The world of aviation has always been a source of fascination for many people. The idea of flying at breakneck speeds through the clouds, manoeuvring through complex airspace, and landing on an aircraft carrier deck has always been the stuff of dreams for many aviation enthusiasts.
With the advent of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the ability to simulate these experiences has become more accessible than ever before.
Recently, a renowned aviation YouTuber named cgaviator captured the attention of aviation enthusiasts worldwide by successfully and (more importantly) realistically flying and landing an F-35B from and on the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, using Microsoft Flight Simulator.
For background, he’s is a real pilot, and he has over 2500 hours on aircraft, including the Hawk and Tornado GR4, as well as over seven years as an instructor in fast jet and turboprop aircraft. You can find out more about Chris and his set-up by clicking here.
The video has almost hit 300,000 views from aviation enthusiasts. Many of you will know we have never covered YouTube stuff before, but there’s a good reason for this article… the video helped me when playing Microsoft Flight Simulator. Plus, it’s pretty interesting.
It is impossible to stress the fun of being able to replicate these experiences at home using Microsoft Flight Simulator. The cost and difficulty of becoming a pilot, let alone being able to fly an F-35B and land on an aircraft carrier, may be out of reach for many people. Most people.
The F-35B is an extremely sophisticated fighter jet that can land vertically and take off in relatively confined spaces. It is a useful asset for aircraft carriers lacking the necessary runway length for conventional takeoffs and landings. It takes a lot of training and experience to land an F-35B on an aircraft carrier deck, and the video shows how much finesse and skill are needed to pull off this move, even in a game.
Honestly, go subscribe to his channel. You will not regret it.
Hold on, what is ‘SRVL’ again?
As we all know, the F-35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that is designed for use on aircraft carriers.
SRVL stands for ‘Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing’. The SRVL technique allows the F-35B to land on the carrier in a short distance by rolling forward and using the lift generated by its wings to maintain its descent.
This technique is considered to be a safer and more efficient method of landing than the traditional vertical landing method, as it requires less fuel and allows the aircraft to carry a heavier payload.
During an SRVL landing, the F-35B approaches the carrier at a steep angle and uses its lift fan and thrust vectoring nozzle to slow down and control its descent. As the aircraft touches down on the carrier’s deck, it continues to roll forward, using the lift generated by its wings to maintain its descent until it stops.
I had stumbled onto this vid on youtube last night, the level of detail in the flight sims these days is amazing.
Do you remember the DOS game AV-8B Harrier Assault? Great game/sim but as you say things have moved on somewhat.
It boils my blood every time the BBC or Sky news has a “report” with some retired General bemoaning the state of the Army and blaming the money spent on carrier strike as being the reason (not their continued cluster **** of vehicle procurement program or desperate attempt to save every cap badge)
SRVL is the kind of innovation that’s allowed us to build a truly world class carrier capability on a tiny budget. Now with countries like Singapore and Japan opting to buy F35B we can open up naval aviation to a number of Allie’s and build a truly formidable capability in the Indian Ocean even without US support.
F35B at sea armed with Meteor and SPEAR will be truly one of, if not the best naval air capability available on the planet.
Amen bro
100% 👍🏻
Surely any mention of the military by the media is good news. The generals would be ignored if the BBC and Sky didn’t want to instill fear in the population in order to get a story and Army kit is a talking point at the moment. They would have admirals on if they could find any problems with the RN. The generals are simply being oportunistic in an attempt to get an injection of cash aren’t they? Fortuneately kit for the Army is cheaper and has a shorter lead time.
I’m thinking we need to boost our F35 numbers but surely the priority at the moment is ensuring Ukraine get the kit they need without depleating our supplies too badly.
Shorter lead time and cheaper for Army Kit? Ajax is all one has to say. The Army is outdated and needs to come into the 21st Century.
Most major public sector procurements have had their challenges some perhaps more than others. We are yet to see if Ajax will ultimately bear fruit or die. It is a risky & difficult strategy to develop & build a 21st century piece of kit from scratch without some problems. QE Carriers, type 45, F35, Ford Class Carriers etc.
