Jump to content

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As compared to the F-35B, the F-35C has a significantly greater wingspan. With its wings folded, it is only 1 meter or so smaller in width than the F-35B.

F-35_A_B_C_Config.png

Edited by Daan
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point the last guy makes is actually a pretty interesting one, that as we dont intend to fully fill out the deck with F35's on deployment, so you dont need as many people doing deck landing training. Which is actually a fairly considerable saving in money. The rolling landing we are employing is actually pretty simple, particularly compared to a standard USN style approach which messes my head up.

 

Then you also dont have the airframe being shook to buggery in cat's and traps. Which again is going to probably pay off in the jets lifetime.

 

For us, I think it makes sense. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed a valid point. I found the posts by Engines interesting regarding the different methods to take to the air and, subsequently, to recover the aircraft and the resulting design and performance constraints on both the F-35B and F-35C relative to the F-35A. ORAC's post (excerpts from an AW&ST article) of 17 Oct also emphasizes the difficulties facing the RN in the development of larger ship-born UAVs in the absence of a CATOBAR system.

 

Furthermore, to me these posts again highlighted the limitations of a STOBAR carrier with relatively conventional aircraft. I really wonder why some countries invest vast sums in these (India), except perhaps as a learning opportunity (PLAN?) or just for national prestige, showing the flag and making port calls. What would be their role in a region where their most likely opponents can be expected to be decently armed?

Edited by Daan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose China has no access to an off the shelf design which is catapult capable so they can either design their own carrier aircraft from the ground up or go with the Flanker and CATOBAR. In India's case, it would have been a job to convert their second hand Soviet carrier to CATOBAR and it would also have limited their aircraft options to Rafale or going cap in hand to the US for Super Hornets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Limiting themselves in that way has not been India's style, as it would limit Delhi's ability to play competitors off each other, and the flow of inducements from them to the Indian decision makers involved. Actual capability concerns may not be primary considerations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...