Future Carrier (Including Costs)
It's a small risk that is deemed acceptable.
PDR
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same question can be asked about SRVLs that go wrong, for whatever reason. Remembering that one reason for SRVLs is to increase the bring back weight, so an F35B with, one day, a Storm Shadow is coming back for whatever reason, and has a problem, an arrestor / crash net or two would seem to be a good idea.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same question can be asked about SRVLs that go wrong, for whatever reason. Remembering that one reason for SRVLs is to increase the bring back weight, so an F35B with, one day, a Storm Shadow is coming back for whatever reason, and has a problem, an arrestor / crash net or two would seem to be a good idea.
You would drop the storm shadow rather than take a net
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point Tourist was that an SRVL that had a problem would be very difficult to recover from if there was a failure close to or on the deck.
Yes landings on a carrier are fast, not sure what happens now if there is a problem with a hook, eject or take a barrier? Implicitly if an F35C can take a barrier, then an F35B should be able to do so as well. Obviously taking a barrier is not good for an airframe, whilst ditching one is a trice worse.
Yes landings on a carrier are fast, not sure what happens now if there is a problem with a hook, eject or take a barrier? Implicitly if an F35C can take a barrier, then an F35B should be able to do so as well. Obviously taking a barrier is not good for an airframe, whilst ditching one is a trice worse.
Last edited by PhilipG; 22nd Jun 2016 at 17:51. Reason: Typo
As the late Bill Bedford once said:
"When it comes to maritime aviation it is surely preferable to stop, and then try to land than it is to land, and then try to stop..."
PDR
"When it comes to maritime aviation it is surely preferable to stop, and then try to land than it is to land, and then try to stop..."
PDR
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See the Type 26's are drifitng right................
No Type 26 frigate deal unless it is 'value for money' - BBC News
No Type 26 frigate deal unless it is 'value for money' - BBC News
Thread Starter
At the same time, support budgets for existing ships (ie Type 23/Type 45) and their systems may be seen as low hanging fruit for cuts.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 30th Jun 2016 at 08:40.
Thread Starter
Looking back at this thread - there appears to be a lot of people who think a carrier is simply a floating airfield. Well here is a picture* of RAF Marham, with an outline of HMS Queen Elizabeth for comparison.
All the things you normally get an an airfield are compressed into a small area, which is subject to the motions of the sea. Additionally the deck is liable to move as the ship yaws, pitches, and rolls. Everything has to be done in the finite space aboard the carrier, which of course makes everything more difficult and means personnel need unique skills.
* Found on another site.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought I'd share this little piccy with you all: The first British F-35B to reach the UK (along with two USMC Lightning IIs) has just conducted a flypast over HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (not visible from this angle) at Rosyth. And the 'Daily Fail' is still peddling the line that our new carriers will have no aircraft. What's this, Scotch Mist?
Thread Starter
This post from the ARRSE CVF and Carrier Strike thread talks about the ongoing work to prepare these two great ships.
Great progress has been made with the ships, great progress has been made with the F-35B (see here and here on the RN website), but both need people to make them work. I remember hearing the FAA Command Warrant Officer talking about the pre SDSR plan to embark more jets aboard the CVS for longer periods to relearn the skills needed both by the air squadron and the whole ship's company. I remember being told similar things by the Cdr (Air) and others aboard Illustrious in late 2007. If only sombody had listened to them and the ex CVS Captain First Sea Lord in 2010.
As with most things, people are the key - and possibly the most difficult to prepare. The noise and jet blast from the F-35B are going to make Sea Harrier/Harrier seem tame.
Great progress has been made with the ships, great progress has been made with the F-35B (see here and here on the RN website), but both need people to make them work. I remember hearing the FAA Command Warrant Officer talking about the pre SDSR plan to embark more jets aboard the CVS for longer periods to relearn the skills needed both by the air squadron and the whole ship's company. I remember being told similar things by the Cdr (Air) and others aboard Illustrious in late 2007. If only sombody had listened to them and the ex CVS Captain First Sea Lord in 2010.
As with most things, people are the key - and possibly the most difficult to prepare. The noise and jet blast from the F-35B are going to make Sea Harrier/Harrier seem tame.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by HH
WEB - as a number of us have pointed out they're going to have to scrape the barrel to crew just one of these ships on a regular basis!
My comments related solely to the unique issues associated with operating fixed wing aircraft from a ship.
Originally Posted by JunglyDaz
Is the recovery of an F-35 VSTOL largely different to the recovery of a Merlin/Sea King? And launching is hardly taxing, just roll them up to the line and say go!
