Maybe with an angled deck to keep the incoming "bolter" at a safer distance from the parked aircraft!!!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.
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Ron5 wrote:-
-
Online
- Donator
- Posts: 220
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
'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.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Sorry, I've been at work and had what little brain I had drip out of my ears...Ron5 wrote:1. So try and list a couple. You'll be stretching because there aren't any. Takes away deck space for no gain.Enigmatically wrote:That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from itRon5 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.
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laningRon5 wrote:
SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
2. Bollox. Go read what the landing office said.
How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Little J wrote:Ron5 wrote:1. So try and list a couple. You'll be stretching because there aren't any. Takes away deck space for no gain.Enigmatically wrote:That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from itRon5 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.
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laningRon5 wrote:
SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Little J wrote:-
I think that you will find that it is more likely to be double that!!!How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Testing on board the carrier was done at 40 kn which is 46 mile an hour but that is a relatively light aircraft
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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 speedScimitar54 wrote: I think that you will find that it is more likely to be double that!!!
So I still don't think it is going to be in danger of falling off the ski ramp...
It has flown at 30 knots backwards, I imagine that would help slow it down if the pilot finds the brakes failed...R686 wrote:No brakes can’t stop planes keeps rolling forward unless it has reverse thrusters
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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 VLLittle J wrote:It has flown at 30 knots backwards, I imagine that would help slow it down if the pilot finds the brakes failed...R686 wrote:No brakes can’t stop planes keeps rolling forward unless it has reverse thrusters
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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.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.
Anyway I've been up since 05.30 it's now 00.45 night all.
-
- Member
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
SurvivabilityRon5 wrote:1. So try and list a couple. You'll be stretching because there aren't any. Takes away deck space for no gain.Enigmatically wrote:That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from itRon5 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.
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laningRon5 wrote:
SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
2. Bollox. Go read what the landing office said.
EMC
There are others, but you said a couple
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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.
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.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What are they.Enigmatically wrote:SurvivabilityRon5 wrote:1. So try and list a couple. You'll be stretching because there aren't any. Takes away deck space for no gain.Enigmatically wrote:That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from itRon5 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.
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laningRon5 wrote:
SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
2. Bollox. Go read what the landing office said.
EMC
There are others, but you said a couple
Genuinely interested as opposed to trolling.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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
Winston Churchill
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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'.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/1 ... im_flight/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.
"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.”
-
- Member
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
That indeed would have been the next one I would have mentioned.Caribbean wrote:The one usually quoted is that the bridge and flyco can be optimally sited for their respective functions
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
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Deleted the off-topic / shit-posts. Admin punishments will be issued if it occurs again.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
HMS PRINCE OF WALES (16 October 2018)
Credit to Dave Cullen Photography 2018
Credit to Dave Cullen Photography 2018
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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.Little J wrote:Sorry, I've been at work and had what little brain I had drip out of my ears...Ron5 wrote:1. So try and list a couple. You'll be stretching because there aren't any. Takes away deck space for no gain.Enigmatically wrote:That was why it was first thought of. But it is not its only advantage. Far from itRon5 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.
No it doesn't. This is not like an arrestor laningRon5 wrote:
SRVL re-introduces to the the RN the bolter or "go around".
2. Bollox. Go read what the landing office said.
How do you have a "bolter" on an aircraft travelling at around 30-40 mph? What am I missing?
-
- Member
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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
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
-
- Member
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 29 Jul 2015, 07:28
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
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?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
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.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
1. Of course it does, did anyone say different?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
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.