Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference the deck layouts in post 3321.
Are we convinced that the deck run for a STOVL jet will be the same as the C model on the cat? (Yeah - I know, ramp, blah, runway in the sky, blah...but are the two really equal?)
At any given weight?
Also, how much of the deck behind a STOVL jet is useable? You can pretty much do what you want behind a Jet Blast Deflector which of course the STOVL design won't have.
Anyone know if you can go up the ramp in after burner or is there a maximum end speed issue as there was in the Harrier? Will this also limit deck run - or AUW - as per Harrier?
Lastly. In the CV design shouldn't the wires be perpendicular across the Landing Area? They seem to be raked.
Perhaps the picture should be simply called: "Oh dear, oh dear, a study of what might have been."
Are we convinced that the deck run for a STOVL jet will be the same as the C model on the cat? (Yeah - I know, ramp, blah, runway in the sky, blah...but are the two really equal?)
At any given weight?
Also, how much of the deck behind a STOVL jet is useable? You can pretty much do what you want behind a Jet Blast Deflector which of course the STOVL design won't have.
Anyone know if you can go up the ramp in after burner or is there a maximum end speed issue as there was in the Harrier? Will this also limit deck run - or AUW - as per Harrier?
Lastly. In the CV design shouldn't the wires be perpendicular across the Landing Area? They seem to be raked.
Perhaps the picture should be simply called: "Oh dear, oh dear, a study of what might have been."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca,
Perhaps I can help here.
Deck run for a STOVL F-35B is not the same as the cat length for a C. Never required to be. SHAR could use around 600 feet of run at the ramp at max weights, the GR7 as little as 95 feet, F-35B may be able to use bit more, or less depending on payload and Wind Over Deck (WOD) as well as ramp angle. No, STOVL ski jump isn't 'equal' to a cat launch. Apples and oranges, really.
The CVF team (and LM) did look at JBDs for STOVL. Not much use, as the jet launches with the aft nozzle pointing down a bit, so the standard USN deflector doesn't stop much of the blast, which is running along the deck in a sheet anyway. Bottom line is that the deck would be quite usable a fairly short distance aft of an F-35B launch, in my view. We regularly parked SHARs around 40 feet behind launching aircraft in the early 90s - the only problems were FOD due to poor flight deck hygiene. Blast wasn't an issue.
F-35B does not use burner on launch, and there's not much point as the reheat doesn't add that much and it works only on the aft peg anyway.There will be a maximum end speed for F-35B, but it will be very high as only 10% of the weight is on the nose wheel (as against around 50% for the Harrier). When I was on the programme max ski jump STO launch weight was very near the F-35B max conventional TO weight.
Yes, the wires should have been perpendicular. Just an inaccurate drawing.
Hope this lot helps
Best Regards
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
Deck run for a STOVL F-35B is not the same as the cat length for a C. Never required to be. SHAR could use around 600 feet of run at the ramp at max weights, the GR7 as little as 95 feet, F-35B may be able to use bit more, or less depending on payload and Wind Over Deck (WOD) as well as ramp angle. No, STOVL ski jump isn't 'equal' to a cat launch. Apples and oranges, really.
The CVF team (and LM) did look at JBDs for STOVL. Not much use, as the jet launches with the aft nozzle pointing down a bit, so the standard USN deflector doesn't stop much of the blast, which is running along the deck in a sheet anyway. Bottom line is that the deck would be quite usable a fairly short distance aft of an F-35B launch, in my view. We regularly parked SHARs around 40 feet behind launching aircraft in the early 90s - the only problems were FOD due to poor flight deck hygiene. Blast wasn't an issue.
F-35B does not use burner on launch, and there's not much point as the reheat doesn't add that much and it works only on the aft peg anyway.There will be a maximum end speed for F-35B, but it will be very high as only 10% of the weight is on the nose wheel (as against around 50% for the Harrier). When I was on the programme max ski jump STO launch weight was very near the F-35B max conventional TO weight.
Yes, the wires should have been perpendicular. Just an inaccurate drawing.