With Ajax there will be options if problems still remain. Redesign in total or partially. Upgrades. When in production Ajax will be built in weeks not decades. Off the shelf kit is an option with the Army or even buying the design and assembling in the UK. If the amercian withdrew from the world stage, for example, we could reinforce our land defences for invasion along the east coast, Scotland or Ireland with ease & quickly.
To be devils advocate here,
If Ajax had come in on time we would all have been saying money well spent! However with its problems correctly identified and being sorted it’s called money wasted while being fixed!
In reality this has not cost the Army anything but time as the costs of the fixes have been born by GD! I was around when CVRT and Warrior were put into service and we all took the piss at the problems they had but here they are 40 odd yrs later still going! Hopefully the same will be said about Ajax.
Ajax is the ultimate outcome of the FRES programme, which suffered absurd delays and csot over-runs largely because senior decision makers kept changingt their minds about both the requirements and how much they were willing to spend on them- leaving the contractor and the in-house development effort pursuing a moving target.
Yep your right but the cost of Ajax despite the delays and problems basically hasn’t changed.
RN – £6Bn – 2 x QEC
Army – £5Bn – 26 unserviceable AJAX
Army – £3Bn – previous armoured program – scrapped.
The army have been given the money and wasted it. That isn’t RN’s fault.
RN have spent theirs comparatively well.
Exactly, it’s the soldiers on the ground I feel sorry for. Lions lead by donkeys and all the time they find someone to blame “politicians did not give us money or the navy wasted it” blah blah blah.
Military procurement is difficult for sure but acquiring land systems is by far the easiest thing. A wide choice of off the shelf options including domestic suppliers with batch numbers still in the hundreds or thousands. That’s something the RAF and RN can’t imagine these days and both have to painstakingly maintain their domestic supply chains.
But the Army brass knows better than every other army in NATO and can’t accept an off the shelf solution with out a decade of fannying around to ensure it includes all the Gucciesk qualities, proper water boiling device and proper number of retired generals on the board of directors for whatever company they select.
Weight and size are more of an issue with land vehicles to be totally fair.
Aircraft do require a level of weight design disciple that army would do well to learn from.
All that gold plating weighs a tonne 😀
Isn’t up to the DS and MOD to keep the forces and all their procurement in line? They’ve got to be ultimately responsible for all the debacles going on. Hopefully more good happening than ugly. Funny how “Ajax” has suddenly come good now. Probably still as noisy as ever…Lol 😁
No, it’s not. LOL😁
Have they sorted the actual issues out or just given everyone bigger noise reduction head phones and bigger ear plugs? 😆. How many years has it been to fix this? Anyway as Sargent Schultz use to say “I know nothing!”… and I really don’t! Lol. So roll on “Ajax”. 🇬🇧
It’s been fixed apparently 😆 Ian M will know more.
“The latest version of Ajax includes heavier density foam in the front seats and control joysticks – used to aim Ajax’s 40mm cannon – which are no longer fixed to the hull.
The addition of rubber seals between the joysticks and Ajax’s metal frame has drastically reduced the vibrations.
For the first time, troops are also issued two pairs of ear defenders, a standard ‘Crew guard’ defender over their ears and a tiny inner-ear protector made of rubber.
The latter is rolled between finger and thumb by the user, to produce a custom fit, then pushed down inside the ear’s external auditory canal.
Army sources told the Mail they expect Ajax vehicles to be rolled out to armoured regiments later this year.”
This all sounds good but have the actual noise levels been reduced besides the vibrations from previous levels? Hope Ian M. can give us some more details.
What I mean is the Ajax now actually quieter than it was? Excessive external noise for a recce vehicle can’t helpful.
As you say, one for Iam M!
In my opinion, this sounds like a very poor attempt to fix the problem properly and move on leaving us with a dysfunctional piece of kit that will not stand the test of time.
Two sets of earplugs?
Rubber seals?
Cannon no longer fixed to the hull?
Plus, a further 18 months of testing!
Latest and it seems like progress is being made. It can turn a corner!
