Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by swoop »

Pongoglo wrote:Still cant understand why we couldn't get the gun to work with GR7/9.
Engineers can get anything to work, given the resources.
I'd be looking at the BUMF wallahs, desk jockeys & bean counters as probable cause...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I agree with your view, the first "source" I have seen for it though. The gap between the fixed-price guarantee that Mr. Fox, at the time, received from the US and the total cost of the conversion had a huge gap. I could quote both figures from hazy memory, but better just mention the "gap" - about a £ bn!
- not doing it pretty much :thumbup: paid for the 2nd carrier
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:your view, the first "source" I have seen for it though. The gap between the fixed-price guarantee that Mr. Fox, at the time, received from the US and the total cost of the conversion had a huge gap. I could quote both figures from hazy memory, but better just mention the "gap" - about a £ bn!
- not doing it pretty much paid for the 2nd carrier
Over on Navweaps forum there was one of the design team called 'Hindpool' that used to post, he went into some detail as to when the catobar option was dropped from the design and the practicalities of what would be required to either add in during build (this was a few years ago) or to undertake during a midlife rebuild. If you can be bothered to wade through the years of posts they're well worth the read.

Anyone who read it never asked about catobar again....it will never happen. It would be easier to just build a new carrier...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: It would be easier to just build a new carrier...
Which - OK, in money terms -they did ;) . So we have 1.4, instead of 0.7 of them when seen in availability terms
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)


User avatar
easydiver
Donator
Posts: 77
Joined: 27 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by easydiver »

Well, that was the big event. First SRVL onto QNLZ. I’ve been following this forum (and its predecessor) for over 8 years looking forward to this moment. I do hope that we see many more and that it turns out to be another key technology in delivering the worlds most cost effective carrier strike capability.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Only 12 x the number of F35B's on deck then before she is ready to go (plus all the trials, installation of CIWS etc.) and LOTS more training :clap:

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

https://www.janes.com/article/83792/fir ... -elizabeth
Key Points
An F-35B made the first SRVL recovery on to HMS Queen Elizabeth on 13 October
SRVLs allow F-35Bs to make carrier landings with heavier loads, avoiding the need to jettison fuel and/or weapons
An F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter has executed a first shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) onto the Royal Navy (RN) aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth during first-of-class flying trials (FOCFT) off the east coast of the United States.

The milestone SRVL recovery was performed on 13 October by BAE Systems test pilot Peter 'Wizzer' Wilson.

Whereas a vertical landing is intended as the primary recovery mode for the F-35B on board the Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) carriers, the size and arrangement of the QEC flight deck has opened up the opportunity to use SRVL as an alternative recovery manoeuvre. By exploiting the ability of the F-35B to use vectored thrust to maintain limited forward speed until after touchdown, an SRVL allows for a significant increase in 'bring- back' payload compared with a standard vertical landing, as well as reducing deck wear and extending engine life.

However, it is acknowledged that an SRVL recovery presents some inherent risk, given that the F-35B must approach the ship from aft, at speed, on a precise glide slope. Also, with no arrestor equipment, the aircraft must use its own brakes to stop when on the deck.

Additionally, the SRVL manoeuvre demands close co-operation with the landing signal officer (LSO) located in the flying control office in the carrier's aft island. A naval aviator, the LSO monitors the aircraft's approach to the deck to check that the glide slope, airspeed, attitude, and line-up remain within normal parameters. The LSO will communicate a 'wave-off' signal to the pilot in the event of an unsafe approach, prompting the pilot to abandon the landing and 'go around' for a second attempt.
Jane's reporting that vertical landing will remain as "primary recovery mode", even while acknowledging that SRVL also reduces deck wear and extends engine life, as well as the normally quoted advantage on bring back. Anything that extends engine life is going to be a major £ saver.

I think most of expected that SRVL would become default landing mode. The issue about close co-operation with the LSO seems a bit of a red herring as, well, that's what they're there for aren't they? It's carrier aviation. Ditto with inherent risk, without wishing to trivialise the matter. Interesting to know how inherently risky it is compared to vertical landing.

