UK Defence Forum

Ron5 wrote:-

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.

Maybe with an angled deck to keep the incoming "bolter" at a safer distance from the parked aircraft!!!

'Nothing remains static in war or military weapons, and it is consequently often dangerous to rely on courses suggested by apparent similarities in the past.' Admiral Ernest King.

Ron5 wrote:

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.

Sorry, I've been at work and had what little brain I had drip out of my ears...
How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?

Little J wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

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.

Sorry, I've been at work and had what little brain I had drip out of my ears...
How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?

No brakes can’t stop planes keeps rolling forward unless it has reverse thrusters

Little J wrote:-

How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?

I think that you will find that it is more likely to be double that!!!

Testing on board the carrier was done at 40 kn which is 46 mile an hour but that is a relatively light aircraft

Scimitar54 wrote: I think that you will find that it is more likely to be double that!!!

OK have to admit, I guessed the speed. But I've just watched a simulator demo of it landing SRVL at 58 knots, so if the ship is travelling at say 15 knots, I wasn't that far off the closing speed
So I still don't think it is going to be in danger of falling off the ski ramp...

R686 wrote:No brakes can’t stop planes keeps rolling forward unless it has reverse thrusters

It has flown at 30 knots backwards, I imagine that would help slow it down if the pilot finds the brakes failed...

They will not be closing on each other, the aircraft will need to be travelling 30-40mph faster (relative to the Carrier) and if the carrier is "underway" at say 20-25 Knots, then I think my figure is more likely to be closer to the mark.

Little J wrote:

R686 wrote:No brakes can’t stop planes keeps rolling forward unless it has reverse thrusters

It has flown at 30 knots backwards, I imagine that would help slow it down if the pilot finds the brakes failed...

It will be hey oh shit moment it will be easier to increase power with forward motion then to slowing down and go around drop stores or fuel then come in for a VL

Scimitar54 wrote:They will not be closing on each other, the aircraft will need to be travelling 30-40mph faster (relative to the Carrier) and if the carrier is "underway" at say 20-25 Knots, then I think my figure is more likely to be closer to the mark.

So you've just agreed with me??? SRVL @58 Knots, with QE doing (you say) 20 Knots means that the plane is traveling at 38 Knots (43mph) faster relative to the Carrier.
Anyway I've been up since 05.30 it's now 00.45 night all.

Ron5 wrote:

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.

Survivability
EMC
There are others, but you said a couple

Errr:

Good to see its not just USN that protect and therefore value their high end assets!
QE without a layered ability to defend itself with our reducing escort capability is another short sighted own goal. The kind of thing we did before the Falklands, and now apparently.

Enigmatically wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

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.

Survivability
EMC
There are others, but you said a couple

What are they.

Genuinely interested as opposed to trolling.

The one usually quoted is that the bridge and flyco can be optimally sited for their respective functions

And the two funnels spaced wide apart allows the exhaust heat to be more widely dispersed. One big funnel on a single island would create one big 'hot spot'.

Little J wrote:So you've just agreed with me??? SRVL @58 Knots, with QE doing (you say) 20 Knots means that the plane is traveling at 38 Knots (43mph) faster relative to the Carrier.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/1 ... im_flight/

"It's a 35-knot overtaking speed at a seven-degree angle relative to the boat... You're literally coming down at the perfect speed and the perfect angle."

And in other developments

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6947

“I will have the honor of conducting the first SRVL at sea for the U.S. military, so I’m excited; it’s what we all join up for. This is truly experimental test flying.”

Caribbean wrote:The one usually quoted is that the bridge and flyco can be optimally sited for their respective functions

That indeed would have been the next one I would have mentioned.

But , what have the twin islands ever done for us?
Optimal siting of bridge and flyco Reg.
Well obviously optimal siting of bridge and flyco., that goes without saying
Easier construction (you can lift islands that size on Goliath)

All right, apart from the shorter exhaust routes, EMC, survivability, Optimal siting of bridge and flyco, easier construction, what have the twin islands ever done for us?
Separated access routes

etc

A consideration of respective design differences between U.S.N carriers and the U.k class are the differences in conning, consider the difference between bow and bridge on both vessel types and the ability to gauge areas in front of vessels for navigation , line of sight etc.

Deleted the off-topic / shit-posts. Admin punishments will be issued if it occurs again.

HMS PRINCE OF WALES (16 October 2018)

Credit to Dave Cullen Photography 2018

Little J wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

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.

Sorry, I've been at work and had what little brain I had drip out of my ears...
How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?

Speed is irrelevant. If the approach is wrong or the aircraft can't stop (as noted above), the go button will be pressed and the pilot gets to go around and do it over. Or go around, jettison stuff and do a VL. Extra fuel will have to be reserved to enable either course of action. That will cut into bring back loads.

Ron,
just take it from me, SRVL allows bigger bring back loads than VL. Fact. No its not a big revolution in carrier operations. But it does what it says on the tin.

And it also means we don't need a buddy-buddy refueller standing by. So quite different from arrested landings

Enigmatically wrote:Ron,
just take it from me, SRVL allows bigger bring back loads than VL. Fact. No its not a big revolution in carrier operations. But it does what it says on the tin.

And it also means we don't need a buddy-buddy refueller standing by. So quite different from arrested landings

Enigmatically, I don’t understand the logic of the last paragraph. Surely, no matter the means of recovery, trap, vertical or SRVL, aircraft can be returning to ship from missions low on fuel and a bolt whether from failed trap or aborted SRVL can push that aircraft into a situation where it might need buddy buddy refuelling. Surely therefore, if it were ever to become available to the RN whether through modified F35’s or Ospreys or other future aircraft, and by some miracle the funds to afford it, we would take that option?

SRVL will allow greater bringback under normal operational circumstances but that cannot always be guaranteed. Imagine what just an extra unplanned 5 mins flying in air-to-air combat would do to planned fuel reserves.

Enigmatically wrote:Ron,
just take it from me, SRVL allows bigger bring back loads than VL. Fact. No its not a big revolution in carrier operations. But it does what it says on the tin.

And it also means we don't need a buddy-buddy refueller standing by. So quite different from arrested landings

1. Of course it does, did anyone say different?

2. Don't tell me it's not a revolution, tell your fellow Brits that are treating it like such.

3. Like I keep saying, to avoid having a tanker, SRVL requires the aircraft to maintain increased fuel for a possible go around. Actually, you need increase reserves even if there was a tanker because you'd need extra fuel to go mate with it. That decreases bring back. Maybe by a couple thousand pounds?

4. VL will remain the landing type of choice unless it means jettisoning expensive weapons.