Hope this lot helps
Best Regards
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Thanks for the reply. 600ft is a little long for a SHAR at Max AUW - but I would buy 500ft, and you will recall min deck run for both types was 200ft to allow RPM to be above 100% at ramp exit.
I do of course realise that the end speed calculation is a little complex. Having done it on paper 'once or twice'!
As regards blast. Yes, we could 'op launch' but I remain totally and utterly unconvinced that it was ever a great idea for Aim-9 and PW heads. I suspect LO coatings, EOTS lenses and DAS transparencies may be the same.
Interesting point about the weight distribution - that certainly hadn't occurred to me.
Thanks again.
Orca.
Thanks for the reply. 600ft is a little long for a SHAR at Max AUW - but I would buy 500ft, and you will recall min deck run for both types was 200ft to allow RPM to be above 100% at ramp exit.
I do of course realise that the end speed calculation is a little complex. Having done it on paper 'once or twice'!
As regards blast. Yes, we could 'op launch' but I remain totally and utterly unconvinced that it was ever a great idea for Aim-9 and PW heads. I suspect LO coatings, EOTS lenses and DAS transparencies may be the same.
Interesting point about the weight distribution - that certainly hadn't occurred to me.
Thanks again.
Orca.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca,
Thanks for coming back - glad I could be of help.
Blast was only a problem if you had a flight deck contaminated with rubbish (such as lead shot from dockyard paint jobs). Clean deck - no probs for any equipment such as missile or LGB heads - they are designed for much higher wind speeds during carriage. Same goes for transparencies and coatings. We learned the hard way that the USN obsession with flight deck cleanliness is, indeed, next to godliness.
The USN JBDs are designed for something else altogether - much higher jet blast speeds and much closer. They also do a fairly good job deflecting noise.
You're quite right about the min deck run - but I once had Spanish AV-8Bs on board, and they went off at the 95 ft mark. Quite a sight. In reality, any short runs were academic - you needed at least 350 to 400 feet to carry a useful load off the end.
Actually, I never quite got over being awestruck by what a brilliantly simple and effective device the ski jump is - it's very nearly something for nothing, makes aircraft far more effective and gives safer launches. Another quite brilliant contribution to naval aviation from the Fleet Air Arm and Britain. Let's just all be proud for a moment, shall we?
Nice to chat
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Thanks for coming back - glad I could be of help.
Blast was only a problem if you had a flight deck contaminated with rubbish (such as lead shot from dockyard paint jobs). Clean deck - no probs for any equipment such as missile or LGB heads - they are designed for much higher wind speeds during carriage. Same goes for transparencies and coatings. We learned the hard way that the USN obsession with flight deck cleanliness is, indeed, next to godliness.
The USN JBDs are designed for something else altogether - much higher jet blast speeds and much closer. They also do a fairly good job deflecting noise.
You're quite right about the min deck run - but I once had Spanish AV-8Bs on board, and they went off at the 95 ft mark. Quite a sight. In reality, any short runs were academic - you needed at least 350 to 400 feet to carry a useful load off the end.
Actually, I never quite got over being awestruck by what a brilliantly simple and effective device the ski jump is - it's very nearly something for nothing, makes aircraft far more effective and gives safer launches. Another quite brilliant contribution to naval aviation from the Fleet Air Arm and Britain. Let's just all be proud for a moment, shall we?
Nice to chat
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't see this link posted earlier.
Captain Steps Foot On Carrier Bridge For First Time | Royal Navy that shows that whatever the decriers might be hoping for, the Queen is still being built.
I do take the point earlier that the wide deck will make it a useful platform for combined ops (Gator+ ?) in addition to the strike carrier role.
Accepting the fact about no cash - they will be impressive war canoes.
Captain Steps Foot On Carrier Bridge For First Time | Royal Navy that shows that whatever the decriers might be hoping for, the Queen is still being built.
I do take the point earlier that the wide deck will make it a useful platform for combined ops (Gator+ ?) in addition to the strike carrier role.
