Jump to content

Britain's brand new aircraft carrier runs on ... XP

2 minutes ago, Urishima said:

That depends entirely on the layout of the carrier. The Admiral Kuznetsov for example can do both.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Configuration_TAVKR_SSSR_Kuznětsov.svg

You might notice that the Queen Elizabeth, the ship we're discussing here, cannot. 

 

However, I do give you credit, I did not realize there was a russian ski jump designed carrier with an offset landing area. :)

CPU: i9-13900k MOBO: Asus Strix Z790-E RAM: 64GB GSkill  CPU Cooler: Corsair H170i

GPU: Asus Strix RTX-4090 Case: Fractal Torrent PSU: Corsair HX-1000i Storage: 2TB Samsung 990 Pro

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

Oh yeah, I’m sure national governments all just function on low-frequency, idiotic wavelengths like that. I mean, there isn’t a gargantuan power curve or anything in the path of becoming leadership, or any competition for power and control to speak of… nah, they’re all idiots of course. ?

I didn't say they were idiots. I said they were lazy and cheap. The ONLY reason not to update to a new OS is because the tools/software that they use and the systems that those computers connect to aren't compatible with newer OS's. 

PSU Tier List | CoC

Gaming Build | FreeNAS Server

Spoiler

i5-4690k || Seidon 240m || GTX780 ACX || MSI Z97s SLI Plus || 8GB 2400mhz || 250GB 840 Evo || 1TB WD Blue || H440 (Black/Blue) || Windows 10 Pro || Dell P2414H & BenQ XL2411Z || Ducky Shine Mini || Logitech G502 Proteus Core

Spoiler

FreeNAS 9.3 - Stable || Xeon E3 1230v2 || Supermicro X9SCM-F || 32GB Crucial ECC DDR3 || 3x4TB WD Red (JBOD) || SYBA SI-PEX40064 sata controller || Corsair CX500m || NZXT Source 210.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

You might notice that the Queen Elizabeth, the ship we're discussing here, cannot. 

 

However, I do give you credit, I did not realize there was a russian ski jump designed carrier with an offset landing area. :)

Odd that they would build one with that limitation, again. The Invincible class also had just one landing 'strip' with the ramp at the end.

 

India uses that style of takeoff system as well and they also have a separate landing area, like the Russians.

I deal in shitposts and shitpost accessories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Urishima said:

Odd that they would build one with that limitation, again. The Invincible class also had just one landing 'strip' with the ramp at the end.

 

India uses that style of takeoff system as well and they also have a separate landing area, like the Russians.

The STOBAR configuration is a lot cheaper than the US favoured CATOBAR config and easier to maintain. The F-35B's that we've purchased (if we ever actually get them) are designed to operate as STOVL aircraft. Meaning the ski jump is necessary to take off and then VTOL to land. 

 

The Queen Elizabeth-Class are only designed for use with our STOVL fleet which will likely see out their operational lives together much like our Harriers and Invincible-Class Carriers did. Even on joint operations with US forces, the ships will still be able to provide take off and landing for the USMC's F-35B's.

 

Should we require an operational extension to QE-Class, with the next generation fighters...QE will need refitting if they aren't STOVL. But that's a decision for a future government :) 

DAEDALUS (2018 Refit) - Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 - 1600 @ 3.7Ghz // Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 LED Turbo Black Edition // Motherboard: Asus RoG Strix B350-F Gaming // Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1060 Windforce 6GB GDDR5 // Memory: 2 x 8GB DDR4 Corsair LPX Vengeance 3000Mhz // Storage: WD Green - 250GB M.2 SATA SSD (Boot Drive and Programs), SanDisk Ultra II 120GB (GTA V), WD Elements 1TB External Drive (Steam Library) // Power Supply: Cooler Master Silent Pro 700W // Case: BeQuiet Silentbase 600 with SilentWings Mk.2 Internal Fans // Peripherals: VicTop Mechanical Gaming Keyboard & VicTsing 7200 DPI Wired Gaming Mouse

 