SRVL also seems to offer a potentially higher recovery rate, unless that can be offset by aircraft being able to recover simultaneously vertically.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

easydiver wrote:Well, that was the big event. First SRVL onto QNLZ. I’ve been following this forum (and its predecessor) for over 8 years looking forward to this moment. I do hope that we see many more and that it turns out to be another key technology in delivering the worlds most cost effective carrier strike capability.
Hush. Don't you know that anything the RN does that is different from the rest of the world must be wrong - see escorts thread and T26 thread for examples.

In fact I remember the same being said about twin islands, going STOVL, the mechanised weapon handling system etc

RichardC
I have always said that SRVL would be the exception rather than the norm. VL offers better safety (which overrides most things in todays world), can be used in most conditions, and offers faster recovery. SRVL is only for that case of bringing back heavy loads in some conditions

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Enigmatically wrote:I have always said that SRVL would be the exception rather than the norm. VL offers better safety (which overrides most things in todays world), can be used in most conditions, and offers faster recovery. SRVL is only for that case of bringing back heavy loads in some conditions
Interesting, but SRVL also seems to be used routinely in the (limited) coverage of F-35Bs operating from Marham, albeit at seemingly a higher landing speed and on a runway that isn't moving.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Probably said the same about angled decks, mirror landing sights and steam catapults. Probably even armoured Flight Decks in WW2 as well :mrgreen:

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

RichardIC wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:I have always said that SRVL would be the exception rather than the norm. VL offers better safety (which overrides most things in todays world), can be used in most conditions, and offers faster recovery. SRVL is only for that case of bringing back heavy loads in some conditions
Interesting, but SRVL also seems to be used routinely in the (limited) coverage of F-35Bs operating from Marham, albeit at seemingly a higher landing speed and on a runway that isn't moving.
Where neither of the disadvantages I mentioned apply. Mind you neither do the advantages. SO probably training of an unfamiliar technique

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:Jane's reporting that vertical landing will remain as "primary recovery mode", even while acknowledging that SRVL also reduces deck wear and extends engine life, as well as the normally quoted advantage on bring back. Anything that extends engine life is going to be a major £ saver.
I do not think it will reduce engine wear at all. I see that claim repeated ad nauseam on the interweb. I do not believe it is true.
RichardIC wrote: think most of expected that SRVL would become default landing mode. The issue about close co-operation with the LSO seems a bit of a red herring as, well, that's what they're there for aren't they? It's carrier aviation. Ditto with inherent risk, without wishing to trivialise the matter. Interesting to know how inherently risky it is compared to vertical landing.
Speak for yourself. VL will always the the landing of choice. Safer.
RichardIC wrote:SRVL also seems to offer a potentially higher recovery rate, unless that can be offset by aircraft being able to recover simultaneously vertically.
Other way round, SRVL slows landing rates. Needs more deck.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:
easydiver wrote:Well, that was the big event. First SRVL onto QNLZ. I’ve been following this forum (and its predecessor) for over 8 years looking forward to this moment. I do hope that we see many more and that it turns out to be another key technology in delivering the worlds most cost effective carrier strike capability.
Hush. Don't you know that anything the RN does that is different from the rest of the world must be wrong - see escorts thread and T26 thread for examples.

In fact I remember the same being said about twin islands, going STOVL, the mechanised weapon handling system etc

RichardC
I have always said that SRVL would be the exception rather than the norm. VL offers better safety (which overrides most things in todays world), can be used in most conditions, and offers faster recovery. SRVL is only for that case of bringing back heavy loads in some conditions
Twin Islands is a solution for having two large gas turbines located apart from each other. It has zero other merits and many demerits.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Probably said the same about angled decks, mirror landing sights and steam catapults. Probably even armoured Flight Decks in WW2 as well :mrgreen:
Paranoid rubbish. The USN always give the UK full credit for inventing carriers, angle deck, steam catapults and the hurricane bow.