Accepting the fact about no cash - they will be impressive war canoes.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one amazing thread, by chance I picked up a video of the Russian Navy airforce, what was truly amazing to me was a SU-33 aka SU-27 and a Mig-29 were taking off in 100 mtrs using a ski slope and no catapult with zero sag downwards after leaving the ski slope.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One's a platform who's purpose is the conversion of taxpayers money into hot air with no productive end result. The other one's an aircraft carrier....... 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
"In an attempt to find a use for HMS White Elephant in keeping with the primary role of the Royal Navy, the extension to the Commons Bar is unveiled."
Last edited by The Helpful Stacker; 7th Jan 2013 at 17:13.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
1st Sea Lord reply to the RUSI 'Parry Paper'
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7603017
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7603059
1st Sea Lord reply to the RUSI 'Parry Paper':
Defence in the Media: 7 January 2013
Defence News: Defence in the Media: 7 January 2013
First Sea Lord's letter in the Sunday Times
Under the headline 'Fit for Purpose', a letter in the Sunday Times from the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope responded to criticism of Carrier Strike by Rear Admiral Chris Parry.
The published letter read:
"Far from being 'unfit for sea battle', the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be the largest ships the Royal Navy has ever operated, launching the most advanced fifth-generation stealth fighter available ('Dinky toy carriers unfit for sea battle', last week). Jet-to-jet mid-air refuelling is not a requirement for our operations and is not necessary [to 'attack targets at long range or carry heavier bomb loads']. The carriers will be able to operate within strike range of the vast majority of nations and, in extremis, in conjunction with both UK and coalition air-to-air refuelling aircraft, would be able to support longer range strike missions as required."
The full version of the First Sea Lord's letter also included the following:
"The idea of adding further expense with a jet-to-jet refuelling variant of the Lightning for such a limited payload advantage at this stage of the project is misguided and would simply reduce the number of strike jets available. It is now important that the wider Defence community follows the example of the Service Chiefs in acknowledging the huge success that has been achieved to develop the carrier and jet programmes so far and by working together ensure we maximise and exploit the considerable investment and future potential of both. I am confident we will deliver a world-class Carrier Strike and Littoral Manoeuvre capability."
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7603059
1st Sea Lord reply to the RUSI 'Parry Paper':
Defence in the Media: 7 January 2013
Defence News: Defence in the Media: 7 January 2013
First Sea Lord's letter in the Sunday Times
Under the headline 'Fit for Purpose', a letter in the Sunday Times from the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope responded to criticism of Carrier Strike by Rear Admiral Chris Parry.
The published letter read:
"Far from being 'unfit for sea battle', the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be the largest ships the Royal Navy has ever operated, launching the most advanced fifth-generation stealth fighter available ('Dinky toy carriers unfit for sea battle', last week). Jet-to-jet mid-air refuelling is not a requirement for our operations and is not necessary [to 'attack targets at long range or carry heavier bomb loads']. The carriers will be able to operate within strike range of the vast majority of nations and, in extremis, in conjunction with both UK and coalition air-to-air refuelling aircraft, would be able to support longer range strike missions as required."
The full version of the First Sea Lord's letter also included the following:
"The idea of adding further expense with a jet-to-jet refuelling variant of the Lightning for such a limited payload advantage at this stage of the project is misguided and would simply reduce the number of strike jets available. It is now important that the wider Defence community follows the example of the Service Chiefs in acknowledging the huge success that has been achieved to develop the carrier and jet programmes so far and by working together ensure we maximise and exploit the considerable investment and future potential of both. I am confident we will deliver a world-class Carrier Strike and Littoral Manoeuvre capability."
Article here from MOD News:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...s-new-carriers
BAe Systems lead test pilot:
"We are reverting back to a manoeuvre called ‘shipborne rolling vertical landing’ which means we are going to bring the F-35B in to land on the deck at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour)."
I hope the F-35B brake system turns out to be reliable !
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...s-new-carriers
BAe Systems lead test pilot:
"We are reverting back to a manoeuvre called ‘shipborne rolling vertical landing’ which means we are going to bring the F-35B in to land on the deck at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour)."
I hope the F-35B brake system turns out to be reliable !
