Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #3031
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    [SIZE=4]Why Does Britain Need Aircraft Carriers?[/SIZE]

    [*******#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]This paper addresses that issue in the context of:-
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]a) The Government’s decision to procure two new aircraft carriers and of

    b) Our Secretary of State, the Right Honourable Philip Hammond MP’s recent statement that “We are committed to purchasing the carrier-variant [of JSF/F-35] and the regeneration of our carrier strike force is at the heart of our defence strategy.

    c) Recent arguments in the Press on the merits of naval aircraft and the carriers themselves

    http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/03/why-does-britain-need-aircraft-carriers/
    [/FONT][/COLOR]

  2. #3032
    Senior Member SDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brentwood, England
    Posts
    3,679

    Default

    when was that released?

  3. #3033
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SDL View Post
    when was that released?
    About 3 weeks ago! The graphs at the bottom of the paper tell the real picture for me.

  4. #3034
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    This is an absolute must see, it's an RN training video from 1960, I have never seen so much detail into launching and recovering catobar aircraft.

    Last edited by cockneyjock1974; 04-13-2012 at 06:53 PM.

  5. #3035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonodavies12 View Post
    Do the panels not look a bit 'off' to anyone else?
    You have presumably not seen modern "boatbuilders" at work... Bog (filler) is their friend!


    As for the PTT articles. Great reading from a group of passionate and qualified individuals' who have an in-depth knowledge of Naval Aviation that others would not dare to enter into.

  6. #3036

    Default

    looks as the blocks done in Portsmouth are more completed then the ones done at Goven.
    i.e painted more plus if you look at the corridors ,they look completed as well.
    Last edited by cyrilranch; 04-14-2012 at 05:33 AM.

  7. #3037
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swoop View Post
    You have presumably not seen modern "boatbuilders" at work... Bog (filler) is their friend!


    As for the PTT articles. Great reading from a group of passionate and qualified individuals' who have an in-depth knowledge of Naval Aviation that others would not dare to enter into.

    You might think of reading the following link in regards to PTT and the comments attached,slightly biased perhaps?



    Naval Aviation; Blogs and Think Tanks | Think Defence

  8. #3038
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrilranch View Post
    looks as the blocks done in Portsmouth are more completed then the ones done at Goven.
    i.e painted more plus if you look at the corridors ,they look completed as well.
    The block in Govan will not be ready for another 6 months, the only reason that bit of the block is painted is to protect it from the elements, the block is now so long that it sticks out of the construction hall

  9. #3039
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Piacenza, Italy
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,424

    Default

    You might think of reading the following link in regards to PTT and the comments attached,slightly biased perhaps?



    Naval Aviation; Blogs and Think Tanks | Think Defence
    There is some naval bias on PTT, of course, but generally their technical observations are spot on right, and written by people of great experience.
    Personally, i consider Think Defence rather more biased than PTT, when it comes to the carriers at least: the hostility on that site against CVF is astonishing. Not to talk about the absolute hostility to CATOBAR, and a general view that the Royal Navy is just a crybaby and that CVF is the cause of the budget blackhole at the MOD.

    With all respect for Think Defence's hard work, i tend to look away when they talk of naval matters as most of what is said is highly questionable a good bit of the time.
    Also, a Think Defence stated policy is that the RAF should get all what flies. Including Merlin HM2 and other naval aviation stuff. For me that qualifies as "non sense".

  10. #3040
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Piacenza, Italy
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,424

    Default

    By the way, the F35B trials at sea on USS Wasp were presented by the STOVL prophets as having proven that the B has "no issues" and that the jet blast hazard claims were "nonsense" and that everything actually works perfectly well.

    The reality is a bit different. The F35B jet blast does not hole the deck as someone had (rather extremely) prophetized, but a jet blast issues exists and the trials at sea only confirmed it. A 75 feet danger radius is reported.

    Again, the US Navy DOT&E report for 2011 reports that F35A is presented as being 11% behind schedule, with the B 9% behind schedule and the C 32% AHEAD of schedule, despite the hook issue.

    Regarding the F35B:

    In October 2011, the program successfully conducted initial
    amphibious ship trials with STOVL aircraft in accordance with
    the new, restructured plan for 2011; however, significant work
    and flight tests remain to verify and incorporate modifications
    to STOVL aircraft required to correct known STOVL
    deficiencies and prepare the system for operational use.
    Jet blast from the F-35Bs is expected to produce unsafe forces
    on flight deck personnel up to 75 feet from the short take-off
    line.
    This bit appears in the LHA-6 America part of the report.

