www.ditl.org

I dunno about that. When she's fully finished she'll carry up to 40 aircraft, including F-35B, one of the best all round fighters in existence; Merlin ASW, the best ASW helicopter in existence; Merlin AEW, Apache gunships, Chinook transports (she's fitted to carry troops)...

Is it up to something like a Nimitz or Ford? No, it's not. Yeah, helicopter based AEW isn't as good as an E-2, and the lack of a refuelling platform is a worry. But compared to the Invincibles it's replacing this is a revolution. And it's not like we're not going to be fighting America anytime, so it really doesn't need to be as good as a Ford. And it is streets ahead of/better than any other carrier in the world. Maybe the Chinese will eclipse it if they keep their carrier ambitions up. But all in all it's a pretty impressive Naval asset. Almost makes me wish Argentina would get uppity again!

Hum Queen Elizabeth vs Charles de Gaulle would be interesting

E-2C Hawkey vs Merlin AEW, Rafale Marine vs F-35B. The Stealthiest SVTOL aircraft ever created (which still have the limitations of range and payload of a SVTOL) vs the best european aircraft according to Switzerland (who prefered the cheapest, despite of Militaries wish) and India which have started exclusive negociations (how long have they taken when great britan sold a training aircraft to India? 20 years before the first flight?)

But the electronic of Queen Bee is obviously superior, thanks to her young age.

The E-2s might be a deciding factor... let the CDG sit off at long range and send strikes in, perhaps.

Though realistically in a naval battle between the two, the deciding factor might well be whose SSN managed to slip in and torpedo the opposition.

But honestly, the real role for ships like this now is to sit off the coast of some third world craphole and drop bombs on caves and tents. They'd both be pretty good at that, but the QE would be better I'd think. Larger size means more space for fuel, bombs, better sortie rate, etc.

Yeah but unfortunately, you take the F-35B and not the F-35C: short fuel load and short payload = more flight for the same task.

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... riant.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... riant.html

Using a ship that big and not making it a CATOBAR looks sad for me :/

And you loose a way to put pressure on Lockheed by asking Boeing and Dassault about their own CATOBAR aircraft.

Nutso wrote:

Ahh yes. Movies got it all wrong about bullets being able to kill someone even ten feet under water.

Yeah. That was one of my more favorite segments of Mythbusters. I think the older ammo did better, but still lost its lethality very quickly.

What did they test? A jimpy or rifle round has got a fair bit more oomphf than a pistol.

Captain Seafort wrote:What did they test? A jimpy or rifle round has got a fair bit more oomphf than a pistol.

Mythbusters fire a 50 caliber round into water.

Atomic Cannon video

Mythbuster found the faster the round the worse it did, pistols actually got about 3-5 feet in and stayed intact, every single rifle they found just tore apart on impact.

Teaos wrote:Mythbuster found the faster the round the worse it did, pistols actually got about 3-5 feet in and stayed intact, every single rifle they found just tore apart on impact.

Yeah, this. It was a fun little test. I was expecting the 50 caliber to rip a hole in the pool, but it disintegrating like it did was actually pretty cool.

So how does Hollywood get those shots of bullets going through the water?

Movie magic.

Brave cameramen.