The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. - WhiteOvies
Yes I am aware of exchanges, and I realise things happen that are not in the public eye, but still.....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed they change ship but you're looking at a single unit in service so they will all be there semi-permanently - and many of the specialisations will be restricted to the CVA
We can't even man all the ships we have right now..............
We can't even man all the ships we have right now..............
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
Whilst I agree that the RN currently struggles to man their ships at all times, the assertion that a person or trade will be “Big Ships” only is not my experience of how the Navy works.
In my many years of service I served on frigates (x2 ), carriers (Invince class several times), RFAs (Engadine, Argus, Fort boats various) and shore based at home and abroad..
The ability to train for a specific draft or billet is part of the manning process. An example being the 3 months worth of SAMCOs and courses I completed prior to joining RFANSU (as it was called) and the Fort boats as the PO in charge of the workshops.
“Harmony” requirements also come into play as with any Naval draft these days so it will be made to work, although I look forward to hearing how the RAF will cope with life on board. I suppose the younger generation won’t know any different so they will fit right in?
Cheers now
Whilst I agree that the RN currently struggles to man their ships at all times, the assertion that a person or trade will be “Big Ships” only is not my experience of how the Navy works.
In my many years of service I served on frigates (x2 ), carriers (Invince class several times), RFAs (Engadine, Argus, Fort boats various) and shore based at home and abroad..
The ability to train for a specific draft or billet is part of the manning process. An example being the 3 months worth of SAMCOs and courses I completed prior to joining RFANSU (as it was called) and the Fort boats as the PO in charge of the workshops.
“Harmony” requirements also come into play as with any Naval draft these days so it will be made to work, although I look forward to hearing how the RAF will cope with life on board. I suppose the younger generation won’t know any different so they will fit right in?
Cheers now
Excuse my ignorance, but why are blast deflectors not much use? Is it specific to the F35? I seem to remember seeing blast deflectors on the big American carriers.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The blast deflectors on conventional carriers are used to protect personnel and equipment (such as another aircraft waiting to use the same catapult) from the blast of the aircraft taking off. Catapults on an American carrier are at the front of the ship with most of the flight deck behind them or half way back with still a large area behind with operations on going. On the Queen Elizabeth ships the F-35B will start it's run from the rear of the ship and travel the full length before using the ski jump to fly away. Nothing behind the jet when it starts its run.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turin,
Perhaps I can help.
Jet blast deflectors (JBDs) are still used with the F-35C, because like other USN jets, it launches with its exhaust pointing straight aft parallel with the deck (sometimes in reheat), and that severe and concentrated blast needs to be diverted upwards and away from aircraft and personnel in the vicinity of the catapults.
dat581 - remember that the USN carriers also have waist catapults, about half way down the deck.
The F-35B launches without a catapult, with its aft nozzle deflected onwards towards the deck. (On the QEC many of these launches will be about half way down the deck, not often right aft). The normal JBD design would not work with this, and moreover the launch position up a ski jump (or with a flat deck STO) is adjusted with launch weight and wind over deck (WOD), so a fixed JBD wouldn't be of much use.
Even so, the F-35 programme did look at other JBD designs and there were some that might have had some effect on the F-35B efflux, but early trials and further analysis showed that once the efflux hits the deck it spreads out and slows down very rapidly. Given this, the hazards can be adequately controlled by suitable precautions on where to stand during launches. The same goes for recoveries.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to those who are going to work the decks,
Engines
Perhaps I can help.
Jet blast deflectors (JBDs) are still used with the F-35C, because like other USN jets, it launches with its exhaust pointing straight aft parallel with the deck (sometimes in reheat), and that severe and concentrated blast needs to be diverted upwards and away from aircraft and personnel in the vicinity of the catapults.
dat581 - remember that the USN carriers also have waist catapults, about half way down the deck.
The F-35B launches without a catapult, with its aft nozzle deflected onwards towards the deck. (On the QEC many of these launches will be about half way down the deck, not often right aft). The normal JBD design would not work with this, and moreover the launch position up a ski jump (or with a flat deck STO) is adjusted with launch weight and wind over deck (WOD), so a fixed JBD wouldn't be of much use.
Even so, the F-35 programme did look at other JBD designs and there were some that might have had some effect on the F-35B efflux, but early trials and further analysis showed that once the efflux hits the deck it spreads out and slows down very rapidly. Given this, the hazards can be adequately controlled by suitable precautions on where to stand during launches. The same goes for recoveries.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to those who are going to work the decks,
Engines