HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
The angled flight deck was a British invention. It allows you to park a/c at the forward end of the flight deck whilst catapult operations are in progress.
The QE class don't have an angled flight deck because they have no catapults, but rely on the ski jump (as per the Invincible Class).
The QE class don't have an angled flight deck because they have no catapults, but rely on the ski jump (as per the Invincible Class).
Big difference just to allow a bit of parking? Does our carrier allow on deck parking when flight operations are taking place?
I thought it might be that an angled deck would allow less chance of a crash taking out more of the ship.... I guess an angled deck is also harder to land on...? Is that the case?
I thought it might be that an angled deck would allow less chance of a crash taking out more of the ship.... I guess an angled deck is also harder to land on...? Is that the case?
During WW2, before the advent of the angled flight deck, when launching a/c you had to park the rest aft, when recovering you had to park them forward. This gives you all sorts of problems with a/c husbandry making the flight deck 'busier' than it needed to be. Additionally it meant that you had less flight deck available for take off and landing (owing to the parked a/c) - not such a problem until the advent of the jet age (with much heavier a/c). An additional (major) problem was that landing a/c could 'jump' the barrier and end up in the parking area - not so good for the integrity of your air wing!
The angled flight deck avoids these problems but it does mean that you will always take off and land with a certain amount of crosswind.
WRT the QE class I guess the reason that they are so wide is for allowing a/c to be 'spotted' (parked) on deck; the Invincible class didn't have such a problem since they carried far fewer a/c and the Harrier was a relatively small jet.
The angled flight deck avoids these problems but it does mean that you will always take off and land with a certain amount of crosswind.
WRT the QE class I guess the reason that they are so wide is for allowing a/c to be 'spotted' (parked) on deck; the Invincible class didn't have such a problem since they carried far fewer a/c and the Harrier was a relatively small jet.
TTmonkey said:
Big difference just to allow a bit of parking?
Your use of the word "just" understates the issue 
If you look at flight operations on a Nimitz class carrier, the deck manoeuvres are a huge logistics exercise. The rate at which aircraft are recovered, refuelled, rearmed, launched again is simply staggering, and an aircraft parked in the wrong place is a major problem.
TTmonkey said:
I thought it might be that an angled deck would allow less chance of a crash taking out more of the ship.... I guess an angled deck is also harder to land on...? Is that the case?
For normal carrier aircraft landing is equally easy/difficult on an old straight deck carrier as it is on a newer angled deck carrier, aborting the landing is a big difference.MartG said:
Also you can have aircraft landing on the angled deck at the same time as you're launching aircraft off the bow catapults
Funnily enough the Queen Elizabeth CATOBAR deck layout (that the French were going to use) could not if an aircraft missed the arrester wires and had to go around again.
Just like their current carrier Charles de Gaulle.
CdG Launching.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
During WW2, before the advent of the angled flight deck, when launching a/c you had to park the rest aft, when recovering you had to park them forward. This gives you all sorts of problems with a/c husbandry making the flight deck 'busier' than it needed to be. Additionally it meant that you had less flight deck available for take off and landing (owing to the parked a/c) - not such a problem until the advent of the jet age (with much heavier a/c). An additional (major) problem was that landing a/c could 'jump' the barrier and end up in the parking area - not so good for the integrity of your air wing!
The angled flight deck avoids these problems but it does mean that you will always take off and land with a certain amount of crosswind.
WRT the QE class I guess the reason that they are so wide is for allowing a/c to be 'spotted' (parked) on deck; the Invincible class didn't have such a problem since they carried far fewer a/c and the Harrier was a relatively small jet.
Ah, good explanation thanks. Yes the QE is rather fat across its beam isn't it, I was wondering why.... that explains it. The angled flight deck avoids these problems but it does mean that you will always take off and land with a certain amount of crosswind.
WRT the QE class I guess the reason that they are so wide is for allowing a/c to be 'spotted' (parked) on deck; the Invincible class didn't have such a problem since they carried far fewer a/c and the Harrier was a relatively small jet.
Do angled deck carriers steam directly into the wind for landing manoeuvres or do they sail at a slight angle to the wind when aircraft are landing?
wildcat45 said:
When she needs to be loaded up with bombs missiles etc, will she go to Glenmallon like the Invincibles did?
I imagine the jetty will be too short.
Plenty of room, they have mooring dolphins so length is not an issue. The loch has accommodated supertankers before now so aircraft carriers aren't a problem.I imagine the jetty will be too short.
MBBlat said:
Response from the QEC design team - who the 
puts ASM's on a carrier? only the Russians who know absolutely jack about operating a large carrier.
QEC, Nimitz, CdeG - single purpose aircraft operating platforms
According to Wikipedia (so must be true!) the Nimitz have sea sparrow missiles whilst the CdeG has Aster 15 and Mistral missiles. Not the same as the Russians but seemingly better self defence capability then QEC. puts ASM's on a carrier? only the Russians who know absolutely jack about operating a large carrier.- 1 lesson from WW2 carrier operations - the carriers main armament is its aircraft, putting other weapons systems on the carrier always compromises aircraft operations, so put them on the escorts instead where they don't get in the way.
QEC, Nimitz, CdeG - single purpose aircraft operating platforms
MBBlat said:
Response from the QEC design team - who the puts ASM's on a carrier? only the Russians who know absolutely jack about operating a large carrier.
QEC, Nimitz, CdeG - single purpose aircraft operating platforms
That was first thought and my understanding of how you operate carriers - as part of a carrier group with escort vessels that effectively sheild the carrier. Escort vessels can puts ASM's on a carrier? only the Russians who know absolutely jack about operating a large carrier.- 1 lesson from WW2 carrier operations - the carriers main armament is its aircraft, putting other weapons systems on the carrier always compromises aircraft operations, so put them on the escorts instead where they don't get in the way.
QEC, Nimitz, CdeG - single purpose aircraft operating platforms
be rotated, renewed, upgraded etc while the carrier focusses on its thing.
By the time your carrier's fighting ship to ship the battles lost isnt it?
hairyben said:
By the time your carrier's fighting ship to ship the battles lost isnt it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious
There's something deeply WRONG when despite all the attention laid upon the carriers the fact that they cannot sail with the full complement of national support resources both on and below surface and that the airwing is to be US Marine Corps until 2025 shows just how much of a disaster to actual national defence this entire BAE shooting match has been.
Cudos to them though.
Cudos to them though.
Edited by Sylvaforever on Wednesday 5th July 22:33
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff