Punch out and lose the airframe if it cannot be refueled to get to a conventional airfield. Don't risk damage to the flat top trying a conventional landing into an arrestor net.
QEII Class - CATOBAR or STOVL?
- Thread starter moahunter
- Start date
Punch out and lose the airframe if it cannot be refueled to get to a conventional airfield. Don't risk damage to the flat top trying a conventional landing into an arrestor net.
Nowhere near as heavy as an F-111. F-4 heavy.
Landing is vertical, relative to the ship. There would be no difference in difficulty landing on Giuseppe Garibaldi or Nimitz. The designated, clear, landing spot would be about the same size. The only difference would be if the weather is heavy enough to throw the ship around.
Deck strength is a potential issue, but isn't a function of the size of the ship. Otherwise, the size & weight is irrelevant when it comes to landing.
Height? Ask the USMC pilots who've flown off them with Harriers how it compares with flying off a 40000 ton Wasp. They say to the press that the ski-jump means that despite the much smaller size of the ship, they never get anywhere near as close to the sea as they do when flying off USN LHAs & LHDs. They're flung up into the air.
You seem to be thinking in CATOBAR terms, not STOVL.
F35 will likely use rolling landings on QE2 class not vertical. I understand a UK Harrier has been fitted with a trial system to assist with emulating an F35 with a new landing aid system including helmet integration so that the rolling landing protocols can be evaluated. Recent source:
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2010/1st_quarter/vaac_award.html
Older (better) source:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/vaac-harrier-test-success/309427.article
The benefit in rolling landings is less fuel used to land on, which means longer mission time or ability to bring home unused payload (weapons).
The F35 is not a Harrier! It does not need to do exactly what a Harrier does.
Fuel usage during landing in bad weather was a major concern among pilots during the Falkland conflict, best to avoid it. (Not many chances to retry a botched landing!)
Which is interesting, as this thread should really be called CATOBAR or STORVL!!
As an aside, STOVL (or STORVL perhaps) seems by many accounts to be less susceptible to bad weather than CATOBAR. So progressing/persevering with STORVL would be beneficial.
Last edited:
And they have to do something about the deck damaging hot exhaust too.
In many ways, it's safer. STOVL aircraft will approach in far slower speed then the controlled crash CATOBAR where they practically slam the aircraft to the deck rather then touching it down. the biggest problem that may arise from operating a STOVL in a rough sea is a damaged landing gear. furthermore, training of the pilots will reduce the risk considerably.
Right now the F-35 is a quite capable expensive paperplane. We've heard these claims about the raptor to, however it turned out to be lies. Let's wait and see until LM offers us the real plane.
Well a dry F-111 is 20t. An little bit of poetic licence, still 6t heavier than a harrier, and on GG proberly 10t heavier.
Indeed, but many of the harrier ships were designed with harriers in mind, not an aircraft 6 or 10t heavier.
A 4 degree ramp is hardly flung, maybe pointed. Again those ships were designed with harriers in mind. It will be interesting to see how the F-35B goes with the american Wasps. Then again the americans have done wacky things like landed and launched a hercules on a carrier.
F-35B shouldn't be as bad as the harrier in terms of heat, ducted fan blows cold air down. Just normal engine heat.
The F-22 didn't really claim anything in terms of lower cost of ownership. It claimed stealth with superior agility and speed.
The F-35 on the other hand has spent a significant portion of its budget to be low cost to maintain. Its the first plane really to have F1 style maintence systems.
Its hardly a paper plane, there a many prototypes flying, today. Infact they are looking at accelerating the prototype program. Essentially when that happens it will be mass produced and we will have data on maintence. It won't be combat proven, but that is true of any new aircraft.
UK carriers have 12 degree ramps, with a distinct upward curve in the transition from horizontal to 12 degrees. If you've stood atop one of these ramps, you'd agree that "flung" is probably accurate!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
No, from the Telegraph article I quoted in the inital post, the C version is much cheaper:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...isk-as-MoD-drops-jump-jet-fighter-engine.html
I don't think the size of an fighter aircraft makes up the bulk of the cost, it is a cost effective option to make a fighter bigger. What drives the cost is more the technology in the aircraft. With that lift fan, you don't just have all the additional mechanicals, you also have a bunch more software that can go wrong as well. Just think of how many variables and controls to be adjusted when trying to bring one of these jet fighters down slowly on a gusty day under different loads of weapons and fuel - a lot of that is left to the pilot on the Harrier (which has no lift fan), but it will be at the mercy of computers on the F35B given the greater complexity of a modern jet..
