Hms Queen Elizabeth

[Stuart Galbraith]

Everyone wants to build VSTOL fighters these days, seem to have become deeply fashionable again.

 

https://chinadailymail.com/2015/04/19/russia-may-help-china-develop-vtol-j-31-stealth-fighter-jet/

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-01/04/content_14381781.htm

[Ken Estes]

Once again, the designation of Russian CVs as aviation cruisers is an evasion of the Montreux Treaty on the Straits. Nothing else. We must never think that the Rus are playing on an equal field.

[Josh]

So long as they want to keep it too a STOVL ship, I'm happy to let the Russians waste their money. Particularly when they lack a STOVL aircraft. Honestly, this is just one more piece of Russian vaporware that won't see steel cut.

[Josh]

Oh wait, before we even get to how stupid this idea is and what the source is, I just want to quote:

 

"There are only two countries in the world that have the technology to build VTOL fighters: Russia and Britain. The US is not included, as the US F-35B uses technology purchased from Russia."

 

Just wow. If we're going to use that metric, there's only one nation able to build a CATOBAR carrier: the US. The French one uses US cats.

 

EDIT 2 ADD: It just keeps getting better the more I read it:

 

"Russia is experienced not only in making the special engines but also quite a few other devices for VTOL fighters, for example the ejection seat for the pilot to escape when the VTOL fighter jet has a problem in taking off or landing."

 

When our shitty engine fails, our ejections seats won't!!! As if a zero/zero ejection seat is a new invention.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Josh

[JasonJ]

There are people that believe it too.

[Josh]

Russian vaporware used to be more impressive.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh wait, before we even get to how stupid this idea is and what the source is, I just want to quote:

 

"There are only two countries in the world that have the technology to build VTOL fighters: Russia and Britain. The US is not included, as the US F-35B uses technology purchased from Russia."

 

Just wow. If we're going to use that metric, there's only one nation able to build a CATOBAR carrier: the US. The French one uses US cats.

 

EDIT 2 ADD: It just keeps getting better the more I read it:

 

"Russia is experienced not only in making the special engines but also quite a few other devices for VTOL fighters, for example the ejection seat for the pilot to escape when the VTOL fighter jet has a problem in taking off or landing."

 

When our shitty engine fails, our ejections seats won't!!! As if a zero/zero ejection seat is a new invention.

 

Try America only. We got out of the VSTOL development business about 1986 when we cancelled any follow on Harrier development. And there was such a project, not that BAE could convince the Government of the day it was a good idea.

[mnm]

Mention of a Russian ship named Kiev sounds somewhat awkward nowadays.

[Panzermann]

Mention of a Russian ship named Kiev sounds somewhat awkward nowadays.

 

The next chinese carrier is to be christened Taipei.

[Garth]

Oh wait, before we even get to how stupid this idea is and what the source is, I just want to quote:

 

"There are only two countries in the world that have the technology to build VTOL fighters: Russia and Britain. The US is not included, as the US F-35B uses technology purchased from Russia."

 

.

That's not even true. LockMart developed its own proprietary swivel-nozzle design after the Yak-141 one they were looking at for the JSF proved ... suboptimal.

 

In fact, it looks like the Russian design was probably, ahem, stolen from US engineering studies and prototyping dating to the 1960s.

 

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=137

[Stuart Galbraith]

Meant to post this before. Queen Elizabeths first entry into Portsmouth.

[Stuart Galbraith]

[mnm]

The next chinese carrier is to be christened Taipei.

But as the leadership of the CPC (Capitalist Party of China) is atheist how can they christen anything?

[rmgill]

That's not even true. LockMart developed its own proprietary swivel-nozzle design after the Yak-141 one they were looking at for the JSF proved ... suboptimal.

 

In fact, it looks like the Russian design was probably, ahem, stolen from US engineering studies and prototyping dating to the 1960s.

 

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=137

That three bearing nozzle isn't much of a mystery to anyone who's done work on HVAC duct elbows.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Adjustable-Elbow-Degree-Sheet-Metal/dp/B013M5YUNM

 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by rmgill

[Panzermann]

right. first build and launch the ships and then see if they fit the harbours...

 

The Government have confirmed that planning is underway to evaluate the feasibility of berthing the Queen Elizabeth class carriers in Gibraltar.

Bob Stewart, MP for Beckenham asked in a written question to the Secretary of State for Defence:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what infrastructure and dredging will be required at the facilities at South Mole in Gibraltar to enable the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers to load (a) life support cargo, ( fuel supplies and © munitions directly from the dock side.”

Answered by Harriett Baldwin, Under Secretary of State for Defence Procurement:

“As part of forward planning for the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, the Royal Navy continues to review ports that would be accessible to these ships. This process includes the infrastructure requirements at South Mole in Gibraltar.”

This comes after Minister Mike Penning described the territory as a “massively significant base”.


Government ‘reviewing infrastructure requirements’ in order for carriers to berth in Gibraltar
By
George Allison
-
October 19, 2017



According to the Gibraltar Chronicle, Mr Penning also confirmed that HMS Queen Elizabeth would visit Gibraltar by Easter of 2018.

“Queen Elizabeth, the new aircraft carrier, will be here. She will moor in Gibraltar.”

