HMS Illustrious (Now incl photographs)

[Flying Lawyer]

I've been invited to spend a few days in HMS Illustrious and will be joining the ship in Oslo this afternoon.

If there are any Ppruners in the ship's company, I'd welcome the opportunity to meet.


Tudor Owen

[Faithless]

Come down to the Boiler room (Keep going down until cant go any further) Knock 3 times on the pipes to let me know it's you :E. Ensure you have your grow bag on back to front. We will have some Naval fun together :E

Mmmm fresh meat. What a lucky boy I am :}

[scarecrow450]

Don't forget family size jar of vaseline:mad:

[skua]

FL,

so you missed out on the Guild's trips and have wangled a personal one?

Good effort!

Skua

[Union Jack]

Ignore the predictable asinine posts, which with any luck will be removed, let's hope you meet some real Ppruners, and thoroughly enjoy the trip.

Jack

PS But don't wear your "uniform" at Captain's Defaulters!

[tyne]

Just remember when going round the ship "25 HELPS"

Its the ladders that get you up and down and round the Invincibles. 2 Deck and 5 deck are the uninterruped decks, Hotel Echo Lima Papa and Sierra ladder chains go right through the ship.

Remember that and you'll get around old Lusty fine.

[Bell_Flyer]

Does anyone know why US aircraft carriers don't have a sloped ramp at the end of the runway like UK carriers?

If a Harrier were to take off from a US carrier, would it then have to be catapulted? Can it take off conventionally like an ordinary plane on the usual deck runway?

Can an F-14 or F-18 take off a US carrier deck without catapults? What if it used the whole length of the deck? Would the take-offs be better if it had a ski jump at the end without catapults? Just wondering.

[airborne_artist]

If a Harrier were to take off from a US carrier, would it then have to be catapulted? Can it take off conventionally like an ordinary plane on the usual deck runway?

Not possible to cat a Harrier - it's not equipped for cat launches, AFAIK. Yes, but with less payload.

Can an F-14 or F-18 take off a US carrier deck without catapults? What if it used the whole length of the deck? Would the take-offs be better if it had a ski jump at the end without catapults? Just wondering.

Not possible without a cat, with/without a ski-jump.

[dat581]

With a totally clear deck and no external stores and next to zero internal fuel a Hornet might not end up in the drink if you let it lose from the very rear of the ship. Maybe ad in a good strong headwind plus the carrier going as fast as possible. It is certainly not practical.

Harriers are not stressed for conventional carrier operations (ie, with catapults and arrestor wires). They have no launch bar and the nose gear would not be designed to handle such loads.

[Brain Potter]

USMC Harriers regularly take-off from the flight decks of US Navy ships without the aid of either a catapult or a ski-jump. However, rather than a large aircraft carrier, they are taken to sea aboard Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships, which are quite a bit bigger than the British carriers:

The US Navy -- Fact File (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4)

If it was necessary to operate Harriers from a large CVN, I guess that the normal landing area would be used for an unassisted short take-off run. Alternatively, launches could be made over the bow - but I would suspect that a centreline and some distance markers would be painted onto the deck to aid the take-off run.

I did hear that as there is a limiting speed at which the nosewheel can hit the ski-ramp, the latest generation of Harriers, with more powerful engines and a better wing, would be better off without it.

[Finnpog]

The Russians use ski-jumps too for their non catapulted Su 33's - They get airborne using butch power alone.

[0497]

USMC Harriers regularly take-off from the flight decks of US Navy ships without the aid of either a catapult or a ski-jump. However, rather than a large aircraft carrier, they are taken to sea aboard Wasp or Tarawa class amphibious assault ships, which are quite a bit bigger than the British carriers:


Harrier with no ski jump
YouTube - AV8-B Harrier Launch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeX6dR4tUIo)jeX6dR4tUIo

The Russians use ski-jumps too for their non catapulted Su 33's - They get airborne using butch power alone.

The CVFs are pretty similar to the Russian carriers.

[meeike9]

Seeing that harrier takeoff tells you nothing. It may not be fully loaded. The reason the harrier uses the "ski jump" is because of the payload increase. It can not takeoff vertically fully loaded. It comes down to either a longer runway or short runway with "ski jump".