PROMETHEUS (2018 Refit) - Processor: Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.2Ghz // Cooler: Cooler Master 212 EVO // Motherboard: Foxconn 2ABF // Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 5450 (For Diagnostic Testing Only) // Memory: 2 x 4GB DDR3 Mushkin Memory // Storage: 10TB of Various Storage Drives // Power Supply: Corsair 600W // Case: Bitfenix Nova Midi Tower - Black

 

SpeedTest Results - Having Trouble Finding a Decent PSU? - Check the PSU Tier List!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

lmao a carrier on W10 *waves* "I'm over here on my super secret mission, these are my plans and what I'm going to do"

exactly why the people who engineered it didnt mind windows XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Urishima said:

That depends entirely on the layout of the carrier. The Admiral Kuznetsov for example can do both.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Configuration_TAVKR_SSSR_Kuznětsov.svg

 

The only real limitation is that only certain aircraft can use this kind of launch system. Those that have both a high TWR and a low stall-speed.

Yes, the russian carrier can do that. When it is not preoccupied with mechanical breakdowns from its unreliable and high maintenance bunker oil engines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Yes, the russian carrier can do that. When it is not preoccupied with mechanical breakdowns from its unreliable and high maintenance bunker oil engines

Gotta keep the crew occupied somehow, since the launch system itself is low maintenance:P

I deal in shitposts and shitpost accessories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Urishima said:

Russian aircraft carriers use the same launch system. It works

 

 

yeah, ski jump is a low cost - high return design for the navy. Especially due to the design of the Typhoon/Harrier. 

US planes arent built for the same kind of vector thrust, so they have to use an expensive steam catapult to launch planes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

yeah, ski jump is a low cost - high return design for the navy. Especially due to the design of the Typhoon/Harrier. 

US planes arent built for the same kind of vector thrust, so they have to use an expensive steam catapult to launch planes

It's not just a vector thrust thing going on. A catapult system can also launch more planes and heavier planes. 

PSU Tier List | CoC

Gaming Build | FreeNAS Server

Spoiler

i5-4690k || Seidon 240m || GTX780 ACX || MSI Z97s SLI Plus || 8GB 2400mhz || 250GB 840 Evo || 1TB WD Blue || H440 (Black/Blue) || Windows 10 Pro || Dell P2414H & BenQ XL2411Z || Ducky Shine Mini || Logitech G502 Proteus Core

Spoiler

FreeNAS 9.3 - Stable || Xeon E3 1230v2 || Supermicro X9SCM-F || 32GB Crucial ECC DDR3 || 3x4TB WD Red (JBOD) || SYBA SI-PEX40064 sata controller || Corsair CX500m || NZXT Source 210.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It's not just a vector thrust thing going on. A catapult system can also launch more planes and heavier planes. 

Depends on the engines used in the vector planes. The Harrier had a weak engine and complicated jet exhaust system. The Typhoon and F35B (which delivery atm is about as substantial as the Trump-Russia rumors), have a much better vectoring system, and should thus be able to take off with far more weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SCHISCHKA said:

Well the more you learn about MS relationship with the US government the more concerned you will be about how much ownership & control a nation really has when their infrastructure is running MS products. The PRISM program & Snowden should be turned into a holywood movie so the plebs out there can learn about it.

from wikipedia's article in PRISM:

 

*cough*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/

 

It came out in 2016, and stars Jason Gordon Levitt.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its simple. 
No telemetry data.
16 years of patches and predictability to make it stable. 
Does everything they need it to do.
At the end of the day, its still a Graphical User Interface Operating System.  
Its also great for using serial and parallel connections for switches, relays and sensors throughout the ship, and easy to make programs to actuate and read data off of those connections. Try using serial and parallel connections on a brand new windows 10 machine and tell me how reliable it is.   

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly surprised that people keep thinking about Win10 and not a proper and far more reliable OS like Linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

Depends on the engines used in the vector planes. The Harrier had a weak engine and complicated jet exhaust system. The Typhoon and F35B (which delivery atm is about as substantial as the Trump-Russia rumors), have a much better vectoring system, and should thus be able to take off with far more weight.