    The program halted F-35B durability testing at the end of
    last year when a wing carry-through bulkhead cracked before
    2,000 hours of airframe life. The required airframe lifetime
    is 8,000 hours. Repair of the bulkhead on the test article was
    completed in November 2011, and F-35B durability testing is
    scheduled to restart in January 2012.
    • Following the bulkhead crack in the F-35B test article,
    analysis verified the existence of numerous other
    life‑limited parts on all three variants. The program began
    developing plans to correct these deficiencies in existing
    aircraft by repair/modifications, and designing changes
    to the production process. The most significant of these
    in terms of complexity, aircraft downtime, and difficulty
    of the modification required for existing aircraft is the
    forward wing root rib on the F-35A and F-35B aircraft.
    All production aircraft in the first five lots will need the
    modification before these aircraft reach 1,000 hours.
    • The program also halted F-35A durability testing after the
    F-35B bulkhead crack and restarted it at the end of May 2011.
    The test article restarted testing in November 2011, after
    completing inspections subsequent to accomplishing
    3,000 effective flight hours of testing. During the second
    1,000‑hour block of testing, the wing root rib failed, as
    predicted. The test team is able to continue airframe fatigue
    testing in the near-term, while analysis determines when and
    how to repair the test article.
    • F-35C structural testing completed all structural test
    objectives in August 2011, including planned “drop tests” in
    preparation for simulated carrier trials. Durability testing is
    scheduled to begin in Spring 2012.
    Read the report here: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/

    Under DoD programs, F35 section.

    The B is still plagued with countless issues, including doors of the propulsion system coming off in flight XD

  11. #3041
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Good posts Liger, nice to get a heads up about how the Wasp trials went. I hope that the bit about the "C" model being ahead of schedule is true as well.

  12. #3042
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Piacenza, Italy
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,424

    Default

    I hope that the bit about the "C" model being ahead of schedule is true as well.
    I think there is no doubt on this: this is official DoD documents, by far the best source we can drink from.
    You must, of course, look at the 32% ahead of schedule data with the awareness that the C is the variant who entered trials last. The other two variants are ahead of the F35C with their programs of development, testing and validation.
    However, they are lagging considerably in terms of test points cleared, while the F35C has cleared 32% more test points than planned, which is very reassuring. Having started later also means that more corrections have been incorporated into the C at build, thanks to discoveries made on the other two variants.
    The C variant has 1002 test flights left to go, and 12.442 test points to clear.
    The A 827 flights and 10257 test points.
    The B 1,437 flights and 15,045 points.

    These values of course change rather frequently when a change proves necessary and needs to be flown and trialed, adding new flights and points to clear to the count, but they are indicative of the current plan.

    The C's big issues come down to the hook (hopefully to be solved in the coming months by the new hook design) and to acceleration which is a bit below the expected value. We must hope that no problems emerge from durability tests: the F35A's wing root life is just 3000-some hours and the F35B main bulkhead survived 2000 hours against a requirement of 8000...

  13. #3043
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Livingston, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    109

    Default



    Here are a couple of photos that I took of LB04 yesterday
    sorry about the quality as I took them on my phone
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  14. #3044

    Default

    Well spotted CJ. I enjoyed watching the Launch and Recover training film which underlines the complexity of the machinery and controls to facilitate catapult launches and arrestor wire recoveries. Hopefully that fitted in the QE Class carriers (when we get the final go ahead) will be a good deal less manpower intensive with the catapult controlled from the launch control position and the arrester wires from Flyco or the LCO's position.

  15. #3045
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    good question. I have no idea
    Posts
    674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liger30 View Post
    The C's big issues come down to the hook (hopefully to be solved in the coming months by the new hook design) and to acceleration which is a bit below the expected value. We must hope that no problems emerge from durability tests: the F35A's wing root life is just 3000-some hours and the F35B main bulkhead survived 2000 hours against a requirement of 8000...
    That would be our fault, sorry

    [*******#222222]"For the F-35 Lightning II JSF Fokker Landing Gear is system design responsible for the Arresting Hook of the F35 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) and the Carrier Version (CV). For the reliability of this arresting hook system Fokker needs to do climate testing. One of the parts of the arresting hook system is the Upswing Damper. It is mounted right under the engine of the F-35. This Upswing Damper adsorbs the energy during the landing from the hook."[/COLOR]

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •