Hms Queen Elizabeth latest Vid

[david parry]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-j7aRZ4S4za... look at all those FS35s;)

[Engines]

I'm truly sorry if this sounds 'spotterish', but this new video is really disappointing.

This was certainly not cheap to produce. Obviously, a great deal of effort (and time and money - taxpayers' money) has gone into generating the various scenes and sequences to a high standard of detail, rendering and so forth. So why in the name of all that's pixel generated didn't the production team get someone with maritime aviation experience to give the product a check for accuracy at some stage? Or get the aircraft models checked out?

The F-35B's are nice to look at, but have clearly been built up from early pictures. The external antennae are wrong, the tailerons are the wrong shape, and the contours of the fuselage are out. It looks as if the model was lifted from an old three view diagram, or old pictures, from around 2004/5. Yeah, I know it's detail, but it would probably have cost about the same to get them right.

Flight deck parking - aircraft up forward are nicely parked so as to 'lock in' the two or three forward aircraft. Really? Tie downs are shown as strops - they'd be chains. The strops are attached to tie down points that don't exist. Same point as above - would have cost no more to get it right.

But the worst mistake is that in spite of having a digital model of the F-35B with the lift system doors open (used in the landing sequence), they still managed to show aircraft taking off up the ramp with all the lift system doors closed. Lots and lots of times. Look, it's not as if there aren't tons of good high quality videos of F-35B takeoffs out there to check with. It just makes the result a bit of a joke in my view.

And what sort of landing method was that? Looked like a 45 degree running landing, or some other concoction.

Having typed out this lot, I suppose that 99% of the people watching it will be suitably impressed, and not notice the many errors - but it's a shame to see even a CGI version of a ship (and its' Air Group) ruined for the proverbial 'ha'porth of tar'.

However, best regards as ever to those actually doing the business with the new ship and the new jets. There's a long way to go, but there's a decent chance that the UK will end up with a really good capability.

Engines

[Just This Once...]

I thought the use of reheat was a nice touch.

[Background Noise]

I'm truly sorry if this sounds 'spotterish', but this new video is really disappointing.

New? Not sure when it was made but it appears to have been posted on youtube in July last year.

[david parry]

Turned into wind and at speed for recovery stations , with the side lift wells down:= You wouldn't get away with that on the Happy H, many moons ago, or these two new flat tops . Notice the overkill on the F35s numbers?? When the grown ups at the MOD said quote 809 and 617 squadron will consist of 8 aircraft each!!! Surging up to 12 in an emergency:( ps thought the best thing about the Vid was the music....Daedalus composed by Michael McDermott,with the band of the Royal Marines 2.01 in hands to flying stations

[Finnpog]

Good point to include the Wokka squadron(s) - shame no green Merlins.
I had read somewhere (probbly here?) that the lifts & hangers were designed with the Chinook in mind, which is usefully far sighted.

[hawk-eye]

It's been posted recently by BAE systems but it's an old video. If you listen to the audio at 9:20 minutes it says "In 2009 the Royal Navy celebrates..." as opposed to "the Royal Navy celebrated".

[Bigbux]

"But the worst mistake is that in spite of having a digital model of the F-35B with the lift system doors open (used in the landing sequence), they still managed to show aircraft taking off up the ramp with all the lift system doors closed."

That's because these aren't F-35 Bs. They are Sea Lightnings - which we have apparently decided to buy instead.

My favourite part was when the "Top Gun" -style electric guitars kicked in. I was just waiting for computer generated, shirtless aircrew to mince around flicking each other with their shower towels.

[AtomKraft]

The carriers look great, and I'm sure that those who serve on them will do great too.

But am I the only one who wonders what strategy lies at the roots of their procurement?

Carriers are for sailing to far away countries, and then bombing them.

Personally, in the light of recent events, I think it's about time we knocked that **** off.

[MPN11]

Strange that video implies pennant numbers R08 and R09 are being retained, instead of spending extra paint on new numbers. :suspect:

[Turbine D]

I was thinking it would be good to have at least one of the carriers having launch and recovery systems, just in case, in the event of, oh, you know what I mean…;)

[draken55]

This video has been on the Carrier Alliance website since 2009 so it's by no means new. It's still a pretty impressive use of CGI though, as indeed was the animation of the entire carrier build process.

Since then, video taken aboard the USS Wasp has provided more accurate imagery of what the real aircraft looks like when taking off from a flat deck and then recovering vertically.

To my knowledge, the F-35B has yet to take off using a ski-jump although one exists at NAS Lakehurst for trials purposes.

[Lordflasheart]

Pretty pictures, whatever the date. Shame about the Planeguards. Or perhaps the two CVs were doing mutual PG for each other ? ....... LFH

[Danny42C]

"All this will I believe", said Thomas, "when I shall see".

[Martin the Martian]

Very impressive ships, for sure, if ugly, but...

...there is going to be a lot of room on the flightdeck with the likely size of air group. Perhaps they'll use part of it for a go-kart track like many RAF stations have on their disused runways?

[stilton]

Having a Carrier this size while limiting yourself to only VSTOL Aircraft is just nuts.


And that second, redundant island is just ugly :eek:

[Not_a_boffin]

And that second, redundant island is just ugly

Ugly it may be. Redundant it ain't. At least not if you know why it's there and what benefits it brings.

[The Old Fat One]

Given that it seems practically ancient (mild exaggeration for effect) could we perhaps re-title (or better still just delete).

I just wasted 10 seconds of my life watching and thinking..."what is this ****ing sh1te".

And then another 90 seconds typing this.

[Hempy]

A portent of the future, the RCGIN. Our motto - "Baffle Them With BS"..

