Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

Dolphin joins the ship


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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Not seen any smoke from either of the new carriers. I assume they have the latest exhaust cleaners installed to keep down dirty emissions
There's a fair bit on start-up, as with any large diesel generator, but it seems to burn fairly clean after that. But I've never seen anything about a scrubbing system, particularly one which vents into the water, which given the rest of the environmentally conscious decisions in the design (see below link) is either unusual, or more likely one isn't required. I suspect the latter as the diesel gensets will be running a lot cleaner than the large 2 stroke engines that are seen on commercial vessels.

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... 12-07-2017

djkeos
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 18 Apr 2016, 10:29
Netherlands

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by djkeos »

From the Aircraft Carrier Alliance page:

"28/11/2018
HMS Prince of Wales mighty diesel generator has been powered-up for the first time marking a key milestone on the road to sending the 65,000 tonne warship to sea next year."

See: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... 28-11-2018

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 »

PoW has left Invergordon.


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 »

djkeos wrote:From the Aircraft Carrier Alliance page:

"28/11/2018
HMS Prince of Wales mighty diesel generator has been powered-up for the first time marking a key milestone on the road to sending the 65,000 tonne warship to sea next year."

See: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... 28-11-2018
Yikes, somebody must have left a pair of old socks in the funnel.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Yikes, somebody must have left a pair of old socks in the funnel.
It's only for a few seconds, there was some video of it somewhere. I made the mistake of standing next to a large group of backup diesel generators, each one the size of a 20 foot TEU, once when the power failed and they kicked in...the initial 'cough' as they started left me covered head to toe in soot, I looked like Justin Trudeau at a party, after they were on though the exhaust was fairly clean.

Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Any reason why the weapon bays of the F-35's are always open when they are on deck?


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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:


When are they planning a max weight take offs?

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

R686 wrote:When are they planning a max weight take offs?
It's a good question, but it might not be one for the UK at present. If we load an F-35B with the maximum number of UK cleared stores (2 x Internal PWIV, 2 x Internal Amraam, 4 x external PWIV and 2 x Asraam and max fuel we're still nowhere near the F-35B's max take off weight. I guess at the moment we'd need the USMC or the ITF to do those tests using US stores to get a feel for the performance. The UK isn't really going to need the full performance envelope on takeoff until (and if) FCASW or heavier bombs are cleared for UK use and thats unlikely until 2026+. We could use the twin racks for PWIV at some point in the future (again after Blk.4 introduced so post 2026) but that would still leave a fair gap to max takeoff weight. It's the same with weapon bringback. For the UK at present, and as far as we know, its just not a problem.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Jdam wrote:Any reason why the weapon bays of the F-35's are always open when they are on deck?
If I had to take a stab, I'd say to allow a post flight inspection.

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:post 2026 [)] but that would still leave a fair gap to max takeoff weight
If we were to intro AShMs, say in the guise of JSMs, woud that still be the case?
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:If we were to intro AShMs, say in the guise of JSMs, woud that still be the case?
JSM's would only be external, but even then they're not a very heavy store. They're only 900lb's per missile and they're not going to have a dual mount for them.

LRASM is a different beast though...

Basically, as soon as we abandoned external carry of Storm Shadow the max weight question for the UK became moot. The one thing that could change that anytime soon is if the F-35 gets external tanks cleared for use (and/or a buddy tank, not planned at present) as I'm pretty sure they would be rapidly adopted by the RAF/RN.

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 »

Timmymagic wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:If we were to intro AShMs, say in the guise of JSMs, woud that still be the case?
JSM's would only be external, but even then they're not a very heavy store. They're only 900lb's per missile and they're not going to have a dual mount for them.

LRASM is a different beast though...

Basically, as soon as we abandoned external carry of Storm Shadow the max weight question for the UK became moot. The one thing that could change that anytime soon is if the F-35 gets external tanks cleared for use (and/or a buddy tank, not planned at present) as I'm pretty sure they would be rapidly adopted by the RAF/RN.
I believe the current favorite is a 600 gallon tank. How much would two of those weigh?