[Flying Lawyer]

.
HMS Illustrious 28 June - 2 July 09

Pilots from 4 Sqn RAF embarked to gain/renew carrier currency
Harriers from Naval Strike Wing


Oslofjord

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious060ps_800.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious063_800.jpg


North Sea

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious050_800.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious030_800.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Harrier1c_web.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/FlightDeck1_web-1.jpg

Honourable Company of Air Pilots
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/FlightDeck2_web.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HarrierHover_web.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Harrier2_web.jpg


From FlyCo
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious115-800-1.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious139pcr800.jpg



RN Lynx night flying - Midnight in the North Sea
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious128_800.jpg



Disembarking off the Scottish coast

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious197p800.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMS-Illustrious-201c900web.jpg
(Some distortion - pic taken from Lynx.)



The four days passed very (too) quickly, but provided a fascinating insight into the operation of an aircraft carrier and its various roles in our maritime capability. The visit gave me a greater understanding of the role of an aircraft carrier in delivering air power wherever it is required.

Many thanks to Captain Ben Key RN, Cdr Mark Deller RN (Commander Air), all the ship's company and to the pilots of 4 Squadron RAF for taking the time to explain things to a civvy.


HMS Illustrious (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/aircraft-carriers/hms-illustrious/) and 4 Squadron RAF (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/4squadron.cfm) are both Affiliated Units of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (http://www.gapan.org/)

Tudor Owen

(Edit)

The Guild became the Honourable Company of Air Pilots in February 2014

[L J R]

...small isn't she..:p

[Brain Potter]

m9,

The USMC Harriers operate off exactly the kind of deck shown in that video with a pretty usable war-load.

If you go to this site:

Aviation Videos & Airplane Videos | Patrick's Aviation (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/)

and search for a video called "Go Boom" you will see AV-8Bs operating from an LHA during GW2, carrying a variety of loads including large external tanks and 2 LGBs.

As I said before, I recall a Harrier pilot telling me that the CVS ski-jump speed limit has the effect of curtailing the launch speed and lowering the payload for a modern Harrier. I don't know if I remembered this correctly, or whether it is simply the extra length the USN LHAs that makes the difference, but those ships certainly seem capable operating Harriers at useful weights without a ski-jump.

[brickhistory]

Nice photos.

[Mr-AEO]

Nice shots FL, very clear:ok: Glad you enjoyed it and got an appreciation of the challenges of embarked aviation although the weather looked very benign; imagine that now in High Seas with crappy viz. I find it odd looking at pictures of just GR Harriers on the deck and no FA2's as last time I was on we had a mixed bag. The GRs would take off from about the 250 line with the FA2's needing the entire deck to get airborne.

[Navy_Adversary]

Not exactly the John C Stennis but great piccies anyway.
Glad you enjoyed your trip.:cool:

[tyne]

Known this ship in varous forms and parts of my life since November 1981 when I first saw her on sea trials to a fantastic weekend on board earlier this year.

If ever there was an example of smart procurement it is the Invincible Class.

I will be sad to see them go, but not sad that they did more than it said on the tin, time and time again.

[Aur]

Any pics of Lossiemouth in the background?

[BEagle]

I did once see a real RN aircraft carrier in Oslo harbour - I think it was HMS Victorious or HMS Ark Royal in late summer 1961, but as I was rather young at the time, I'm far from certain.

VERY impressive though - and, err, somewhat bigger than the Invincible!

Nice sea state, Tudor - and excellent piccies!

[Beatriz Fontana]

Awesome. One of my OH's former ships. Had the pleasure of seeing her in May and she's amazing.

Brilliant pictures, Tudor, thanks for sharing them.

[BOAC]

Had the pleasure of seeing her in May and she's amazing.- the ship, I take it?:)

Regarding size- it IS important. When you've been on Nimitz.........................

[Mike Rosewhich]

CVS = Carrier Very Small

...Unless you're trying to find your cabin after the first night embarkation party.

[spheroid]

A little bird told me that someone has recently attempted to conduct a groundrun with the blanks still in..... Oooppps 1 New engine please.

[John Farley]

Re ski jump -

No matter how big a wing or how big an engine or whatever gear stressing cases there are, the ski jump will always add some benefit when compared to the flat deck case. This is because in all circumstance a ski jump increases safety, increases performance, increases ability to handle ship pitch motion and reduces pilot handling workload. However to use a ski jump you do need the aircraft to be fitted with an attitude control system that is effective at speeds below normal wing stall speeds.

