Read the forum code of contact
By: - 13th May 2012 at 15:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers being built to fulfill the CVF requirement.New thread to focus on the assembly of the new Royal Navy carriers as they start to take shape and to be completed as per their original STOVL design.
Damn - means I'll have have to revert too. Switch back my screen saver from this....
By: - 13th May 2012 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To this.....:diablo:
By: - 13th May 2012 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hold your horses Pong,
If we really go to SRVL (and I didn't think that had been decided yet) then should we actually have an angled deck!
By: - 13th May 2012 at 18:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes if you go RVL then you will need an angled deck for safety
By: - 13th May 2012 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well maybe, you don't get bolters with SRVL making need for an angled deck less then again if the brakes fail on an approaching it could lead to the F35b coming to a sticky ending over the ski jump. An angled deck in that scenario means it would plop into the sea rather then have the carrier run it over...an event that has happened in the past. Then again how quick is the lightning going on an SRVL approach...frankly we need to see how the tests go with the ski jump in America. Spray the area infont of the ski jump with water then get the F35B to do an SRVL approach, landing at the same spot it would on the carrier without the brakes and see what happens!:diablo:
By: - 13th May 2012 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SRVL approach is roughly 60knts at about a 6 degree glideslope if memory serves. Ship will be steaming at 20-25knts so actual rolling speed on deck will come in at about 35-40knts. Qinetiq state that touchdown point will be about 150ft beyond the round down and, worst case, braking distance wont exceed 400ft.
SRVL, it should be pointed out, will only be employed when heavier than normal bringback is occuring and, under benign conditions, braking roll should be around 200ft. So, with the most extreme combination of factors, free deck of about 550ft will be required and at the end of the 550ft, if the brakes are working at all, the aircraft should be at a rate of knots completely unsuited to a bolter in any understood use of the term!.
That said I think its safe to say that, with nearly 4 acres of flight deck, marking up a shallow angled run to at least partially deconflict landing and takeoff events cant be a bad idea!.
By: - 13th May 2012 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have an image in my mind of matelots chasing a Lightning down the deck chocks in hand with it rolling to the top of the Ski Jump cartoon style before it rolls back in the other direction scattering crew in all directions!
Then again:
By: - 13th May 2012 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cue Benny Hill theme tune etc :D
By: - 13th May 2012 at 23:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh you beat me to that!:D
By: - 15th May 2012 at 18:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SRVL approach is roughly 60knts at about a 6 degree glideslope if memory serves. Ship will be steaming at 20-25knts so actual rolling speed on deck will come in at about 35-40knts. Qinetiq state that touchdown point will be about 150ft beyond the round down and, worst case, braking distance wont exceed 400ft.SRVL, it should be pointed out, will only be employed when heavier than normal bringback is occuring and, under benign conditions, braking roll should be around 200ft. So, with the most extreme combination of factors, free deck of about 550ft will be required and at the end of the 550ft, if the brakes are working at all, the aircraft should be at a rate of knots completely unsuited to a bolter in any understood use of the term!.
That said I think its safe to say that, with nearly 4 acres of flight deck, marking up a shallow angled run to at least partially deconflict landing and takeoff events cant be a bad idea!.
Qinetiq did those tests with a Harrier 1 which is pretty stable platform. No SRVL tests have been done with production model (which are heavier to keep the aircraft from ripping itself apart) with any kind of combat loads. Keeping the angled deck extension might be a good idea just in case. Plus, If you need a COD visit from an Osprey, you have space for it to do rolling take-off and landings without having to worry about the big rotors hitting the ski-jump.
By: - 15th May 2012 at 19:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another reason to keep angled deck might be if you have an a/c with a little technical glitch ;)
By: - 15th May 2012 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Qinetiq did those tests with a Harrier 1 which is pretty stable platform. No SRVL tests have been done with production model (which are heavier to keep the aircraft from ripping itself apart) with any kind of combat loads. Keeping the angled deck extension might be a good idea just in case. Plus, If you need a COD visit from an Osprey, you have space for it to do rolling take-off and landings without having to worry about the big rotors hitting the ski-jump.
Didnt they use the Harrier to validate the testing model they developed?. It was my understanding that Qinetiq modelled F-35B and Harrier then validated the Harrier data with the trials. Harrier data checked out ergo confidence in their model for F-35B.
Besides there's nothing really all that magical about stopping an aircraft, even one carrying an extra couple of tons of ordnance, from 40mph in the wet in a few hundred feet on brakes alone. The big British Army Fodens tip in at about 38ton loaded and, in the dry, they can pull up from 45mph in about 120ft. Double that up for the wet and then double again for the lower surface adhesion and you are in the ballpark of what Qinetiq says is worst case. In really, really adverse conditions with heavy pitching and icy decks etc maybe there is a bite-the-bullet judgement call and the F-35B does ditch ordnance for the option of a, safer, VL. In those conditions I'm sure the equivalent CATOBAR pilot would be quite happy to be ditching ordnance also before trying for a landing and/or be considering his diversion options!.