I'm not talking about just fighters. Carriers launch other planes as well. Do/can the UK's carriers launch things like the C2? The F35B also has to sacrifice a lot of fuel capacity for the lift fan and I believe ramp launches launches also typically use more fuel as do vertical landings -- not that that necessarily matters much (although I'm sure in war-time/emergency situations pilots would be thrilled to have the extra range) since fighters, especially, have relatively low range and often need mid-air refueling anyway. Regardless, I think the biggest advantage of a CATOBAR carrier is the ability to mobilize far more planes in the same period of time. 

 

STOVL/STOBAR carriers are certainly advantageous from an economic standpoint, but from a shear performance standpoint CATOBAR has some important advantages.

PSU Tier List | CoC

Gaming Build | FreeNAS Server

Spoiler

i5-4690k || Seidon 240m || GTX780 ACX || MSI Z97s SLI Plus || 8GB 2400mhz || 250GB 840 Evo || 1TB WD Blue || H440 (Black/Blue) || Windows 10 Pro || Dell P2414H & BenQ XL2411Z || Ducky Shine Mini || Logitech G502 Proteus Core

Spoiler

FreeNAS 9.3 - Stable || Xeon E3 1230v2 || Supermicro X9SCM-F || 32GB Crucial ECC DDR3 || 3x4TB WD Red (JBOD) || SYBA SI-PEX40064 sata controller || Corsair CX500m || NZXT Source 210.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not talking about just fighters. Carriers launch other planes as well. Do/can the UK's carriers launch things like the C2? The F35B also has to sacrifice a lot of fuel capacity for the lift fan and I believe ramp launches launches also typically use more fuel as do vertical landings -- not that that necessarily matters much (although I'm sure in war-time/emergency situations pilots would be thrilled to have the extra range) since fighters, especially, have relatively low range and often need mid-air refueling anyway. Regardless, I think the biggest advantage of a CATOBAR carrier is the ability to mobilize far more planes in the same period of time. 

 

STOVL/STOBAR carriers are certainly advantageous from an economic standpoint, but from a shear performance standpoint CATOBAR has some important advantages.

well, to be frank, the most efficient war-machine is a nuclear ICBM sub (nuclear warhead or not). So whether they use CATOBAR or STOBAR doesnt really matter. What matters is that the carrier projects power (its main purpose in peace time). It is a deterrent, more then a raw power piece.

 

Its exactly the reason why the russians has only 1 or 2 operational carriers but 15-20 nuclear ICBM subs (i think they even got a few Typhoon class subs still running due to delays in replacement model).

 

And a carrier spends most its time outside of war. But training excercises still has to happen. So a more economic design could prove more sensible in the "long run".

 

EDIT: i think ramp launching carriers use rocket booster pods for larger aircraft. Might not still be in use, but it has been in use in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2017 at 0:46 PM, djdwosk97 said:

How exactly do you connect a nuclear reactor to the internet?

Well, I bet MacGuyver would use chewing gum, the wrapper and a rubber band.  Then again, he could build an entire reactor with that much.

On 6/27/2017 at 2:26 PM, VerticalDiscussions said:

Best operating system ever made by Microsoft, imo.

 

Opajz6Y.gif

Yep, that seems about right for loading time...................................................still waiting.

 

*Just kidding, Win2k had a much longer boot up time than XP*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's not a standard install of Windows XP, it's highly customized for military use"

"LOL can't use Windows 10 cos telemetry and stuff"

 

Seriously find it utterly stupid to see the comments about Windows 10 flying in the very face of their own reasoning for saying it's fine to continue to use the military version of XP, yea they are just going to use an unmodified Windows 10 install haha yea pull the other one.

 

At least the people saying use Linux actually have a sound point, however even that is still going to need to go through the same certification process that Windows XP did and Windows 10 would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

Seriously find it utterly stupid to see the comments about Windows 10

 

I find it  stupid to see any comments at all about the technical side of the military.   I am pretty sure the closest anyone here has come to the design, build and workings of these things is likely to be a selfie they took out the front of one while on Holiday.    Honestly, other than knowing they use XP, everything else is just speculation and best guesses.   

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the military, where by the time anything is approved the tech you wanted is already out of date. No one that operates on this shit in the military wants this, its the stupid amount of 'accrediting and vetting' that bogs down tech upgrades for any government agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×