Last edited:
But not according to any of the information released in the USA by the JSF project office, the GAO, etc., which all put the B & C at about the same price, with the STOVL mods of B being balanced by the larger wing & many airframe modifications of C.
I trust them over the Daily Telegraph on this, especially when the Telegraph article is clearly written by someone who thinks that the F-35B & C have different engines, & makes some quite remarkable assumptions on the impact on Rolls-Royce of a British switch to C.
Only GG has a 4 degree ramp. PdA & CN have 12 degrees, same as the Invincibles. And even 4 degrees makes a significant difference.
Any idea when we will know any idea when the F-35B is doing shipboard trials? because we then be able to know for sure what vessels are compatible to what extent. Also I thought the GG had only one lift compatible with the F-35
t68
Well-Known Member
Sorry for dredging up an old thread, I did not want to derail the RN thread.
AG perked my interest on aircraft carriers again with the proposed RAN Essex class carrier.
What has me perplexed at the moment is that with an Email equipped Queen Elizabeth; you have on cat on the bow and the other of the side with the landing area, all American carriers from the USS Oriskany (CV-34) have 2 cats on the bow. Comparing the stats from the Oriskany it is comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class carrier despite her increase in displacement, any idea on why QE is only having one shooter on the bow?
File:HMS Queen Elizabeth class port.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne
AG perked my interest on aircraft carriers again with the proposed RAN Essex class carrier.
What has me perplexed at the moment is that with an Email equipped Queen Elizabeth; you have on cat on the bow and the other of the side with the landing area, all American carriers from the USS Oriskany (CV-34) have 2 cats on the bow. Comparing the stats from the Oriskany it is comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class carrier despite her increase in displacement, any idea on why QE is only having one shooter on the bow?
File:HMS Queen Elizabeth class port.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne
Cost Benefit trade-off essentially.
Even the big USN super carriers only generally use 2 of the cats. The other 2 are essentially hot spares. Although in theory you can use more for concurrent launch & recovery, it is more efficient to use 2 for a launch cycle, the a recovery cycle. What limits the sortie generation rate is not the number of cats, but everything else (movements on deck, fuelling, re-arming etc).
Now EMALS should be much more reliable than steam cats, so 2 should be enough for QEC- and there are many other things to spend RN money on that are more important
Even the big USN super carriers only generally use 2 of the cats. The other 2 are essentially hot spares. Although in theory you can use more for concurrent launch & recovery, it is more efficient to use 2 for a launch cycle, the a recovery cycle. What limits the sortie generation rate is not the number of cats, but everything else (movements on deck, fuelling, re-arming etc).
Now EMALS should be much more reliable than steam cats, so 2 should be enough for QEC- and there are many other things to spend RN money on that are more important
The Oriskany was originally built as a WWII axial deck carrier. Her class were later rebuilt with angled flight decks and the two bow catapults. Both catapults were on the bow because that was where they could be fitted. It is not good damage control or flight deck practice to have all your catapults side by side. All of the British fleet carriers designed as such had two catapults: one on the bow and one on the flight deck at the waist.
For normal flight operations aircraft are landed on and then catapulted off in cycles. The carrier will conduct landing operations and then park these aircraft on the bow. Once all the aircraft in the air have landed they are towed from the bow of the ship to the aft, refuelled and rearmed and then catapulted off. Using a bow catapult and a waist catapult is a better option because if an aircraft becomes unserviceable while on the catapult it can just be towed forward and to the side and parked there out of the way. If you are using side by side catapults you have to reverse the aircraft back and in the way of the remaining aircraft in the queue waiting to launch. Using bow and waist catapults also enables more flexibility in your parking and taxying arrangements.
Thanks Abe - a very clear and concise explanation of the reasons for a British catapult layout that has had me perplexed for ages.
Of course the USN super carriers have 2 on the bow and 2 on the waist so there is a redundancy built in if either becomes unserviceable. I guess in a hot combat situation with the ship under direct threat and both bow catapults being used the WW2 practice of pushing an unserviceable aircraft overboard could be resorted too in an extreme emergency. Obviously not a peacetime option or even a war option unless the safety of the ship required it...
Tas