As stated I'm all for the retention of an angled deck for SRL when its employed. If McTaggerts could have offered a good price to the Carrier Alliance I'd have had no issue with DAX-II like gear fitted from the outset for a more STOBAR-like configuration....were only getting two ships so lets get all the benefit for UK manufacturing we can and it may have come in handy for future STOL/slow-mover fixed wing UAVs!. I'd also assume that with an 800ft+ flight deck and a skijump adding circa 30% to the run (most oft quoted figure) that a clean Rafale or Super Hornet would stand a fighting chance of getting upiddy-up-up should one have to effect an emergency landing on a QE?!. Shame we wont see it now that the CATOBAR lunacy has poisoned that particular chalice!.
By: - 15th May 2012 at 22:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another reason to keep angled deck might be if you have an a/c with a little technical glitch ;)
That too. The reason the angled deck was developed was to keep an aircraft with a problem from barreling into other jets. An angled with a barricade might actually save an F-35B in the event some of the jazillion moving parts required to get it into a hover malfunction.
By: - 16th May 2012 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These carries could just as well work as STOBAR with the simple addition of a recovery wire no ?
By: - 16th May 2012 at 05:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they did decide to fit an angled deck and AAG the E-2 has in the past been quoted as being able to take off from a ski jump Northrop Grumman did testes if I remember right incase india wanted it for there stobar carriers might be worth it to give the carriers a more effective AEW capability after the lessons of the Falklands war AEW is an absolute must and we must strive to get the best capability we can.
By: - 16th May 2012 at 07:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they did decide to fit an angled deck and AAG the E-2 has in the past been quoted as being able to take off from a ski jump Northrop Grumman did testes if I remember right incase india wanted it for there stobar carriers might be worth it to give the carriers a more effective AEW capability after the lessons of the Falklands war AEW is an absolute must and we must strive to get the best capability we can.
Why does everyone still talk about 'fitting' the angled deck? It is fitted! It only has to be painted on to the deck. The only additions physically needed for the CATOBAR configuration are a round down at the stern (a few hundred tonnes of steel) and som aerodynaic reshping of the forward end of the angled deck (a few hundred more tonnes of steel) which is only really necessary for high speed conventional landings and Bolting aircraft. If SRVLs are at around 40mph then the fore end remodelling of the deck isn't so important and the aft round down can be dispensed with too. The sponsons already fitted are wide enough for a fully angled deck to be painted on.
By: - 16th May 2012 at 08:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looking at the CGI on the BAE Systems site, it has the SRVL aiming to land in the middle of the flight deck between the two islands rather than the stern where there would be much more movement in the ship from wave motion. Much as the VL landing does except its making use of the runway to line up its landing and has the room to roll to a stop.
By: - 16th May 2012 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Geoff,
I think it was Qinetiq who stated that the aiming mark would be about 150ft in from the round down. I guess if you are coming in at 40mph you probably have time to pick your spot dependent on conditions. Looks like EODAS is going to be a bloody useful landing aid as well as everything else!.
Russ,
'Fitted out with' is probably the term everyone is missing when it comes to the angled deck. There will be deck lighting, landing aid configuration etc that will need to be changed from the axial layout, so, a bit of real work involved in fitting it out over the paint slapping albeit not a great deal!.
By: - 16th May 2012 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jonesy;
Completely agree. My point being so many posters seem to think the sponsons aren't going to be fitted in STOVL configuration, ar at least that's the impression they give. As you said, it won't be a big deal to install the deck lighting and DAPS, so it should be an idea given worthy consideration if it improves the safety of SRVLs.
By: - 16th May 2012 at 17:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jonesy;Completely agree. My point being so many posters seem to think the sponsons aren't going to be fitted in STOVL configuration, ar at least that's the impression they give. As you said, it won't be a big deal to install the deck lighting and DAPS, so it should be an idea given worthy consideration if it improves the safety of SRVLs.
There would have to be some changes like the additional runway overhang and the moving of the port bow CWIS mount.
Posts: 507
By: Geoff_B - 13th May 2012 at 10:39
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers being built to fulfill the CVF requirement.
New thread to focus on the assembly of the new Royal Navy carriers as they start to take shape and to be completed as per their original STOVL design.
Couple of notes on this following a talk given by Geoff Searle the Program Manager on the eve of the switch back;- the Ski jump will be reinstated, the approach radar of the invincible class will be replaced by the new US version as the aircraft are too stealthy on approach until its too late, the thermal footprint is quite a concern resulting in investigations with the USN into a suitable & durable deck coating af a metallic origin perhaps, the crew in the catwalks also need some protection along with their kit, a new landing light configuration is required for the SRVL and yes the JSF program have been studying the capability since 2010 so it wasnt dropped when we switched over.