Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

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!!!

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 »

'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.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Little J »

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?

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

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

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 »

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!!!

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

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

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Little J »

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 :D
So I still don't think it is going to be in danger of falling off the ski ramp... :shifty:
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...

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 »

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.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

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

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Little J »

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.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

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

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 »

Errr:
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)

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

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.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by downsizer »

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.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

The one usually quoted is that the bridge and flyco can be optimally sited for their respective functions
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

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'.

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 »

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.”

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

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

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

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.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

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


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

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.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

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

Wrekin1410
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 29 Jul 2015, 07:28

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Wrekin1410 »

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.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

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.

Post Reply