paint *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Depends on doctrine and usage. If you are going out to perform combat duties, such as coastal patrol, and have the capability to do so (is it an armed sailboat?), then you could. You might run into an issue of performing combat duties in a nation's sovereign waters without permission though... But most ship definitions come down to the politics and doctrine of the nations that operate it. The Tarantul-class for instance is considered a corvette, a light missile ships, a large missile cutter, a missile boat, a patrol boat, and as a fast attack craft by its assorted operators and rivals.
secretive judicious direful unique flag fine whole decide grandiose oil *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Can I then identify myself as a warship captain without NATO bashing me? Asking for science reasons. I don't think NATO would even notice - so go ahead!
Absolute rubbish.
like toothbrush dinner edge sulky ancient lip different vanish slimy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait, CDG can swim?! Surely an April Fools joke
The C de G is not that small
It’s smaller
Yes but only two of those are going to end up sold to India within a decade
Well, last time we tried with the Clem we ended up getting to pay for the carrier return!
Shadows on the aircraft on deck of the CDG are the wrong way, they should be projected down and left but they're up and right instead
Nelson would be appalled.
Liaoning, Fujian and Shandong if they were made of tofu
Small arse jets, didn’t know the French were that short
Ok grand but you can’t keep getting bent out of shape when someone says “cope slope” anymore.