Just incase you were wondering how big the carriers are compared to the territory:

Just how big is HMS Queen Elizabeth compared to Gibraltar? Here’s one we made earlier. #Supercarrier pic.twitter.com/ZdPRTugV71

— UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal) August 28, 2017

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/government-reviewing-infrastructure-requirements-hms-queen-elizabeth-gibraltar/

[Stuart Galbraith]

In fairness, its a wee bit bigger than HMS Hood.

 

Too bad we dont have Malta still. Id love to see them try to get it into Valletta Harbour.

[Panzermann]

In fairness, its a wee bit bigger than HMS Hood.

 

Too bad we dont have Malta still. Id love to see them try to get it into Valletta Harbour.

 

while yes the new ships are bigger, but that has been known for how lomg? two decades? that such big ships are going to be commissioned?

 

 

Which of the different harbours of Valletta? there is one of the busiest contaienr terminals in the EU, should ahve room for a big CV.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I have to be fair to the MOD on this one, nobody thought they would get as far as building one, let alone 2 aircraft carriers. I know I certainly did not.

 

They have done a lot of work at Portsmouth to figure out how to get her into port, for which they had to dredge. They had to do a historical survey of the bay, revealing quite a few interesting details, including the front forehalf of Mary Rose that has yet to be recovered.

 

I think its a case of, get them into service, then worry about foreign deployments. Not much point spending money on the latter if all we had was another CV01.

[a77]

Oh wait, before we even get to how stupid this idea is and what the source is, I just want to quote:

 

"There are only two countries in the world that have the technology to build VTOL fighters: Russia and Britain.

 

both US, Germany and France did build prototyp VTOL fighters... they was not successful designs and no was mass produced.... but the teconlogy was there....

[Stuart Galbraith]

What one did West Germany build? I remember the 'missile with a starfighter on it' system, but not an actual vstol fighter. They were working on a light transport powered by pegasus engines that looked promising.

 

France, I seem to recall that had a system based on a Mirage III?

[DougRichards]

What one did West Germany build? I remember the 'missile with a starfighter on it' system, but not an actual vstol fighter. They were working on a light transport powered by pegasus engines that looked promising.

 

France, I seem to recall that had a system based on a Mirage III?

re the frogs (in this case the description is accurate as FROG models were originally balsa models noted as 'flies right off the ground')

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV

 

regarding the kr__ts....

 

Deutsland did produce the

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101

 

Sort of a VTOL F104

 

but going back futher:

 

The Natter comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

 

A rocket powered equivalent to the

 

Lockheed Salmon

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XFV

 

and the Pogo

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo

 

There was also the

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U

 

that even if not truly 'vtol' would have certainly been able to be flown off a very short flight deck without a catapult (catapult? strange term as it referred to an classic era 'shield piecing crossbow rather than another form of projector,,,)

[BansheeOne]

 

regarding the kr__ts....

 

Deutsland did produce the

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101

 

Sort of a VTOL F104

 

There was also the more Harrier-like VFW VAK 191 B, albeit intended to be transsonic and the swiveling nozzles being supported by two separate lift engines.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

There was a really interesting Heinkel aircraft in 'IL2 1946' which was a rotary fan lift engine so the aircraft took off vertically, then the pilot pushed over and used it in flight. Kinda reminicent of the Convair Pogo, except in this case the fan was mid bodied. It was apparently based on a real Heinkel Concept from the 1940s, but like the Pogo they would have a hell of a problem transitioning back into vertical flight and landing it.

 

I guess the point is, there is a lot of companies that have done it, but only one that really made it work. F35 I think the jury still seems to be out, at least in American minds.

[Panzermann]

There was a really interesting Heinkel aircraft in 'IL2 1946' which was a rotary fan lift engine so the aircraft took off vertically, then the pilot pushed over and used it in flight. Kinda reminicent of the Convair Pogo, except in this case the fan was mid bodied. It was apparently based on a real Heinkel Concept from the 1940s, but like the Pogo they would have a hell of a problem transitioning back into vertical flight and landing it.

 

with this concept the landing is the tricky part. Hence nobody has built one in earnest.

 

I guess the point is, there is a lot of companies that have done it, but only one that really made it work. F35 I think the jury still seems to be out, at least in American minds.

 

there was also the Dornier Do-31 with lift fans at the end of the wings:

 

 

 

 

But as usual only the Brits were stubborn enough to put an eccentric concept into production.

[DougRichards]

 

There was a really interesting Heinkel aircraft in 'IL2 1946' which was a rotary fan lift engine so the aircraft took off vertically, then the pilot pushed over and used it in flight. Kinda reminicent of the Convair Pogo, except in this case the fan was mid bodied. It was apparently based on a real Heinkel Concept from the 1940s, but like the Pogo they would have a hell of a problem transitioning back into vertical flight and landing it.

 

with this concept the landing is the tricky part. Hence nobody has built one in earnest.

 

I guess the point is, there is a lot of companies that have done it, but only one that really made it work. F35 I think the jury still seems to be out, at least in American minds.

 

there was also the Dornier Do-31 with lift fans at the end of the wings:

 

 

 

 

But as usual only the Brits were stubborn enough to put an eccentric concept into production.

 

Problem was: if one powerplant failed.............. the aircraft was doomed.

 

The P1127 and it's derivatives had just the one powerplant so that if it failed the pilot could still eject basically upwards.

 

The Osprey has its rotors linked so even if one side failed there will be some redundancy. That is not easy with a turbofan.