[Double Zero]

Re.John Farleys comments - spot on as always

- I've often wondered why HMS Ocean is so delibrately a helicopter only vessel, with no ski-ramp and indeed a goalkeeper at the end of the flat flight deck.

This seems a deliberate denial of use to Harriers, which would be an extremely useful asset; in any real war, the Captain / Admiral would be screaming for air cover; as pillocks with shiny chairs have ditched the Sea Harrier with AMRAAM,the next best option is the Harrier 2+, which while slower with an inferior radar has AMRAAM capabality.

These are actually available right now from storage, and have the advantage of a great deal of ' commonality ' with the the GR9's operated by Joint Force Harrier.

But since when have politicians, apart from W.Curchill, taken any notice, until it's too late ?!

Meanwhile the fleet has to rely on type 42's...

[david parry]

I did once see a real RN aircraft carrier in Oslo harbour - I think it was HMS Victorious or HMS Ark Royal in late summer 1961, but as I was rather young at the time, I'm far from certain.

VERY impressive though - and, err, somewhat bigger than the Invincible!

Nice sea state, Tudor - and excellent piccies! :ok:

HMS Victorious Proper Carrier http://usera.ImageCave.com/scouse/vic_leaving_pompey_1966_edited1.jpg

[Beatriz Fontana]

Awww, look at all those Bucs!

[david parry]

Yes Aur Lossie in background:ok:

http://usera.ImageCave.com/scouse/Lossie_May_71_Last_Sqdn_Line_up(2).jpg

[Double Zero]

Instead of waxing lyrical about the Buc' - " a steam driven slum " of a cockpit - one might recount it's plus points, as in internal weapons bay ( originally before Sea Eagle, another great loss ) F-22 / 35 anyone ?!

It was widely said that a fully ( internally ) loaded Buccaneer was faster and much longer range than a loaded Tornado...

[david parry]

BF can wax lyrical forever more on the Bucc:ok: 4x1000 lbs in the Bomb Bay and another 4x 1000lbs bombs underslung:D

[Wader2]

I don't think anyone has mentioned it but the ramp was a later add on to the design and a retrofit on Hermes. The inventor was given an exceptionally 'large' GEMS award of, IIRC, £25k. Given that many navies with a STOVL aircraft use the ramp, I guess he was under rewarded.

[david parry]

:D Correct Wader 2 HMS hermes Ramp free http://usera.ImageCave.com/scouse/HMS_HERMES_9._(1).jpg

[Aur]

Yes Aur Lossie in backgroundhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifWell Played U:)

[Double Zero]

Remember the ski jump has the rather welcome effect of imparting a ballistic trajectory upwards, which sounds a good idea to me if driving off the end of the deck.

Re. undercarriage stresses, the take-off run for any particular load is calculated; when first trying it, 4 Flight Test engineers went away seperately to do their sums; they only proceeded once all 4 came up with the same answer !

[Cron]

Forgive the intrusion, I guess most RAF/FAA chaps on this forum know about the ski jump performance enhancer qualities but anyway JF's remarkably accessible and readable reply to my layman's question can be found here:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/111712-ski-jumps-why-do-they-work.html?referrerid=30158

Regards

Cron

[nunquamparatus]

Having watched numerous Harriers (FA2 and GR7) go off the front I can say that nought compares to watching the Flanker launch itself off the front of Kuznetzov. Seen them launch 5 in quick succession and its mighty impressive. Don't know how many ergs those donks throw out but it must be a LOT as they line up at the bottom of the ramp, blast deflector up and seem to float at the top of the ramp before rocketing up into the wide blue yonder.

If any of those Northern Fleet guys are on - you guys have really big cohones. Seriously. Very brave or very stupid!!!:ooh:

[Modern Elmo]

This is because in all circumstance a ski jump increases safety, increases performance,

How much kinetic energy does an aircraft gain by using a "ski jump"?

...increases ability to handle ship pitch motion and reduces pilot handling workload.

Please explain those statements in more detail.

However to use a ski jump you do need the aircraft to be fitted with an attitude control system that is effective at speeds below normal wing stall speeds.

So, when a Harrier I or II takes off using a "ski jump," relative wind over the main airfoil is "below normal wing stall speeds" shortly after the aircraft departs from the ramp?

[DBTW]

How much kinetic energy does an aircraft gain by using a "ski jump"?