[david parry]

NB , they wouldn't agree with you on the Gerald Ford Class
....new smaller island that has been pushed aft. ....

[RedhillPhil]

I listened carefully - twice. He did say it. He said "designage". What the hell is happening to the language?

[Not_a_boffin]

they wouldn't agree with you on the Gerald Ford Class
....new smaller island that has been pushed aft. ....


There are three crucial differences between QEC and CVN78 which might just have influenced that difference in configuration....

[david parry]

Ah! Yes;) That will be Nuclear ,EMALs and a Massive CAG

[hulahoop7]

When the grown ups at the MOD said quote 809 and 617 squadron will consist of 8 aircraft each!!! Surging up to 12 in an emergency:(
Can you point to a source on that?

[david parry]

Yep!!!! Be my Guest Quote .. my source of 8 surging to 12 Britain's Defence Squeeze: Channel 4 Dispatches on Channel 4 + 1, Mon 16 Mar 8:30pm - Your UK TV Listings at TVGuide.co.uk (http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail/2110082/106389720/britains-defence-squeeze-channel-4-dispatches#.VRrx9Nq9KSM) Ps this is about embarked aircraft!!! As the thread is about a Flat top ...this is a smaller number embarked in Defence review quote F-35 orders and deliveries are obviously being pushed further down the line. So Instead of having the two front line squadrons by the early 2020s, we will only have one. Thus the now advertised figure of 6 routinely embarked and 12 during a surge (previously it was 12 and 24).

[LowObservable]

Engines - They wanted to use the 2018-configuration F-35s but they cost three times as much as the drawings from 2005.

[Not_a_boffin]

Ah! Yes That will be Nuclear ,EMALs and a Massive CAG

One and a bit out of three. Back to 736 for you!

[david parry]

809 if you don't mind...Spiv will not be amused;)

[Fareastdriver]

The railway track on the Forth Bridge, built in 1890, is 46 metres above the water level. Ther is about a 3 metre variation in the tide at Leith.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is about 55 metres above the water line..

[pr00ne]

...and is equipped with a fully folding mast!

[melmothtw]

The railway track on the Forth Bridge, built in 1890, is 46 metres above the water level. Ther is about a 3 metre variation in the tide at Leith.

Why does the QE need to go under it anyway?



Edited to remove: It's 110 metres, according to Wiki - height and height above the water level not being the same, of course.

[Biggus]

Perhaps because the QE is being built upstream of the bridge, i.e. to reach the open sea the QE has to pass underneath the bridge.

[melmothtw]

Well, that would explain why it needs to go under it.

ps; thanks for the 'ie' explanation ;-)

[PhilipG]

I think that I saw that the top masts can be lowered down so that the Carriers can get out to sea.
What surprises me about the video is that there are F35s that look to be working in the video, a leap of faith I would have thought...

[sandiego89]

.......To my knowledge, the F-35B has yet to take off using a ski-jump although one exists at NAS Lakehurst for trials purposes

Draken, not so sure about if there is/was a ramp at Lakehurst, but there has been a ski jump at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, or as most call it "Pax River". Lakehurst does do most of the initial catapult and arrestment testing for US (and French) Navy aircraft. Pax River does the majority of US Navy test and evalation, envelope expansion, weapons release trials, etc and has been heavily involved in F-35 Work. They first got a ramp there in the 1980's? and tested many aircraft on the ramp- even the F-14.

Pax River recently got a newer ramp for the "B". I have seen it. Agree that I have not heard of a F-35 using a ramp yet.

2014 Article on the newer ramp at Pax River.

Pax ski jump readied for future F-35B Lightning II launches -- DCMilitary.com (http://www.dcmilitary.com/article/20140522/NEWS14/140529960/pax-ski-jump-readied-for-future-f-35b-lightning-ii-launches)

[david parry]

Port side too for a liquid RAS...That's a new one for a carrier:rolleyes:

[Just This Once...]

One hopes that the trials validate the chosen ramp profile, given the build-state of the carriers....

[Not_a_boffin]

Can do both sides (L), multiple points. RAS(S) and RAS(A) on stbd side as the storing routes are (quite correctly) via the lifts which are again - quite correctly - clear of the t/o and landing areas.

Not like we haven't done close company RAS - port and starboard before. One of Hermes here, you're probably there somewhere!


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/62/e7/0a/62e70a81310a00bf0281aeb852631f55.jpg

[david parry]

Yes I'm at Vertrep!!!! But we are only taking FFO aka liquids to Stbd and Solids only to Port, you are taking liquids to Port on the QE????? Correct? So the skipper will be on the other side in the bridge taking station on a liquid only RAS ooh: We never could or would take liquids to Port,to dodgy ps don't think you could do a 6 ship RAS today lol. http://www.rfa-association.org.uk/index.php/component/docman/doc_download/130-mars-bulletin-3?Itemid=

[draken55]

Sandiego89

Thanks for the correction.

[Not_a_boffin]

The carrier will be the station ship, with the RFA formating on her.

Would suspect that most RAS will be to stbd (L or S), with the L's being two double probes (four hoses), F76 and F44.

In the event that the ship needs to RAS(L) and RAS(S) simultaneously, that's when you'd put the tanker to port.

Eyelines for bridge watchkeepers have been considered and if you think about it, it's easier to slip a liquid rig for breakaway than a solid one.

RAS (particularly S and A) are another skillset that is going to require some significant practice.

[etimegev]

One really hopes that the RN have done due diligence and the ships will be worth it rather than pandering to some crusty old sea dog's hankering for 'the good old days'.

[david parry]

F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20150403_AW-05_274&YM_RID='email'&YM_MID='mmid'&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1)