Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: K Frame on December 17, 2019, 02:09:10 PM
-
Britain exited air power at sea in the early 2010s when it decommissioned the last of the Invincible class light carriers.
Their return to super carrier status started with the laying of the keel of the Queen Elizabeth in 2009. She was finally commissioned in late 2017.
Nat. Geo or Smithsonian channel has been doing a series on her work up and sea trials. When the last one was filmed the ship still hand't launched an F-35.
Just saw at BBC.com that the first launch was completed: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-50814318/f35-takes-off-from-hms-queen-elizabeth-for-first-time-in-uk
-
No catapult, not a supercarrier. It does a bit more than our amphibious assault ships, but not much more. Launching a small number of underweight V/STOL aircraft off a ski jump is something, but not much.
-
Disagree.
First, there's no accepted definition of a supercarrier, other than a broad "definition" that revolves around gross tonnage, total aircraft carried, and aircraft capabilities.
I'd say that given it's 50+ capacity and the fact that it's going to be fielding a highly capable multi-role aircraft that yeah, it qualifies as a supercarrier.
-
No catapult, not a supercarrier. It does a bit more than our amphibious assault ships, but not much more. Launching a small number of underweight V/STOL aircraft off a ski jump is something, but not much.
They also got rid of their Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance aircraft (Nimrod) in 2012 or so. Not exactly the smartest move by an island nation but hey, who keeps track of things like that? They are looking at buying some of those new-fangled P8s now that they woke up and realized they need an ASW and maritime patrol capability. They just happen to be in luck, the US will be leaving a few brand new ones on the lot it looks like. ;)
bob
-
Disagree.
First, there's no accepted definition of a supercarrier, other than a broad "definition" that revolves around gross tonnage, total aircraft carried, and aircraft capabilities.
I'd say that given it's 50+ capacity and the fact that it's going to be fielding a highly capable multi-role aircraft that yeah, it qualifies as a supercarrier.
Supercarrier definition is a lot like assault weapon definition, what ever the media wants to call one.
bob
-
The Forrestals were considered the first "super" carriers at 60,000 tons, the QEs are 65,000 in comparison. Bear in mind as said above there is no fixed definition of where "super" starts.
-
Supercarrier definition is a lot like assault weapon definition
It has the shoulder thing that goes up?
-
They also got rid of their Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance aircraft (Nimrod) in 2012 or so. Not exactly the smartest move by an island nation but hey, who keeps track of things like that? They are looking at buying some of those new-fangled P8s now that they woke up and realized they need an ASW and maritime patrol capability. They just happen to be in luck, the US will be leaving a few brand new ones on the lot it looks like. ;)
bob
You know more about this than I do, but I would say our airborne ASW isn't exactly in its prime either. I was there when the S-3s went away from the carriers and the newer H-60s are more multi-mission than the older ASW helos the smallboys carried. Consequence of fighting goatherders for a few decades.
On the supercarrier thing, I still take a pass. The cats are what are putting useful combat loads into the sky. I worked and lived under both a super carrier and an amphibious assault ship. Flinging harriers with two 500lb bombs and a gun pack is good, but it is not 15K bombload superhornet good. To get the light skijump speed you give up fuel and bombs. And you can't sling off fully loaded tankers to organically refuel either. All of ours top off once they climb out, but they do it from a tanker the mother launched.
-
On the supercarrier thing, I still take a pass. The cats are what are putting useful combat loads into the sky. I worked and lived under both a super carrier and an amphibious assault ship. Flinging harriers with two 500lb bombs and a gun pack is good, but it is not 15K bombload superhornet good.
F-35Bs not Harriers
The F-35B is fitted with a 25mm GAU-22A Gatling cannon which has 220 rounds per gun of firing capacity. It has two internal weapon pods and four external underwing hardpoints to expand its mission lethality.
The aircraft can carry 6,803kg of weaponry payload. It is equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAM medium range air to air missiles, air to surface missiles, two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, six GBU-38 bombs and munitions dispensers.
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
6,803kg = 15,000lbs
I am trying to find out if the ski-jump system limits this somewhat though. I know it does but how much in the case of the 35B
-
F-35Bs not Harriers
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
6,803kg = 15,000lbs
I am trying to find out if the ski-jump system limits this somewhat though
But does that mean it can carry that payload with a vertical take off or off a ski jump? The link doesn't really say.
-
But does that mean it can carry that payload with a vertical take off or off a ski jump? The link doesn't really say.
They are expected to use the vertical capabilities of the aircraft only in landings although I have read they are practicing short landings now to limit how much payload they would have to drop before landing.
-
I'm trying to find is how much the 35B's max payload affected by a ski jump vs a cat launch but everything I'm finding so far is vague on the matter.
-
I'm trying to find is how much the 35B's max payload affected by a ski jump vs a cat launch but everything I'm finding so far is vague on the matter.
... perhaps deliberately?
-
... perhaps deliberately?
That thought did come to mind.
Anyway I dropped the question into a naval forum.
-
That thought did come to mind.
Anyway I dropped the question into a naval forum.
Like those squids know anything!!! ;)
It was clearly shown that F-18E/F at maximal allowed gross weight can takeoff from an STOBAR carrier within reasonable Wind Over Deck (WOD) requirements. Thus STOBAR carrier layout does not impose severe limitations on the maximal takeoff weight.
http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/
Bob
-
Looks like China just launched their first domestically built carrier giving them two total in service.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-made-china-aircraft-carrier-enters-active-service
-
F-35Bs not Harriers
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
6,803kg = 15,000lbs
I am trying to find out if the ski-jump system limits this somewhat though. I know it does but how much in the case of the 35B
I know it is F-35s now, I was referring to the Harriers I tried to sleep underneath. My ceiling was the flight deck and right about at the nozzle rotate line. They deck run with the nozzles full aft then rotate to about 45 deg down before they fall off the end of the ship.
Nobody takes off vertically, just land. The brit slide on landing thing is really neat. Watching a Harrier land was horrifying, never feared more for my professional reputation or the UCMJ than when repairing and returning to service a Harrier main strut.
Optimal conditions okay, get a fully loaded bird off. Not always optimal. There really is no comparison to a real carrier. My time is dated, almost twenty years ago now on a carrier and we changed how the flight deck flowed. Cyclic ops. Went from 120 sorties a day being a heavy day up to over 200 a day. Bombing Kosovo or Iraq, just seemed to be what we did whenever I was out. Launch 4 planes every minute. That's a supercarrier.
-
Not sure how I missed the fact that Italy is operating two carriers... Small, along the lines of what the British operated before the QE, but still.
-
This article from the Royal Navy is inferring that the F-35 operating from the Queen Elizabeth can carry up to a 22,000 pound payload.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/24/191024-f-35-fully-loaded
-
This article from the Royal Navy is inferring that the F-35 operating from the Queen Elizabeth can carry up to a 22,000 pound payload.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/24/191024-f-35-fully-loaded
It is confusing isn't it? I think they're using the larger 35C max payload numbers which is higher than the B's
(https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/images/ctl-infog-final.png)
-
There are 4 main variances of the F-35
A: Conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) . This what the version the USAF and other AFs are buying
B: Short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). Version the Marines, Royal Navy and some other naves are buying. Similar in size to the A but has less range than the A due to the fact that the forward lift engine occupies a space where a fuel tank would normally be in the A & C
C: Has larger wings than the A & B versions and rated for cat launches and arrested landings (CATOBAR). Also has folding wing tips and a larger max payload. US Navy
I: Israel. Basically an A with their own mods
You can see the size difference between the B and the C in this photo
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Formation_of_F-35_Aircraft_MOD_45157750.jpg)
-
"It is confusing isn't it? I think they're using the larger 35C max payload numbers which is higher than the B's"
Except that the Royal Navy ruled out the 35C years ago because their initial price estimates to put a somewhat more conventional catapult and landing system on the Prince of Wales ballooned completely out of control, so not sure why they'd use the B's payload numbers in an article....
OK, it gets even more confusing...
Navaltechnology.com says that the B can carry a 6,803 kg payload, and the C 8,160 kg... lighter than the 22,000 lb payload quoted in the article or that infographic.
-
"It is confusing isn't it? I think they're using the larger 35C max payload numbers which is higher than the B's"
Except that the Royal Navy ruled out the 35C years ago because their initial price estimates to put a somewhat more conventional catapult and landing system on the Prince of Wales ballooned completely out of control, so not sure why they'd use the B's payload numbers in an article....
OK, it gets even more confusing...
Navaltechnology.com says that the B can carry a 6,803 kg payload, and the C 8,160 kg... lighter than the 22,000 lb payload quoted in the article or that infographic.
Either that 22k number is BS or it a C with reduced fuel or the actual true number is classified. Some of these numbers are like MPG ratings for cars.
-
Beautiful photo on wiki of a C
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/F-35C_Lighting_of_VFA-101_taking_off_from_Eglin_AFB_2013.JPG/1280px-F-35C_Lighting_of_VFA-101_taking_off_from_Eglin_AFB_2013.JPG
-
Navaltechnology.com says that the B can carry a 6,803 kg payload, and the C 8,160 kg... lighter than the 22,000 lb payload quoted in the article or that infographic.
The "Beast mode" graphic shows about 13,300 pounds of ordnance with the Air/Ground role or just over 5,000 lbs in the Air only role - give or take a bit. That fits within the B's 15,000 pound limit from Navaltechnology.com.
Unless they're including a partial tank of fuel or leaving off something important from the graphic I'm not seeing how you get to 22,000 pounds with the listed munitions.
-
Another issue I have is not whether a carrier is super or not, but how many do you have? Kinda like guns, three is one and one is none. Figure one carrier in re-fit, we went to the yards about every two years sometimes a long stay and sometimes a few months. One carrier training, after a re-fit period it is close to a year before you have a fully trained carrier group with air arm. One out there putting warheads on foreheads.
It will also interest me to see how the F-35 does long term. I used to handle tech repair and advisory documents for the harrier daily. Then go into the military aviation records system and it was clear the harrier had a much higher mishap rate than any other fixed wing in service. Single engine, single crew, weird flight regime, it's no wonder.
-
It will also interest me to see how the F-35 does long term. I used to handle tech repair and advisory documents for the harrier daily. Then go into the military aviation records system and it was clear the harrier had a much higher mishap rate than any other fixed wing in service. Single engine, single crew, weird flight regime, it's no wonder.
And that was probably after they had been in use for quite a while. When they first rolled them out and put Marines fresh from flight school in them they were dropping out of the sky like rain. :( They eventually figured out they needed experienced pilots in the cockpit in order to drive the accident rate down. The Harrier is a fairly unforgiving platform.
bob