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 »

There’s a couple of Max’s they maybe able to test but surely the max weight from a stores point of view will be max weight for mode 4 recovery unless your planning to dump them. You ain’t doing that with 600 gallon fuel tanks. There may also be more modifications required than you may realise to allow f35b to receive external tanks should ones ever appear.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:I believe the current favorite is a 600 gallon tank. How much would two of those weigh?
A 600 gallon tank would weigh c3,500lbs each....but that was the size that IAI was talking about developing for the F-35A. The LM tank was to be 460 gallons, which all up, including the tank itself will weigh c3,000lbs.

Whats not clear at present is how far along anyone is on this, and if the external tanks would be suitable for all versions of F-35. I don't think it would be surprising to find that only the 460 would work for an F-35B, especially on a shortened takeoff.

The advantage of a fuel tank, in comparison to a weapon, is that you could if necessary dump the fuel at comparatively low cost compared to a PGM, to get back onboard. The tank itself would only be ditched in extremis as they're no longer considered expendable.

The lack of proposed 'options' for the F-35 like this is a little perplexing. Lots have been proposed, no doubt the lack of aircraft for testing and the software development has slowed it down, but you would have thought that whomever gets a compatible tank to market first will make a bundle of sales to every operator going. If they can add in some other features, like a luggage pod section, or a recon or EW pod in the same qualified shape they could stand to make some serious money. I'm not so sure on the conformals that the Israeli's were proposing, or the stealth weapons pods for that matter, they seem an order of magnitude more complex, but its gone very quiet on those.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe this could be an opening for a British company to develop a low viz fuel tank for the F-35, using composite materials that is affordable and expendable so that the F-35s could operate like some WWII aircraft, carrying the tanks and jettisoning them one empty on the way to the target, increasing the range of any given strike mission, or extending the duration of CAP, without affecting the manoeuvrability of the aircraft in combat. If one was developed and adopted by the UK, I am pretty sure they could sell them to other F-35 operators.

90inFIRST
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:00
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by 90inFIRST »

topman wrote:
Jdam wrote:Any reason why the weapon bays of the F-35's are always open when they are on deck?
If I had to take a stab, I'd say to allow a post flight inspection.
The doors are part of the aerodynamics of the landing the help duct the jet blast

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

But once on deck it is probably because of safety considerations. I remember reading that one of the considerations for putting an F-35, with internal weapon bays, on a carrier / LHD / what-have-you was how to effectively fight a fire into the aircraft, and having a way to spray up into the bays was one of the concerns.
Figure it might have something to do with that.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Lord Jim wrote:Maybe this could be an opening for a British company to develop a low viz fuel tank for the F-35, using composite materials that is affordable and expendable so that the F-35s could operate like some WWII aircraft, carrying the tanks and jettisoning them one empty on the way to the target, increasing the range of any given strike mission, or extending the duration of CAP, without affecting the manoeuvrability of the aircraft in combat. If one was developed and adopted by the UK, I am pretty sure they could sell them to other F-35 operators.
Do you mean routinely jettisoned? Not sure there's much of a market for that.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:If one was developed and adopted by the UK, I am pretty sure they could sell them to other F-35 operators.
The uk can design and develop whatever external pod/fuel tanks it likes but they will be nowhere near a flying F35 as it cannot certify them. This is US aircraft program and they say when and what gets integrated in what order and they present you with the bill, so no ones taking that risk without the US being onboard and making sure no other US company is interested.

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 »

From June Aviation Week. Copying in full because I think its behind a paywall. Note, this is all about F-35A/I. No mention here or anywhere else I could find that refers to F-35B.

Lockheed Martin Proposes 40% Fuel Capacity Upgrade for F-35A
Jun 13, 2019 Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Lockheed Martin has started engineering studies focused on substantially extending the range of the F-35A by increasing the total onboard fuel capacity by 40% and improving the aircraft’s fuel efficiency, Aviation Week has learned.

The studies would resurrect a long-abandoned plan to install external fuel tanks under the wings of the conventional takeoff-and-landing variant. The range-extension study also could benefit from proposed propulsion improvements, such as Pratt & Whitney’s Growth Option upgrade offer for the F135 engine.

“We have had early discussions with various F-35 customers regarding extended-range opportunities,” a Lockheed spokesman says.

Driving the studies are demands from multiple customers, especially Israel, to extend the reach of the F-35A beyond its advertised combat radius of 590 nm and ferry range of 1,200 nm using only fuel carried internally. This news also comes as the U.S. Air Force seeks funding from Congress to order eight Boeing F-15EX fighters, part of a long-term plan to acquire at least 144. The original F-15E boasts a ferry range of 2,085 nm with conformal fuel tanks and wing-mounted tanks.

Most combat aircraft, including Lockheed Martin’s stealthy F-22, are certified to carry external fuel tanks when they enter service, but all three F-35 variants achieved initial operational capability status without such certification.

But that was not always the plan for the F-35. Lockheed performed a multiyear series of wind-tunnel studies in 2004-07 on various external fuel tank designs for the F-35, including one called the C-13 and another optimized to minimize yaw and drag effects. However, program officials dropped the requirement for an external fuel tank some time after 2007 without explanation.

Instead, program officials often highlighted the stealth and drag performance benefits of operating the F-35 without external fuel tanks. The F-35A is designed to carry 18,500 lb. of fuel internally, which is nearly equivalent to the 19,000-lb. maximum takeoff weight of the original Lockheed F-16A.

Not all customers wanted to rely on the range provided by internal fuel capacity alone, though. When the U.S. State Department approved the Israeli export configuration in 2011, the F-35I included external fuel tanks. But the impact on the cost and schedule for the aircraft forced Israeli officials to defer the requirement.

Nonetheless, work continued on the project within Israel’s aircraft industry. In April, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Elbit Systems’ Cyclone subsidiary confirmed that they had completed initial design studies on different fuel tank designs. IAI studied a conformal fuel tank design, while Cyclone examined a design for a 600-gal. external fuel tank. The latter would likely help preserve the F-35I’s stealthy profile on radar.

Lockheed confirms that it is now engaged in a study about the option for a 600-gal. fuel tank and a wing pylon that can be jettisoned. The tank is designed to be integrated on the inboard stations—3 and 9—on each wing, the company says. Although the pilot can restore the F-35A’s stealth signature to radar by jettisoning the tank and pylon, it is not clear how the radar cross-section is affected with the equipment attached to the wing.

Given that the 18,500-lb. internal fuel capacity of the F-35A is equivalent to 3,000 gal., adding two 600-gal. external tanks on an F-35A would raise overall fuel volume onboard to 4,200 gal., or 25,700 lb. That still falls short of the 35,500-lb. capacity for an F-15E configured for a ferry flight but should dramatically increase the single-engine fighter’s endurance.

“While exact ranges depend on mission profiles, our studies show a significant increase in both range and loiter time—or mission persistence,” a Lockheed spokesman says.

So far, the company has completed feasibility studies and conducted initial analysis, as well as early design of the range-extension upgrades. The industry-funded work was done in advance of an approved customer requirement, but Lockheed plans to present the range extension as a candidate upgrade through the Continuous Capability, Development and Delivery framework for the F-35’s follow-on modernization program, also known as Block 4.

The remaining work required includes detailed design and qualification of the fuel tank and pylon, as well as software integration, flight testing and airworthiness certification, Lockheed says.

PS one of the comments pointed out that the gallon to weight calculations were incorrect for military fuel.

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 »

90inFIRST wrote:
topman wrote:
Jdam wrote:Any reason why the weapon bays of the F-35's are always open when they are on deck?
If I had to take a stab, I'd say to allow a post flight inspection.
The doors are part of the aerodynamics of the landing the help duct the jet blast
Seems variable, sometimes they are open and sometimes not. Just by eye it would look as if they might entrap some thrust below the aircraft.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

The strakes/gun pods helped with the harrier aswell,

Would it be a good idea or feasible to put a parachute to slow the decent & prevent damage & a tracker on the drop tank so they can be picked up by a hellicopter & re-used ?


Post Reply