After the throttle slam the aircraft picks up speed very quickly. NB: you get an acceleration from the engine, I suppose about 80ish knots, and then whatever the wind speed is on top of that. The aeroplane becomes airborne on a mix of upward trajectory from the ski jump, jet borne thrust from the nozzle deflection (which you input just as your bumline leaves the ship) and wing lift. The amount of nozzle deflection is usually around 35-40 degrees from fully aft. As the aeroplane accelerates, you smoothly move the nozzles aft and this increases the acceleration. During this period you are transitioning between depending on the the jet borne thrust component for a portion of your lift to total wing borne flight. Due to the ski jump, the transition occurs while the aerplane is "falling with style" (Thanks Buzz Lightyear) in an upwards trajectory off the front of the ship. Using the same technique off a flat deck means you settle much more off the front, and that in itself means you can carry less relative to the ski jumping aircraft or you may fall in the oggen.

...increases ability to handle ship pitch motion and reduces pilot handling workload.

The aeroplane leaves the ski jump having been specifically placed in a climbing attitude by the ski jump angle. All the pilot has to do is hold that attitude (normally about 12 degrees nose up). IE you don't have a pitch up which is normally associated with a catapult and you don't have a massive sink, normally associated with a flat deck.

Similarly, the pilot controls when to slam so he cannot be launched into a sea wall (as can occassionally happen with catapult launches) unless he does it himself, and thus he has more control over when the aeroplane leaves the deck. Normally, the pilot slams the throttle as the deck commences its bow down motion from its highest pitch. Simply by watching the motion during the start up you get an excellent feel for the cycle of the pitching motion. In the time it takes the engine to spool, the brakes to skid, the aeroplane to accelerate and approach the ski jump edge, the ship will have pitched through the trough and be passing the deck level attitude on its way up when the aeroplane becomes space borne. (stuff ups can be spectacular!)

However to use a ski jump you do need the aircraft to be fitted with an attitude control system that is effective at speeds below normal wing stall speeds.

The aeroplane must be able to be controlled at speeds below flying speed. In Harriers this is done using reaction controls. At MAUW, you can be leaving the ski jump at speeds well below wing borne speeds. As stated above, and much more succinctly by John Farley on several occassions, the aeroplane enters "flight" with a mix of ski jump induced upward trajectory, jet borne thrust supplanting components wing borne lift, and the other components of wing borne lift provided by the accelerating airspeed.

Because the thrust level from a Harrier engine is so high (relatively), the aircraft quickly accelerates to flying speed and transitions away from the jet borne requirement. I understand the F35B will also have a form of reaction controls and some fairly clever electronic control inputs.

Hope this help?

Ski jump launch advantages apply to all aircraft to some extent. Even a conventional fighter can gain an advantage during take off with ski jump assistance, as can be witnessed when, with all the adrenalin pulsing through his/her veins, a newbie Harrier jock forgets to take the nozzles at the deck edge. In that instance, the aircraft nose will pitch up as the aeroplane flies away at high AOA. IE the aircraft will need to rotate to a nose attitude to gain the same effective lift as the jet borne component provided had the nozzles been in! Even though there is no reaction control available with the nozzles aft, the aeroplane will still be going up throughout the ski jump trajectory. It's just that the pilot will have startled themselves with the nose pitch.

All in all, ski jump launches are really easy. To my knowledge, no-one has dropped in the ocean due to bad ski jump technique. It is quite a forgivable way to go because you are physically forced upwards to begin with.

Coupled with vertical landings, aeroplanes become a lot less dependent on external machinery to stay operational.:ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Aur
Sorry, I missed your question.
I didn't get any pics with Lossiemouth in the background.

_____________


Alongside in Oslo, 28 June 09
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious008p800.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious023_800.jpg



Entering the shipping lane from Oslo Harbour - passing the old Dyna Fyr lighthouse
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious037p4_800.jpg
(Some distortion - pic taken through a window)


Engine Control Room
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious075p800.jpg

Starboard Engines
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious087p800.jpg

Marine version of Olympus engines (as used in Concorde)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious078p800.jpg


Harrier beyond forward lift
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious092p800.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious094p800.jpg


Admiral's Dining Room
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/Illustrious104_800.jpg



FL

[Double Zero]

I knew a Flight Test engineer, who when joining Dunsfold was asked to describe the effect of the ski - ramp; after a few mumblings, he said " well the thing goes ballistic, doesn't it ! ".

He was then accepted, that was the word they wanted to hear, and he proved a fine Flight Test engineer...