HMS Queen Elizabeth

Author
Discussion

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Thursday 21st June 2012
quotequote all
chinooks were on the initial press release and materials etc so the elevators are probably designed to accommodate them without too much fuss. Could certainly be a useful edition for faster loading of troops and supplies if required.

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

210 months

Thursday 21st June 2012
quotequote all
Amazing how they got the ski jump welded on so quick.

Is it a mod for an asian customer??

mrloudly

2,815 posts

183 months

Thursday 21st June 2012
quotequote all
dirkgently said:
el stovey said:
Amazing how many more aircraft the Nimitz class carries.
About 90 more in the current climate smile
PH really needs a "Like" button biggrinbiggrinbiggrin

King Herald

23,501 posts

164 months

Thursday 21st June 2012
quotequote all
phumy said:
I still cant see how they can flood that dry dock and get her out wink
By the time it is brought into service, and has planes to accommodate, global warming will have the sea level above that dock even at low tide. biggrin

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Friday 22nd June 2012
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
Amazing how they got the ski jump welded on so quick.

Is it a mod for an asian customer??
Amazing how effective a ski jump is, a simple addition that gave massive gains to the harrier in terms of max take off weight and should go some way in reducing some of the negative effects of choosing the F35 variant with the worse range and payload of the three.

IanMorewood

4,309 posts

196 months

Saturday 23rd June 2012
quotequote all
Yep thats an artists impression, been on the BBC news website over a year now that same image.

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Sunday 24th June 2012
quotequote all
A lot of the renders and such are quite tricky to think of in relative terms due to the sheer scale of the project and how clean they often are, like the type 45's the renders showed very clean lines and no details while the final versions once decked out with all the details of a working ship (markings, weapons, railings etc.) are much easier to appreciate in terms of size.

With the rate the blocks are going together with a bit of luck we will have what actually looks like a ship in just a few months.

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

210 months

Sunday 24th June 2012
quotequote all
Godalmighty83 said:
Mojocvh said:
Amazing how they got the ski jump welded on so quick.

Is it a mod for an asian customer??
Amazing how effective a ski jump is, a simple addition that gave massive gains to the harrier in terms of max take off weight and should go some way in reducing some of the negative effects of choosing the F35 variant with the worse range and payload of the three.
And a LOT more "worse off" try 5g max for starters...

Mave

6,303 posts

163 months

Sunday 24th June 2012
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
And a LOT more "worse off" try 5g max for starters...
Where did you get that number from?

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Sunday 24th June 2012
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
And a LOT more "worse off" try 5g max for starters...
According to lockheed martin-

F-35A 9 g, F-35B: 7.0/7.5* g, F-35C: 7.5 g


  • payload variations, iam personally presuming that's due to wing loadings
comments from a test pilot-

''The F-35B also loses the ability to pull some Gs compared to the conventional USAF variant. The STOVL can only pull 7G compared to 9G for the F-35A and 7.5G for the F-35C. Tomlinson explained that this is not a result of any trade-off made for improved short field performance. “There’s no reason we can’t make a 9G STOVL airplane”, he said.

Tomlinson explained, “Because of the stealth and sensors, the Marine Corps and Navy weren’t interested in more than 7G and 7.5G for their F-35 versions. The Marines and Navy have never been enthusiastic about a 9G capability. It’s not required for their mission. To get more G, you need to beef up that structure and that adds weight. The USAF made the trade-off for the 9G capability.”

Other than the reduced G-limit, in conventional flight the F-35B handles almost exactly like the F-35A, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B retains the same outstanding low-speed, high angle of attack handling qualities as well as the same incredible acceleration as the F-35A. “You struggle to tell the difference between the CTOL and the STOVL in the cockpit,” Tomlinson said, adding that test pilots are trained to notice even minute differences in aircraft handling qualities. Tomlinson noted that while the F-35B’s lift-fan causes a visible bump in the aircraft’s outer mold line, the only cue in the cockpit is a slightly different wind noise. “STOVL only applies below 10 thousand feet and below 250 knots,” Tomlinson notes. ''

Another source-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...


Although its very unlikely that any airframe asides from prop stunt planes ever see anything close to max ratings due to the massive shortening of the airframes lifespan it would cause.

Also all those figures re: ranges are taken from a standard runway take off, the ski jump fitted to the invincible (6 deg?) gave the old harrier an extra 1000lb to its max take off, its unknown what effect it could have on a f35.

AlexiusG55

634 posts

104 months

Sunday 24th June 2012
quotequote all
Also, surely thats Prince of Wales not Queen Elizabeth in the picture, hence the big "P" on the fight deck...

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Monday 25th June 2012
quotequote all
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/74403...

remember men, always have your hard hats on, they are the thing between you and a flying 600t piece of flight deck.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/74403...

