Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

HMS Queen Elizabeth to exercise with a full deck

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

HMS Queen Elizabeth to exercise with a full deck

Old 25th Sep 2020, 14:28
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
There were hangars on two decks ?
British Implacable, Audacious and Courageous class aircraft carriers (and possibly others) had both an upper and lower hangar.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 17:22
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 4,285
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
There were hangars on two decks ?
Technically there were two hangars on four decks, as each hangar took two deck spaces





Post refit, both Ark and Eagle lower hangars were only served by the forward lift, as the aft third of the hangars were converted for other use. Eagle made excellent use of 4 deck space by converting the lift area into the Wardroom and the hangar space into the Wardroom dining room and between the two was the biggest Wardroom bar ever on a grey funnel liner

Last edited by John Eacott; 26th Sep 2020 at 06:36.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 20:58
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 51
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
There were hangars on two decks ?
Seeing is believing:

Ark Royal R09 upper and lower hangars as seen from the forward lift.
Obi Wan Russell is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 21:43
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dorset,UK
Posts: 412
'Could I have Buccaneers 4 & 5 out first please chief'.
Compass Call is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 10:44
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by Compass Call View Post
'Could I have Buccaneers 4 & 5 out first please chief'.
No problem. You remember those sliding block puzzles you had as a child?
pasta is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 10:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 333
Ark Royal R09 upper and lower hangars as seen from the forward lift
Oh dear, memories being rolled back, all those fun days and nights...

IG
Imagegear is online now  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 13:29
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by John Eacott View Post
Here you are
Thank you, John. You were of course the main 'someone' my plea was aimed at.

Technically there were two hangars on four decks, as each hangar took two deck spaces
If the DWO catches me informing people of such details, even like you in semi-jest, she threatens to order me to spend the middle watch on the sofa.

From what I understand the design and size of the hangars of the Audacious class (Eagle and Ark Royal) went through a number of iterations; driven in particular by the need to raise hangar height. I assume from drawings that the need for two hangars, offset from the centreline and not full length(?) was driven by the internal configuration, a design informed by lessons from the sinking of the previous Ark Royal. At the time of their initial design they would have been the largest carriers built, so total size can't have been the issue. I may of course be talking gash. I never saw the inside of either; I was still at school when the Ark was taken out of service and anyway only saw the outside of Eagle (when she was tied up in Pompey after her last commission).
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 13:59
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 119
It's actually because RN philosophy was until recently to be able to hangar all aircraft, which when they were designed were Fireflies, Sea Furies and so on. Just before aircraft began to grow significantly, not least in height.

The hangar height in that class was about the most that could be included and meet stability requirements, given infrastructure limits on beam.

QEC is the first RN carrier designed with hangar capacity below designed aircraft complement. There is simply not enough volume in any hull to get all aircraft hangared these days
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 14:18
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
The hangar height in that class was about the most that could be included and meet stability requirements, given infrastructure limits on beam.
N_a_B, thanks - that makes sense. I read that they had to lower the keel depth by 6' to maintain a safe metacentric height.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 19:03
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Teesside
Posts: 210
It could be a bit noisy in the North Sea tomorrow , NOTAM for 'High Seas Firing' in place ;

H4092/20: Fireworks/Projectile firing will take place
Q) EGPX/QWMLW/IV/BO/W/000/360/5530N00035W032HIGH SEAS FIRING WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY
555000N 0011800W - 555000N 0000500E - 552000N 0001700E -
550200N 0004000W - 550200N 0010000W - 555000N 0011800W. FOR INFO VHF
123.3 AND UHF 276.7. 2020-09-0500/AS5LOWER: Surface, UPPER: FL360
FROM: 27 Sep 2020 07:00 GMT (08:00 BST) TO: 27 Sep 2020 09:00 GMT (10:00 BST)

And here is the NOTAM for the exercise itself ;

H3937/20:
Exercises will take place
Q) EGTT/QWELW/IV/BO/W/000/660/5430N00100E100INCREASED AERIAL ACTIVITY. UP TO 15 FAST JET AND UP TO 8 HEL WILL
OPERATE FM ACFT CARRIER WI 100NM 543000N 0010000E (NORTH SEA).
SQUAWK CODES MODE 3 WI RANGE 1700 - 1727 IN USE. OPS CTC 123.300MHZ
/ 280.850MHZ . 2020-09-0423/AS3LOWER: Surface, UPPER: FL660
FROM: 21 Sep 2020 00:01 GMT (01:01 BST) TO: 03 Oct 2020 23:59 GMT (04 Oct 00:59 BST)
David Thompson is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 19:51
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,220
Out of curiosity, what is the nominal max load of F-35 (and other aircraft) for the QE class carriers?
tdracer is online now  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 22:34
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 311
tdracer - public figures vary, for instance the RN website says up to 40 but I've seen 36 F35-B + 4 Merlins as the eventual 'standard air group' and a maximum of 60+ mixed types and 72 surge capacity. So you pay your money and takes your choice. Others may have a better sourced public domain figure.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2020, 14:40
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 344
Talking

Originally Posted by John Eacott View Post
One of a series of photos I took, so here's the dit

We were operating in the Med and cross-decked with USS Forrestal, but like all good things it came to an end and we brought our toys home to Mother and tried sending theirs back. Unfortunately 207 repeatedly went U/S and things became dire as we were due into Grand Harbour where Dom Mintoff, Malta's PM, had declared all things military associated with the USA to be unwelcome. A last attempt to launch 207 failed so it was rapidly dispatched to the lower hangar before we entered harbour.

All was well, and the US Marine crew thoroughly enjoyed the benefits of being on a warship which allowed grown men to consume alcohol. After the usual Cocker's P, visits from local dignitaries, etc, it was deemed safe to bring 207 up from the Buccaneer hangar into the upper hangar where the 892NAS team could work on the snags. Somewhere along the way the odd 892 sticker zaps became a better idea of a complete repaint on the fin.

This became quite handy when ground runs were required, as all USMC markings were covered with brown paper and the tail seemed quite enough to allow runs on deck, noise to Valletta residents notwithstanding.

Came time to leave harbour and the first call was to Flying Stations, launch the VMFA-531 F4 regardless of servicability. Off it went back to Forrestal where Cdr Bill Quirk, CO of 531, was so taken with the zap that he kept it all the way home and launched to lead his squadron with one of the best zaps of its time

A few more images, including one when I went over to Forrestal to pick up our maintenance guys and return (some) of theirs!

















In 1980, 824 NAS definitely helped the USS Midway Battlegroup turn the tide protecting allied oil tankers in the Gulf during the Iran/Iraq conflict ! Well, at least when it came to HDS...
peterperfect is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2020, 15:00
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,607
Yep - it’s a good time not to be flying anywhere near the North Sea - looking forward to hearing about the Hawk recoveries alongside the Coastal fuelled O&G aircraft ;-)
not to mention the girls and guys playing outside of the exercise areas.....good luck one and all!
EESDL is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2020, 17:01
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by FODPlod View Post
British Implacable, Audacious and Courageous class aircraft carriers (and possibly others) had both an upper and lower hangar.


Very interesting, did any other carrier Navy’s incorporate that feature ?


Another question, I believe the RN WW2 carriers could have the hangar deck open to the elements at the bow ?


And another


Do the QE class carriers have an emergency barrier installed for a ‘conventional’ landing?


Scenario, an F35 unable to land vertically or use a SRVL due to a failure of the lift fan / vectoring nozzle and / or battle damage


stilton is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2020, 19:58
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 51
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Very interesting, did any other carrier Navy’s incorporate that feature ?
Many Imperial Japanese Navy Carriers were built with two hangar decks, Making The US tendency towards a single hangar deck the odd one rather than the norm.

Another question, I believe the RN WW2 carriers could have the hangar deck open to the elements at the bow ?
Furious, Glorious and Courageous had lower 'flying off decks' which extended over the bows from the upper hangar. The intention being to speed up launching fighters by having them fly directly from the hangar. The Japanese tried this too but by the later 30s these decks fell out of use as aircraft got bigger and needed more space for launch.
And another


Do the QE class carriers have an emergency barrier installed for a ‘conventional’ landing?
No.


Scenario, an F35 unable to land vertically or use a SRVL due to a failure of the lift fan / vectoring nozzle and / or battle damage
In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.
Obi Wan Russell is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2020, 20:10
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,921
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.

Very interesting on your first reply, starting the take off from ‘inside’ the hangar


That would seem a real advantage if there was sufficient damage on the flight deck to prevent launching aircraft


The USN had a different solution to that problem, on some of their WW2 carriers they had sideways facing catapults installed in openings on their hangar decks


It was a very abrupt launch for the required acceleration as no headwind was available !


While it was demonstrated it doesn’t appear to have been used often


Worth a Google


stilton is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2020, 06:55
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Very interesting on your first reply, starting the take off from ‘inside’ the hangar


That would seem a real advantage if there was sufficient damage on the flight deck to prevent launching aircraft


The USN had a different solution to that problem, on some of their WW2 carriers they had sideways facing catapults installed in openings on their hangar decks


It was a very abrupt launch for the required acceleration as no headwind was available !


While it was demonstrated it doesn’t appear to have been used often


Worth a Google

Sure enough.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...f-world-war-ii
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2020, 10:12
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.
No sane pilot would choose to ditch an F-35 in the open ocean. Assuming the seat was undamaged he/she would eject.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2020, 20:30
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,517
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown View Post
No sane pilot would choose to ditch an F-35 in the open ocean. Assuming the seat was undamaged he/she would eject.
With any luck and a big Apple , the immersion suit should work wonders and guessing it’s been RTS considering the many a transatlantic crossing of the F-35B.

god speed.

cheers
chopper2004 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.