Stuart Galbraith Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 No hook Colin. How would you stop it? An osprey it would probably work, but we refuse to buy those, even though its probably the best way forward. Second episode of 'Britain's biggest warship', they are undertaking the flight trials of the F35. In a Hurricane....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0jy88jtyQE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Great series!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Yeah, if its on DVD im going to have to get it. Its absolutely fantastic contrast to the old series 'Sailor' about the old Ark Royal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 During the episode the presenter mentioned that, during the trials, the ship had a crew of 1500 men and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Quite a contrast to Ask Royal R09 which had a compliment of over 2200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 (edited) A bit of WayBackTM for comparison:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyFNZjw94T4&t=1521s Edited November 6, 2019 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 I will never forgive Cameron for drawing us down to 2 percent of GDP on defence and binning the Carriers and Harrier force. The man was nothing but a vandal, not to mention a bloody fool. Portsmouth completes infrastructure for deployment of the 2 Carriers.https://www.adsadvance.co.uk/portsmouth-naval-base-ready-for-uk-s-aircraft-carriers.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Interesting paragraphs at the end devoted to what may be the most advanced onboard garbage disposal process in the world. They also point to British technical leadership in this sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 No hook Colin. How would you stop it? An osprey it would probably work, but we refuse to buy those, even though its probably the best way forward. Second episode of 'Britain's biggest warship', they are undertaking the flight trials of the F35. In a Hurricane....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0jy88jtyQEJust watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it? I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think. Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 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? STOBAR is cheaper. Aircraft requires less modifications for naval role than CATOBAR, much less STOVL which requires dedicated aircraft with considerable development investment. And the ship is cheaper, too, and doesn't need to be steam powered which always brings its own issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 STOVL is cheaper on a lot of levels that aren't immediately clear. The ship is cheaper, yes, but also far fewer deck crew are necessary to operate it - no deck crew are needed to operate or maintain cats or wires. Also aircrew training is vastly reduced compared to cat qual'ing CATOBAR pilots. The F-35B is an outstanding platform in terms of STOVL ease of use and STOVL capability*. It is also worth noting that the F-35C is heavier and has significantly inferior acceleration due to not just weight but the increased friction of the control surfaces, although the Charlie does have significantly more range.*The USMC requirements did however limit the capability of the other two types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it? I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think. Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. The F35B is not basically a Harrier. Its far more advanced and capable of carrying far more weapons, its stealthy, and its supersonic. Its like comparing a Hawker Hunter to an F15. The range is held against it, but if ive calculated it right, its actually got a longer combat radius than an F4 Phantom, which undertook all kinds of operations off carrier decks. The reason why we did it is long and complicated, and yes, made more sense we still had Harriers. As given above on the prune thread however, there are still a number of reasons why it makes economic sense to do it this way. TBH, Im not sure why people are getting hung up on UAV's. Im willing to bet sooner or later the USMC will want some to fly off their decks too. It doesnt strike me as beyond technical ability to develop a small UAV that an utilize a pegasus engine if we really want one. As the US Navy doesnt seem that bothered by having UAV's, it seem's difficult to slight the RN for a design where Carrier UAV's didnt even exist as a concept back in 1998 when they laid the spec's for this down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 (edited) 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?STOBAR is cheaper. Aircraft requires less modifications for naval role than CATOBAR, much less STOVL which requires dedicated aircraft with considerable development investment. And the ship is cheaper, too, and doesn't need to be steam powered which always brings its own issues. Those characteristics are all true (and familiar). What I meant to ask is what kind of role is envisioned for such carriers and their aircraft during conflict against an opponent of at least medium weight? A STOBAR carrier with conventional aircraft is indeed much simpler and cheaper to get going and operate, but 1) still represents a substantial investment that could have been spent otherwise, 2) imposes severe limitations on the aircraft's fuel and weapons load. Browsing through the Chinese defense forums (such as the CDF), it appears that the PRC has already had its fill and that it stopped the production of the J-15 STOBAR aircraft after only two dozen examples. Hence, its next and third carrier is rumored to be of the CATOBAR type, which naturally requires a redesign of this aircraft or a new design altogether. Then there is India. What is the precise need that is fulfilled by its carrier with its small complement of MiG-29Ks? Engage Pakistan from the sea during conflict? This implies that either the carrier has to get really close to the Pakistani coastline and thus within range of Pakistani land based aircraft or that a land-based tanker is required to increase the range of the MiG-29K. In the latter case, one could just as well base these aircraft on land, say on Jamnagar AFS in Rajkot. (EDIT: An improvement of fleet air defense by the MiG-29Ks is of course a possibility.) Edited November 7, 2019 by Daan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 The big advantage of the F-35B should be its ability to operate dispersed from improvised land bases. I know it has a reputation for needing highly specialised surfaces to operate from, but I'm optimistic rolling take offs and landings could overcome that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it? I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think. Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. The F35B is not basically a Harrier. Its far more advanced and capable of carrying far more weapons, its stealthy, and its supersonic. Its like comparing a Hawker Hunter to an F15. The range is held against it, but if ive calculated it right, its actually got a longer combat radius than an F4 Phantom, which undertook all kinds of operations off carrier decks. The reason why we did it is long and complicated, and yes, made more sense we still had Harriers. As given above on the prune thread however, there are still a number of reasons why it makes economic sense to do it this way. TBH, Im not sure why people are getting hung up on UAV's. Im willing to bet sooner or later the USMC will want some to fly off their decks too. It doesnt strike me as beyond technical ability to develop a small UAV that an utilize a pegasus engine if we really want one. As the US Navy doesnt seem that bothered by having UAV's, it seem's difficult to slight the RN for a design where Carrier UAV's didnt even exist as a concept back in 1998 when they laid the spec's for this down. Yes of course it has all the fancy stuff. As do the other F-35. Still the B is a STOVL aeroplane with all the baggage that comes with that. Well if the Harriers had been flown longer it made sense. And the carriers been delivered more on time. The big advantage of the F-35B should be its ability to operate dispersed from improvised land bases. I know it has a reputation for needing highly specialised surfaces to operate from, but I'm optimistic rolling take offs and landings could overcome that. Which non-existant dispersed improvised landingstrips might that be? In Germany those have been built over and done away with in recent Autobahn modernisations and renovations. In the ANTO exercises in the baltic countries there were still some from soviet times iirc, that were used. The F-35 needs an internet connection, which you do not have in random places. And I would not count on it in a war. Having the Harriers in Afghanistan made them vulnerable and they lost some to attacks. I doubt anyone is ever going to be willing to risk F-35 that way. So not much use I can see for STOVL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 The potential for all of a nation's air force pilots to be qualified for operations off of its own or allied carriers, not just an elite naval aviator few, would be an interesting argument for STOVL, particularly between alliance partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 Great series!! Agreed, enjoying it immensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 Just watched tracker landing, for some reason i thought they could land without it? I think they could with props in full reverse setting, but then C-130 have been proven to be able to land on a carrier. Stopping with a hook is much more efficient and quicker. And less risky for the deck crew I think. Well, it is not like the RN had not been told that CATOBAR was more useful than a ramp. UAVs were already on the horizon, but they staid with basically Harriers. The F35B is not basically a Harrier. Its far more advanced and capable of carrying far more weapons, its stealthy, and its supersonic. Its like comparing a Hawker Hunter to an F15. The range is held against it, but if ive calculated it right, its actually got a longer combat radius than an F4 Phantom, which undertook all kinds of operations off carrier decks. The reason why we did it is long and complicated, and yes, made more sense we still had Harriers. As given above on the prune thread however, there are still a number of reasons why it makes economic sense to do it this way. TBH, Im not sure why people are getting hung up on UAV's. Im willing to bet sooner or later the USMC will want some to fly off their decks too. It doesnt strike me as beyond technical ability to develop a small UAV that an utilize a pegasus engine if we really want one. As the US Navy doesnt seem that bothered by having UAV's, it seem's difficult to slight the RN for a design where Carrier UAV's didnt even exist as a concept back in 1998 when they laid the spec's for this down. Yes of course it has all the fancy stuff. As do the other F-35. Still the B is a STOVL aeroplane with all the baggage that comes with that. Well if the Harriers had been flown longer it made sense. And the carriers been delivered more on time. The big advantage of the F-35B should be its ability to operate dispersed from improvised land bases. I know it has a reputation for needing highly specialised surfaces to operate from, but I'm optimistic rolling take offs and landings could overcome that. Which non-existant dispersed improvised landingstrips might that be? In Germany those have been built over and done away with in recent Autobahn modernisations and renovations. In the ANTO exercises in the baltic countries there were still some from soviet times iirc, that were used. The F-35 needs an internet connection, which you do not have in random places. And I would not count on it in a war. Having the Harriers in Afghanistan made them vulnerable and they lost some to attacks. I doubt anyone is ever going to be willing to risk F-35 that way. So not much use I can see for STOVL. Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it. There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here. The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 The potential for all of a nation's air force pilots to be qualified for operations off of its own or allied carriers, not just an elite naval aviator few, would be an interesting argument for STOVL, particularly between alliance partners. That Japan and South Korea are now looking at Carriers equipped with F35B, certainly indicates there is a lot of potential for cross decking. I dont think the political benefits of something like that have been adequately explored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 General Berger of the US Marine Corp visits HMS Queen Elizabeth. Its interesting to note they have a 'scoreboard' in the hangar decks as well.https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 The potential for all of a nation's air force pilots to be qualified for operations off of its own or allied carriers, not just an elite naval aviator few, would be an interesting argument for STOVL, particularly between alliance partners. That Japan and South Korea are now looking at Carriers equipped with F35B, certainly indicates there is a lot of potential for cross decking. I dont think the political benefits of something like that have been adequately explored. That potential is limited in an either Japan or South Korea cross decking. The old narrative puts the blame for even new current affairs on Japan and overlooks the details and South Korean domestic situation. Its a terrible Achilles Heel to ideas of multilateral cooperation that include both Japan and South Korea. In late 2017 when the US navy parked three carriers off from North Korean shores, the South Koreans were unwilling to join formation that included Japanese warships. So the US had to for two sets of large naval warship formations in the Sea of Japan. One with USN and JMSDF and the other with USN and ROKN. I would like to see K2s, M1s, and Type 90s training together in South Korea.. Additionally, as I'm sure you are aware of, but I have been paying rather close attention to the South China Sea and what countries have made known the presence of their warships in that sea in the name of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Those countries include the US, Japan, Australia, India, the UK, and even France. But the ROK, no, not once. I even recall Vietnam was requesting South Korea to send warships down there. No response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 Its really very sad. If Japan and South Korea ever got their act together, China would be shitting itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) Its really very sad. If Japan and South Korea ever got their act together, China would be shitting itself. Well yes, but again, South Korea wouldn't even need to cooperate with Japan in order to put out its own voice into the South China Sea. And they have developed high level of economic and investment relation with Vietnam, yet still, no South Korea presence in the South China Sea. They simply do not. I'm not trying to dig dirt on South Korea simply out of a some sort of hidden pro-Japanese feelings. It is what it is. South Korea has been unwilling to go against the grains of PRC interest except if its related to the Korean peninsula such as scrambling fighters to any PRC military aircraft approaching South Korean ADIZ or some US-ROK alliance matter concerning the DPRK such as the THAAD deployment. Edited November 8, 2019 by JasonJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now