01 MARCH 2023
Ajax armoured vehicle has turned a corner, according to UK MoD” 😂 Ajax has turned a corner! 😂
Ben Wallace, visiting Bovington on 22 February to witness Ajax trials, also spoke of Ajax “turning the corner”. 😂
“Janes understands that work is underway to reset the programme, with a new timetable to be agreed on the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service with the British Army.”
LINK
And may Ajax turn many more corners!… Lol 😁
Another potential customer lost!
“The agency estimated the value of the contracts to be awarded under the agreement at several tens of billions of Polish zlotys, with deliveries of the prototypes by mid-2023 and the first-production vehicles in 2024–25.”
Quietly!
“ For the first time, troops are also issued two pairs of ear defenders, a standard ‘Crew guard’ defender over their ears and a tiny inner-ear protector made of rubber.
The latter is rolled between finger and thumb by the user, to produce a custom fit, then pushed down inside the ear’s external auditory canal.”
Great now the crew can add ear infections to the problems they encounter.
How on earth is that a solution IRL to workplace noise. We couldn’t fix it so we mitigated it.
Jokes?
I just hope this is poor reporting rather than the actual fixes.
If not, we really are in trouble.
2500 separate requirements for an OTS solution. That’s not DS coming up with that or civilians at the MOD. That’s a wide bunch of over promoted officers trying to make a mark on a project for no reason other than to satisfy their careers goals.
Yup. The system needs a fundemental change. Enough said, or I’ll end up going off on one – again!
Cheers CR
Hi Quentin,
I read somewhere recently that the fixes to the Ajax were to the crew seats and headphones..! Although I think changes have also been made to the suspension. Thses change should at least allow the crews to man the vehicles but it suggests that the fundemental problem with the vehicle still exist. SO I hope the headphones are reliable!
Just to point out that the vehicle apparently weighs 50 tonnes and can do 70mph! I haven’t verified those numbers but if true it is a beast. Seems to me that army wanted a CVR(T) crossed with a MBT..! It is hardly surprising that they have vibration problems given that the vehicle has a conventional steel link track system. The vibration loads imparted by accelerating those links around the sprockets, over the return rollers (I think that’s what they are called) and not to mention the roadwheels running over the lumpy tracks which must be a bit like running a car at speed over a cobbled road.
By the way, it seems the British Army demanded extra armour be fitted to the vehicle, hence the weight and lots of problem. If your are going to buy a specialist vehicle let it be a specialist vehicle.
Cheers CR
Hi CR, thanks for your and everyones replies above. Always good stuff. Are you sure it’s 70mph and not 70kmh? That’s bloody fast if mph!! Hope the tracks stay on!! 😁 😆😂
Good point about the mph vs kmh. The article said mph (err, I think 🙂 ) I kind of went along with it because I knew that the CVR(T) could do 60mph. I followed one on the A303 doing over 50mph, so I figured new vehicle might be capable of going silly fast..! A heavy vehicle going pretty fast is going to rattle a lot.
Cheers CR
At the end of the cold war there seemed to be indecision about what to do about the Army. What sort of conflict was it preparing for. Was it even needed on mainland Europe for example. Much easier to invest in the RN & RAF and see defer decisions on the Army. If circumstances changed it is far easier to respond quicker to deficiencies in the Army than the RN for instance. If there is investmentment going on in an organisation that feeds through to the people & their enthusiasm & motivation. Time for renewed investment in the Army?
Exactly, if you ever need a big army which from time to time we do no peace time force will ever be large enough or probably equipped right so you need to build an army up over several years. Ukraine now has a 1 million man army in the field built in the space of a year. It’s not pretty but two or three years from now it will be every bit as good as any professional army.
The problem with the British army leadership is a desire to preserve historical units at all costs and shoehorn them in to what ever modern requirement has for them. In reality the situation we face now is identical to what we faced up to 1989 and the forces we require are identical to the forces we needed and used in Iraq in 91 and 2003. The forces we needed in Afghanistan in the 2000’s were identical to what we needed in Malaya in the 1950’s.
Over time the forces have become substantially higher tech, way more lethal and much more expensive. The RAF and RN recognised that cut numbers and increased quality of each unit. The Army spent years desperately clinging to keep the force above 100,000 soldiers as if the number had some magical relevance and it sacrificed its equipment plan and the industrial base to produce it.
Realistically though we have never been able to or needed to deploy more than a Division with 3 brigades post ww2. An army of 140,000+ struggled to do that in 1991 and our army today of 72,500 is tasked with the ability to deploy a division with 3 brigades.
So realistically what the **** were all those extra bodies generating before.
We can’t have a Goliath army, we need to be a hard as nails David with the best equipment and people on the planet and a base structure that can be expanded on to if we ever require a large standing army again.
Army Top Brass bemoan every other service. its because its all they can do is Moan, Yet they killed Warrior and they nearly Killed Ajax. Ukraine is Full of Army Uniform rejected due to not fit for purpose, because they cannot spell on a procurement form
Well said Jim- good post.
Thanks
Like to see Australia get a medium sized carrier with a dozen or so F35Bs if it affordable and doable.
Mmmm. No need or money tbh. Aus is linked to US so carriers aplenty there and the UK is building up it’s carrier force. Aus will be part of those CBG’s if needed. It’s focus is SSN’s.
Maybe not a priority. Agree that subs are important, but they’re a way off. Air projection at sea and distance is always useful and will be increasingly in the SE Asia region. And with the RAN possibly looking at getting 3 more AAWs and 6 ASW corvettes they might also need an extra oiler.
For all the talk of F35B not being able to operate off of Canberra I’m pretty sure in a pinch it could easily be done. But as you say with the US having some 20 carriers Japan 2 and the UK 2 all capable of operating F35 it’s not a priority Australia needs to fight in a coalition operation.
Agreed. The army is in the mess ( largely, but not totally ) of its own making.
F35B SRVL will be the focus of HMS Prince of Wales’s deployment to the US later in the year. 👍
It will be very interesting to really wring this capability out, sea state limits, isometric loads etc…
Did SRVL require a change to the flight control software?
I don’t believe so John. They land in a similar fashion at Marham on a regular basis, but without having to stop so short, so did the Harrier back in the day. But doing it on a carrier is another matter.
Yes it did. Lockheed integrated it per the UK’s request starting in 2012. The original USMC spec only required vertical landing.
Prince of Wales has a Bedford array fitted to aid with the SRVL, will be interesting to learn how well it performs.
Will be an interesting deployment for the flight deck crews and all involved in air ops. 👍
Why is it called a Bedford array? Is it made from old Bedford truck headlights, brake lights and indicators.
Is it the same as the meatball light bar thing the USA use currently and the RN used to use?
Could be a pun as it’s a series of lights embedded in the flight deck along the centre-line. It was proven in hundreds of SVRL landings using a modified Harrier using both Charles de Gaulle and Illustrious.
The brightest light at any time is the pilot’s visual target with regard to the correct glide slope while stabilised from the ship’s pitch and roll. Meanwhile the HUD shows a dotted line based upon the aircraft’s current glide slope. The pilot’s aim is to manoeuvre the aircraft so the dotted line passes over the target light.
It’s not what the USA uses.
Ahh the lights are actually in the deck. That’s completely different to the light board meatball thing.
Chris is lovely fella (has that term been banned yet???) and always takes time to respond to questions and comments. His flying skill and finesse shines through, even in a game/sim.
Greg, fair warning, please edit and add ‘ Chris is a lovely/ fella / non binary/ they/ them/ it/ something or nothing.
How much longer must we put up with type of male unconscious bias 😂
Being now very confused as to waht to call my self Male/female or what( I certainly have not changed from being a full red blooded male as far as I know) I believe that sector has over 50 definitions! However I note with interest that at times you can still see a person wearing a skirt when in uniform. Please advise how I should adress such a person ( I think the world has gone mad)
I think the fact you even dared to ask Richard, means you need to be dragged off to re- education camp these days…..
Richard wrote:
Its all crap, when we talk or refer to people we do so in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person.
1st Person: Is when we talk about ourselves, I, me, we
2ndPerson: When we talk, refer to somebody directly: You.
3rd Person: When we talk about somebody else, He,Him,she,
https://i.postimg.cc/B6FsCwTQ/Opera-Snapshot-2023-03-01-040724-www-grammarly-com.png
Making assumptions about gender these days is going where angels fear to tread.