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

210 months

Monday 25th June 2012
quotequote all
Godalmighty83 said:
Mojocvh said:
And a LOT more "worse off" try 5g max for starters...
According to lockheed martin-

F-35A 9 g, F-35B: 7.0/7.5* g, F-35C: 7.5 g


  • payload variations, iam personally presuming that's due to wing loadings
comments from a test pilot-

''The F-35B also loses the ability to pull some Gs compared to the conventional USAF variant. The STOVL can only pull 7G compared to 9G for the F-35A and 7.5G for the F-35C. Tomlinson explained that this is not a result of any trade-off made for improved short field performance. “There’s no reason we can’t make a 9G STOVL airplane”, he said.

Tomlinson explained, “Because of the stealth and sensors, the Marine Corps and Navy weren’t interested in more than 7G and 7.5G for their F-35 versions. The Marines and Navy have never been enthusiastic about a 9G capability. It’s not required for their mission. To get more G, you need to beef up that structure and that adds weight. The USAF made the trade-off for the 9G capability.”

Other than the reduced G-limit, in conventional flight the F-35B handles almost exactly like the F-35A, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B retains the same outstanding low-speed, high angle of attack handling qualities as well as the same incredible acceleration as the F-35A. “You struggle to tell the difference between the CTOL and the STOVL in the cockpit,” Tomlinson said, adding that test pilots are trained to notice even minute differences in aircraft handling qualities. Tomlinson noted that while the F-35B’s lift-fan causes a visible bump in the aircraft’s outer mold line, the only cue in the cockpit is a slightly different wind noise. “STOVL only applies below 10 thousand feet and below 250 knots,” Tomlinson notes. ''

Another source-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...


Although its very unlikely that any airframe asides from prop stunt planes ever see anything close to max ratings due to the massive shortening of the airframes lifespan it would cause.

Also all those figures re: ranges are taken from a standard runway take off, the ski jump fitted to the invincible (6 deg?) gave the old harrier an extra 1000lb to its max take off, its unknown what effect it could have on a f35.
We shall see. wink

Simpo Two

70,342 posts

213 months

Tuesday 26th June 2012
quotequote all
Let's just jump forward by 15 years - we'll be buying second-hand Indian carriers.

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Wednesday 27th June 2012
quotequote all
I cant see the point in making a decision like that at this moment of time, there is still a massive project underway that you will want the workers to focus on and the small possibility of scots deciding on independance the future of the yards up there will be under much scrutiny.

This seems to do nothing but slow down progress on the PoW which might be the only thing the government is interested in as they hate the idea that the RN may end up with something useful.

AshVX220

4,202 posts

138 months

Wednesday 27th June 2012
quotequote all
Article said:
Following this news, the Ministry of Defence asked Admiral Sir Robert Walmsley, a former chief of defence procurement, to look into the supercarrier programme.
Wiki said:
Robert Walmsley was born in Aberdeen in 1941 and was educated at Fettes College in Edinburgh.
Wow, he's a Scot, what a surprise, nothing like an un-biased view.

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest about the difference between the yards, we all have a job to deliver and slagging each other off achieves fk all.

jimmyjimjim

5,219 posts

186 months

Wednesday 27th June 2012
quotequote all
Unless of course the Scots go for independance. So I can't see a decision being made until then.

jimmyjimjim

5,219 posts

186 months

Wednesday 27th June 2012
quotequote all
doogz said:
This is the UK government you're talking about. Shoot now, ask questions later laugh

You're right, that would be the sensible approach, but it's not what we're hearing.
I thought it was more "never resolve a difficult issue today if you can push it off to another parliament when it might be some other parties problem".

Godalmighty83

417 posts

202 months

Wednesday 27th June 2012
quotequote all
One effect of massive projects like this and the planes to go on them is that delaying anything to save money is self-defeating, the longer any issue goes on for the more money it costs.

'We have delayed project X 3 years to save 100 million'

3 years later-

'what why does project X now cost 300 million?!'

Because this isn't the second hand car market you have had people sat around for years now with massively increased development costs and general inflation + tech price inflation, well done stuff now costs more.


Anyway back to the carriers and such, not the politics and idiot in charge of the week.

A fairly recent PDF from the folk making the ships-


may PR in PDF format

davepoth

29,395 posts

147 months

Wednesday 27th June 2012
quotequote all
jimmyjimjim said:
doogz said:
This is the UK government you're talking about. Shoot now, ask questions later laugh

You're right, that would be the sensible approach, but it's not what we're hearing.
I thought it was more "never resolve a difficult issue today if you can push it off to another parliament when it might be some other parties problem".
You missed "...unless leaving it till later would be quite sensible, in which case deciding immediately is the thing to do." off the end of that.

All of the UK defence shipbuilding industry would be a nice present for Scotland, wouldn't it?