The go ahead given for RN carriers P of W and QE.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:21 pm

The FBW system should be able to manage hover in much more severe conditions than could an human pilot. The existence of an entirely automated hover landing system for Yak-36 aboard the Minsk and Kiev was inferred during the cold war after observations were made of the inhumanly high degree of landing precision aboard these Soviet ships even during fairly rough weather. This was confirmed after the cold war.

-Chuck

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:04 pm

I just don't see multiple F-35Bs landing side-by side amongst the backblast from aircraft engines and the eddies, swirls and ship exhausts around and aft of the island structure.

jjb · Post by **jjb** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:34 am

Be interesting to see how the two island design works in respect of air flows around the flight deck, apparentley that was one of the selling points of the twin island concept, although not the only one.

guest · Post by **guest** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:57 pm

Hi There,

Read your history. I doubt these carriers will ever be built. Gordon Brown is a very different animal from Tony Blair. If the UK budget hits the buffers there ships will be among the first to go.

Guest

Laurence Batchelor · Post by **Laurence Batchelor** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:09 pm

Not sure if these have been posted before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHgHjd5 ... 0RCWarship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEQgBKX ... 0RCWarship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEsJfNKs ... 0RCWarship

Oh and make sure you turn the volume off!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:17 pm

That's neat.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:27 pm

What is the ship is it that appears to have 2 stacks, a helicopter deck astern and is trailing the carrier off her starboard quarter? She does not look familiar at all.

-Chuck

Sloop John B · Post by **Sloop John B** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:08 pm

Anonymous wrote:What is the ship is it that appears to have 2 stacks, a helicopter deck astern and is trailing the carrier off her starboard quarter? She does not look familiar at all.

-Chuck

Albion class LPD
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1811

Post by **Timmy C** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:36 pm

Woohoo! Hell March! Fits perfectly to the video ^^

Laurence Batchelor · Post by **Laurence Batchelor** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:56 pm

Yes Timmy thats why I told people to turn down their volume, that was so last decade!

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:06 pm

It's beginning to look like India might have two carriers of similar offensive power in about the same time frame. She might also be back to building a number of "Akula-derived" indigenous submarines; perhaps five. The sub program is "on-again, off-again"; it seems the Pacific powers are building up their navies in response to China's program.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:28 pm

Sorry if this has been brought up already, but why build a carrier like that without a catapult? Also, why are the island structures so strange and angular?

phil gollin · Post by **phil gollin** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:12 am

I'll repeat my post of 27th July :-

Quote :-

First, - the best site for the Queen Elizabeths is this :-

http://frn.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm

This gives (and has given for years, the whole convoluted saga. If you want to see officialdom at its worst read that - it will have you crying.

The two Islands were chosen for two main reason one, they increase the available deck space over an equivalent single island and two, it gives the required separation for the radars. There are also factors associated with the spacing of the main gas turbines (carried above waterline) and their uptakes.

The ships, as has been stated, are designed to be convertible between "ordinary" cat and trap/angled deck and V/STOL operation.

As for the superiority of either. These have been designed as "strike" carriers. Their main mission is the deployment of land attack missions. The various studies show that the V/STOL type ship can generate both more missions on a continuous basis and faster turnarounds/take-offs/landings. This may seem odd, but it basically comes down to two issues. V/STOL aircraft are much more easily handled and despatched/received and the mission is one where the aircraft fly-off attack and come back with no flight re-fuelling. With these parameters then V/STOL wins hands down.

HOWEVER, no one claims that a V/STOL would be better if one looked for major re-fuelling requirements or specialised attack missions. The advantage to V/STOL version is a specific one associated with its main mission - NOT overall flexibility or other missions.

AEW is the main bone of contention with the V/STOL version being presently intended to use helicopter based AEW (good but limited range due to height limitations).

Another, indeed sometimes claimed as the main reason for the need for the ships to be convertible, is the probable future need to operate UAVs from the ships.

But it is best to read the proper web-site than my ramblings.

unquote

As stated the website gives the whole (huge) story.

The Islands are presumably angled for a certain amount of stealth (?).

The RN chose the V/STOL F-35 as they believed that for their proposed main mission there would be larger sortie generation by V/STOL rather than "cat-and-trap".

There are two main "downsides" ;

1: The RN is therefore limited on long-range strike compared with, say, a suitably equipped version of the French PA-2 version of the CVF

2: The RN will have to operate helicopter based AEW rather than the French being able to operate Hawkeye turbo-prop AEW

The RN think they are right, I presume the French think they are right.

The Ship Model Forum

The go ahead given for RN carriers P of W and QE.

rn carriers