Engineers can get anything to work, given the resources.Pongoglo wrote:Still cant understand why we couldn't get the gun to work with GR7/9.
I'd be looking at the BUMF wallahs, desk jockeys & bean counters as probable cause...
Engineers can get anything to work, given the resources.Pongoglo wrote:Still cant understand why we couldn't get the gun to work with GR7/9.
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.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
Which - OK, in money terms -they did . So we have 1.4, instead of 0.7 of them when seen in availability termsTimmymagic wrote: It would be easier to just build a new carrier...
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
Where neither of the disadvantages I mentioned apply. Mind you neither do the advantages. SO probably training of an unfamiliar techniqueRichardIC wrote: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.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
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: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.
Speak for yourself. VL will always the the landing of choice. Safer.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.
Other way round, SRVL slows landing rates. Needs more deck.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.
Twin Islands is a solution for having two large gas turbines located apart from each other. It has zero other merits and many demerits.Enigmatically wrote: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.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.
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
Paranoid rubbish. The USN always give the UK full credit for inventing carriers, angle deck, steam catapults and the hurricane bow.Scimitar54 wrote:Probably said the same about angled decks, mirror landing sights and steam catapults. Probably even armoured Flight Decks in WW2 as well
For decades, the Harrier force used rolling landings on land as SOP. Both old Harriers and the newer plastic variety.Enigmatically wrote:Where neither of the disadvantages I mentioned apply. Mind you neither do the advantages. SO probably training of an unfamiliar techniqueRichardIC wrote: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.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
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".
Nothing paranoid about it.Paranoid rubbish. The USN always give the UK full credit for inventing carriers, angle deck, steam catapults and the hurricane bow.
BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson makes history as he conducts the first ever shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) on board HMS Queen Elizabeth.
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".
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.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.