Hms Queen Elizabeth latest Vid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hms Queen Elizabeth latest Vid
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-j7aRZ4S4za... look at all those FS35s
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
I'm truly sorry if this sounds 'spotterish', but this new video is really disappointing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I had read somewhere (probbly here?) that the lifts & hangers were designed with the Chinook in mind, which is usefully far sighted.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
Last edited by hawk-eye; 30th Mar 2015 at 18:32. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Strange that video implies pennant numbers R08 and R09 are being retained, instead of spending extra paint on new numbers. 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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…
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
...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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I just wasted 10 seconds of my life watching and thinking..."what is this ****ing sh1te".
And then another 90 seconds typing this.