UK Defence Forum

A pity! It sounds as if he has been persuaded to remain in the Senior Service though.

could he transfer to QE ?.........

How about a transfer to HMS Victory? Never had any prop shaft problems in 245 years of service.

Have you seen Victory at the moment, you need to be able to rip off rotten wood and then sit and stare whilst the chain of command decides if they are able to replace it or not!

serge750 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2023, 16:57 could he transfer to QE ?.........

Not sure, knowing his luck, he'll end up on one of the new Frigates being built in Scotland!

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2023, 08:40 A pity! It sounds as if he has been persuaded to remain in the Senior Service though.

Indeed, I just pointed out the opportunities within it, shore and ship based. Fingers crossed.

Aye at least he did serve abord HMS POW ,I'm not a hundred percent if next labour government would drop it the way shadow defence secretary is talking , about not doing the pivot to the east ,I could definitely see a review and selling POW with troubles etc and want to pivot back to signing up to every EU Europe defence scheme,and to pay for it POW gone ,mark my words folks ,so as said atleast nipper got a little tast of her but not the best time for the fella

Open question for anyone who knows: what would be the difficulties (aside from the obvious major construction) of adding an angled deck for STOBAR operations on the QEC? (Ie not adding cats).

And what opportunities would it present for additional aircraft?

The QE class were designed for (but not with) catapults, arrestor wires and an angled deck extension.

Even the aft island's shape was deliberately tapered at its rear end that FLYCO would have an uninterrupted view of an angled deck.

SKB wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 09:32 The QE class were designed for (but not with) catapults, arrestor wires and an angled deck extension.

Even the aft island's shape was deliberately tapered at its rear end that FLYCO would have an uninterrupted view of an angled deck.

The tapered rear end of the aft island faces aft, for a uninterrupted view of SRVL landing approaches from the rear of the carrier, not take offs from the angled deck.

I suppose one of the wider issues / questions I had was whether, if the issues of SRVL could not be overcome, might there be the ability to fit arrestor gear to the carrier and the F35B?

bobp wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:00The tapered rear end of the aft island faces aft, for a uninterrupted view of SRVL landing approaches from the rear of the carrier, not take offs from the angled deck.

I didn't say anything about takeoffs from an angled deck. Or SRVL's.

The rear of the aft island was designed with a taper to allow FLYCO a clear unobstructed view of an aircraft approaching from the starboard quarter for an ANGLED DECK LANDING, which is a flightpath not parallel with the centreline of the ship.

For SRVL's (which QE has already achieved), the F-35B has landed on the ship immediately from aft/stern/transom end, which from FLYCO's point of view did not require the aft island to be tapered, as that taper was purposely designed for angled deck landings should QE be modified in the future.

Dobbo wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:30 I suppose one of the wider issues / questions I had was whether, if the issues of SRVL could not be overcome, might there be the ability to fit arrestor gear to the carrier and the F35B?

Drawn by Suricata FX



https://www.janes.com/defence-news/nava ... ss-carrier

Why would an f-35b require arresting gear go watch a few landings on the carriers by these aircraft ,the conventional f-35c has such arrangement , the main reasons against conversion to cats and flaps and removal of ramp are costs and years of downtime for the ship involved perhaps in twenty years' time depending on if a replacement for the b model is being considered its anyone's guess

Zeno wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:48 Why would an f-35b require arresting gear go watch a few landings on the carriers by these aircraft ,the conventional f-35c has such arrangement , the main reasons against conversion to cats and flaps and removal of ramp are costs and years of downtime for the ship involved perhaps in twenty years' time depending on if a replacement for the b model is being considered its anyone's guess

My main thinking is the ability of the F35 to take off and return to ship with a full (or near full) load of fuel and weapons. As I understand it that is not possible with the current vertical landing solution - the rolling landing solution is intended to address that but I don’t know how successful that has been.

Dobbo wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 10:30 I suppose one of the wider issues / questions I had was whether, if the issues of SRVL could not be overcome, might there be the ability to fit arrestor gear to the carrier and the F35B?

The F35B airframe is not capable of taking the loads of a carrier arrestor landing. There would also be nowhere to place the arrestor hook.

Dobbo wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 12:18 My main thinking is the ability of the F35 to take off and return to ship with a full (or near full) load of fuel and weapons. As I understand it that is not possible with the current vertical landing solution

You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.

Ron5 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 13:25

Dobbo wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 12:18 My main thinking is the ability of the F35 to take off and return to ship with a full (or near full) load of fuel and weapons. As I understand it that is not possible with the current vertical landing solution

You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.

That’s good news thanks for the clarification

Posted about this before...surprisingly its gone further...



Interesting company...

https://www.animal-dynamics.com/

Brief bits from the article...with some interesting bits Bolded...

"The UK RN has selected Animal Dynamics' Stork STM UAV for phase two of its UAS heavy-lift challenge (UASHLC).

The Stork STM uses a parafoil wing to generate lift, allowing it to fly up to 400km with a 135kg payload.

To support the challenge, Animal Dynamics is marinising the Stork STM to integrate SATCOM and developing the ability to launch sonobuoys.

The company is also furthering wing development.

The range and payload of the UAV allow it to meet the RN's requirements for intra and inter-theatre lift missions."

Ron5 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.

This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.

The KPI for f35b vertical landing is in tropical condition to be able to execute the recovery flight profile with 2x 1000lb jdam and 2x aim 120 amraam and a full load of expendables. That remains the case.

Timmymagic wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:09 The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive ..

I don't think empty tanks weigh that much.

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:49 ... and a full load of expendables ....

Fuel would be dumped.

Ron5 wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 12:35

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:49 ... and a full load of expendables ....

Fuel would be dumped.

Expendables doesn’t mean fuel!

SW1 wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 13:17

Ron5 wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 12:35

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:49 ... and a full load of expendables ....

Fuel would be dumped.

Expendables doesn’t mean fuel!

So how much would the not fuel expendables weigh for the F-35?

It appears the Navy has to foot the POW bill.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rbour.html