UK giving credit to the US for inventing nuclear powered ships, not so much.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:
RichardIC wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:I have always said that SRVL would be the exception rather than the norm. VL offers better safety (which overrides most things in todays world), can be used in most conditions, and offers faster recovery. SRVL is only for that case of bringing back heavy loads in some conditions
Interesting, but SRVL also seems to be used routinely in the (limited) coverage of F-35Bs operating from Marham, albeit at seemingly a higher landing speed and on a runway that isn't moving.
Where neither of the disadvantages I mentioned apply. Mind you neither do the advantages. SO probably training of an unfamiliar technique
For decades, the Harrier force used rolling landings on land as SOP. Both old Harriers and the newer plastic variety.

SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around". Not a good thing. I wonder how much extra fuel has to be carried for such an eventuality and I wonder how much that eats into the increased bring back load.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

SRVL first came about because of the UKs wish to operate the jet with heavy ordance (storm shadow) in the gulf in the summer. F35 can recover in a vertical landing with 2x 1000lb bombs and 2 amraam with 10knts wind over deck in tropical day temperature (as defined by MIL-STD-210A). Plenty of capability for the majority of operations especially since storm shadow requirement has disappeared and for the foreseeable its paveway 4 only and hopefully in future spear 3.

SRVL while good and has advantages does have the operational issue of what happens if the brakes fail on landing? Does the engine spool up quick enough to get off before you roll off the other end. This is why CTOL a/c go full power on landing and catching the wire. Add to this the amount of deck space that would need to be cleared and you can see why vertical is much better. Stop then land rather than land then stop!

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

Ron5 wrote:

Twin Islands is a solution for having two large gas turbines located apart from each other. It has zero other merits and many demerits.
That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from it
Ron5 wrote:
SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laning

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Paranoid rubbish. The USN always give the UK full credit for inventing carriers, angle deck, steam catapults and the hurricane bow.
Nothing paranoid about it.
I was not implying that they did not, just that there were some who were critical of each advance. Some might call them Luddites. I did not make nor intend any criticism of the USN whatsoever.

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

SRVL, is an innovation and military history of full of ones that changed warfare for ever. It is too early to assess how significant this one will be but it might be unwise to assume that the epitome of carrier based aviation will always be cats and traps. In any event isn't the F35 clever enough to land itself? I thought most aircraft accidents these days were due to pilot error.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

"Look, no wires!"

(Navy Lookout) 14 Oct 2018
BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson makes history as he conducts the first ever shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) on board HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:
Ron5 wrote:

Twin Islands is a solution for having two large gas turbines located apart from each other. It has zero other merits and many demerits.
That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from it
Ron5 wrote:


SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laning
1. So try and list a couple. You'll be stretching because there aren't any. Takes away deck space for no gain.

2. Bollox. Go read what the landing office said.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Bring Deeps wrote:SRVL, is an innovation and military history of full of ones that changed warfare for ever. It is too early to assess how significant this one will be but it might be unwise to assume that the epitome of carrier based aviation will always be cats and traps. In any event isn't the F35 clever enough to land itself? I thought most aircraft accidents these days were due to pilot error.
The Brits are going overboard on SRVL as if it's the most significant invention since since sliced bread. It isn't, rolling landings without arrestor cables have been done since carriers were first invented. I can only assume it's because there's damn all UK invention in the F-35B for the fanboi's to get excited about.

Next I expect some bright RN spark will suggest attaching a hook to the B and having a cable stretched across the deck to make rolling landings safer and a big safety net in case it doesn't work.

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by S M H »

The S.R.V.L. came about because of the amount of ordinance jettisoned by returning Harriers to clear max landing weights. This bedevilled the harriers in warm climates . I watched a Russia carrier recovery on Novorossiyk (137) which the aircraft recovery used a S.R.V.L. profile landing. According to the American working passenger we had it. Said the Soviet navy used it because vertical landings curtailed lift engines hours. They had a barrier on the flight deck on one surveillance run.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

There is something to be said (my post on the F-35 thread) about the 5% more thrust on hover (landing) and hence the weapons ' bring-back' problem will occur far less frequently.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply