Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

[emzie]

Really, the whole semantics thing is really silly to keep arguing Pat. You're not making any points, just making yourself look like the kid on the playground who thinks his dad a heavy weight champion. But you also used some pretty bad logic here and I can't let that stand.

List of active carriers and their displacements (long tons when differentiated, rounded to nearest thousand full load):

United States:
Enterprise - 95,000
Nimitz - 100,000
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 102,000
Carl Vinson - 101,000
Theodore Roosevelt - 105,000
Abraham Lincoln - 100,000
George Washington - 104,000
Harry S. Truman – 104,000
John C. Stennis - 103,000
Ronald Reagan - 101,000
George H. W. Bush - 102,000

United Kingdom:
Illustrious - 22,000

France:
Charles DeGaulle - 42,000

Russia:
Admiral Kuznetsov - 55,000

Italy:
Cavour - 30,000
Giuseppe Garibaldi - 14,000

India:
Viraat – 28,000

Spain:
Principe de Asturias – 17,000
Juan Carlos I – 27,000 (I consider this more of an amphibious ship, but it was on the list)

Brazil:
San Paolo – 33,000

Thialand:
Chakri Naruebet – 11,000

The average size for a carrier = 65,000

I had been using napkin calculations before. Now I have now shown conclusively that the new QEs are literally EXACTLY the average, ie the definition of medium.

More importantly that list makes something else clear. 11 of 21 carriers in the world are of the 100K range type, or more than half. That makes them the standard for what a carrier is, not the light European variety.

That's... one way to look at it if you're trying to get results that conform to your preconceived view point. However you're falling victim to a sampling bias by counting ship numbers rather than class numbers. You're comparing classes, not ships. So a better (but not perfect, I'll get to this) way of deducing average is to add up the tonnage of classes and then dividing that number by the number of classes sampled.

US:
Enterprise - 95,000
Nimitz - (average) 102,000

United Kingdom:
Illustrious - 22,000

France:
Charles DeGaulle - 42,000

Russia:
Admiral Kuznetsov - 55,000

Italy:
Cavour - 30,000
Giuseppe Garibaldi - 14,000

India:
Viraat – 28,000

Spain:
Principe de Asturias – 17,000
Juan Carlos I – 27,000

Brazil:
San Paolo – 33,000

Thialand:
Chakri Naruebet – 11,000

Average class size - 37,116
Queen Elizabeth - 65,000

A more inclusive list would include ships that were similar to active ships when they were retired -- I assume the Soviets had more than just Admiral Kuznetsov carriers. But the point is, the USN operatives carriers roughly 3 times larger than the average. I'd consider a ship ~2x average to be "large" and you can keep your dick posturing by being super sized.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, the soviets also had the Kiev class. 45,000.

 

[imperialman]

However you're falling victim to a sampling bias by counting ship numbers rather than class numbers. You're comparing classes, not ships. So a better (but not perfect, I'll get to this) way of deducing average is to add up the tonnage of classes and then dividing that number by the number of classes sampled.

I'd consider a ship ~2x average to be "large" and you can keep your dick posturing by being super sized.

Thank you, that was what I was trying to explain, thanks contre. It's even more apt when the CTOL design should be far over 65k.

Also, I've explained this countless times, I don't have the energy nor the will to keep explaining the same points and have them misinterpreted. I don't want the thread to degenerate into countless counter after counter post. We both believe our arguments fully support our position Patroklos and frankly this is going nowhere. I'll leave it up to other posters what they think of the ships based on what I've said.

 

[Silurian]

I wonder which if the QE class will be more cost effective than the US carriers if used in the same way the US carriers have actually been used.

 

[Patroklos]

Really, the whole semantics thing is really silly to keep arguing Pat. You're not making any points, just making yourself look like the kid on the playground who thinks his dad a heavy weight champion. But you also used some pretty bad logic here and I can't let that stand.

I am the only one here with sources. I have asked for sources to be provided in rebuttal and all that i got was quibbling. Case closed.

That's... one way to look at it if you're trying to get results that conform to your preconceived view point. However you're falling victim to a sampling bias by counting ship numbers rather than class numbers. You're comparing classes, not ships. So a better (but not perfect, I'll get to this) way of deducing average is to add up the tonnage of classes and then dividing that number by the number of classes sampled.

US:
Enterprise - 95,000
Nimitz - (average) 102,000

United Kingdom:
Illustrious - 22,000

France:
Charles DeGaulle - 42,000

Russia:
Admiral Kuznetsov - 55,000

Italy:
Cavour - 30,000
Giuseppe Garibaldi - 14,000

India:
Viraat – 28,000

Spain:
Principe de Asturias – 17,000
Juan Carlos I – 27,000

Brazil:
San Paolo – 33,000

Thialand:
Chakri Naruebet – 11,000

Average class size - 37,116
Queen Elizabeth - 65,000

A more inclusive list would include ships that were similar to active ships when they were retired -- I assume the Soviets had more than just Admiral Kuznetsov carriers. But the point is, the USN operatives carriers roughly 3 times larger than the average. I'd consider a ship ~2x average to be "large" and you can keep your dick posturing by being super sized.

All that illustrates is that before we had two extremes, and now we have a middle ground. Congratulations for proving me correct via another method.

 

[imperialman]

I believe the inclusion of the Queen Elizabeth class in that list would bump the average size of an aircraft carrier up to around 45,000t. Indicating that the carriers would indeed be larger than the average.

Anyway... I found a nice graphic of a previous and much smaller VTOL concept for the ship.

 

[Patroklos]

You would have to include the new Ford class and Indian carriers if you go that route, as wellnas the refurbished Chinese hull. That won't help your case.

In any case, The bow section being transported.

Spoiler :

 

[emzie]

Since the Ford class is replacing the Enterprise (I think?) it moves the average average up ~450 tons. The new Indian aircraft carriers are of the same class, but they're rather different ships so I'd consider them separately. In addition, I think the current Royal Navy carriers shouldn't be considered since they'll be retired by the time the new class is commissioned.

So if we count the Ford class, dismiss the Enterprise, count the two new Indian navy carriers and then count the Queen Elizabeth class instead of the Invincible class... we get an average of ~43,000 tons.

So the Queen Elizabeth class is 50% larger.

 

[IglooDame]

Yeah, I'm done arguing about this as well.

 

[Quackers]

Well, if we are all going to do it:

*swings dick*

 

[Patroklos]

Does anyone know what the "E R" in the ships crest means? I get the two color rose, but not the "R."

 

[imperialman]

ER means "Elizabeth Regina" (it means Elizabeth the Queen). We have it on post boxes too oddly enough. Carriers and post boxes. Britain...

 

[Quackers]

It's on Ministerial red boxes too

interwehbz cookies pls?

 

[imperialman]

I found many concept designs for the class. Some even use the F-32 model!

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, I'm done arguing about this as well.

You know Patroklos, you have a habit of turning what could be interesting discussions about naval stuff into you basically calling every other country a joke and anyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Honestly, it's pretty obvious to everyone here you are not in the least bit objective here, why not just ease off and stop trying to big up the USN?

 

[Flying Pig]

You know Patroklos, you have a habit of turning what could be interesting discussions about naval stuff into you basically calling every other country a joke and anyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Honestly, it's pretty obvious to everyone here you are not in the least bit objective here, why not just ease off and stop trying to big up the USN?

To be honest, the United States Navy is powerful on a scale that the rest of us almost can't really understand because it's huge. We don't really need constant reminding of that, granted, but it's worth keeping in the back of the mind.

 

[RedRalph]

To be honest, the United States Navy is powerful on a scale that the rest of us almost can't really understand because it's huge. We don't really need constant reminding of that, granted, but it's worth keeping in the back of the mind.

I know, and that's the thing: everyone knows. It's like sitting beside a drunk Paul McCartney who takes umbrage when you mention any band other than The Beatles.

When Patroklos claims to be the only one here with sources, he's clearly no longer approaching this rationally. you don't have to know much about navies to see his points are incorrect and only designed to belittle the Royal Navy (and you know I hardly have cause to defend the Royal Navy)

 

[woody60707]

I know, and that's the thing: everyone knows. It's like sitting beside a drunk Paul McCartney who takes umbrage when you mention any band other than The Beatles.

When Patroklos claims to be the only one here with sources, he's clearly no longer approaching this rationally. you don't have to know much about navies to see his points are incorrect and only designed to belittle the Royal Navy (and you know I hardly have cause to defend the Royal Navy)

I wouldn't say his point are in anyway incorrect. He does have a lot of knowledge on this topic. I would say his context is way off. You take the USN off the table, and this carrier is the most bad ass carrier in the world (or will be).

 

[Patroklos]

You know Patroklos, you have a habit of turning what could be interesting discussions about naval stuff into you basically calling every other country a joke and anyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Honestly, it's pretty obvious to everyone here you are not in the least bit objective here, why not just ease off and stop trying to big up the USN?

I have done none of what you just said, I am the only one here providing and sourcing facts. I also remained on topic, something you are not doing.

 

[emzie]

I have done none of what you just said, I am the only one here providing and sourcing facts. I also remained on topic, something you are not doing.

While there's obviously the possibility that we're all just too stupid to understand how brilliant you are, you're the only one agreeing with yourself.