Chris sounds like a fella, but I suppose owt is possible nowadays on t’interweb. Saw a couple of alternates in the kebab shop last Friday night. They might have big fake tits, long legs, stockings and a nice wig, but at the end of the day, they’re still a bloke, no matter how many Stellas you’ve had imho. 👍🏿
To be fair, they might have been under cover, (gender offender branch) police officers, attempting to solicit those with 9 pints of Stella induced, semi conscious bias…..
Remember, when this is all done and dusted, you mentioned semis, not me. 👍🏿
I just go with what ever is normal. Never had anyone say anything. I’m happy to be corrected nicely.
Everyone should be accepting of mistakes with words.
Just yesterday I said to a girl at work I you do a good bee gee. She said what did U say? I said beegee, she looked confused and I said beegee the group singing the song.
She went bright red and said I thought you said BJ. She didn’t know who they were only knew the song from the work radio.
Yes and it gets completely blown out of proportion. People on this site seem to be acting like if they called a trans female a man they would smash their face in. Hint: they won’t. They’ll just calmly correct you. These types of people are against any progressive change. 50 years ago they’d be against homosexuality, who knows maybe they still are… This is sadly what happens when people are brainwashed by the daily fail. I’d bet none of these commenters have even spoken to a trans person. If someone prefers to be called by a certain pronoun why is it such an issue? Why does that harm you so much? Shouldn’t we try and get along with each other?
Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, and if that was all it was, a person’s preference, then no issues from anyone I would imagine. It however becomes an issue when people are forced to change their terminology and language, by the organisations they may work for or by the Government. It would seem the “trans” is the new pressure group, whereby if anyone has a different view or opinion on the matter they are vilified and shouted down. Look at the women protesting against the ongoing trans pressure groups, they are abused online and in person. Is that acceptable? Isnt females (born female) safety the priority for us all?
It gets a mess when it becomes forced upon people. Common sense works in almost ever situation. Folks ability to be totally outraged by anything is amazing. Only seems to happen on the tv and internet. I’ve never seen that outrage in person.
Some people are weird but 99% are ordinary reasonable humans.
Agreed mate, spot on!
Will the QE also get the Bedford Array at some point?
.
It should be noted that after the ITF tests of SRVL off the coast of Virginia and Maryland back in 2018 that the technique is still not employed by the Brits. All recoveries aboard QE during CSG 21 by VMFA-211 and RAF No. 617 were vertical not SRVL.
I thought the lighting on the QE deck was not installed for SRVL, but it was on the POW? Hence trials being properly borne out once POW deploys… With QE being refitted with SRVL compatible lighting in the future?
You’re correct, the Bedford Array is only currently fitted to Prince of Wales. Unfortunately POW’s deployment to the USA for trials were cancelled, but hopefully when they do take place the array of lights will make SRVL the norm for landing.
The main purpose of SRVL is to increase bring back loads. If F35b is only carrying internal weapons, there is no benefit in the added risk SRVL entails.
Harriers did much of this trails years ago and both the RN and RAF used similar approaches at the fixed airfields too. Saved on engine wear. Its only new with this aircraft and in this case the onboard kit will do most of the work for the jockey.
Isn’t the point of trials to derisk the SRVL and defining the operating parameters. Relying entirely on 2 columns of air from the nozzle and lift fan is not without risk, especially when you stress them time after time which is what VL does. SRVL also distributes the heat from the nozzle and whilst the deck coating can stand the heat and is suppose to last 50 years the 2-2.5mm coating will not entire insulate the steel from thermal cycles which will be far more intense with VL. Downside is the breaking and possibility of loss of traction and control. But as seen from the real landings conducted to date, in good conditions the deck speed in quite low. IMO the choice to conduct a SRVL is more likely to come down to conditions in the future, not necessarily light oads.
Does the deck have any kind of heating or ice prevention for when operating in freezing temperatures?
On a FF/DD the deck stays unfrozen for the majority of the time because the compartments below are warm . That said if it gets too baltic you carry deicing liquid to spray around.
Ahh that makes sense. There will be processes in place.
I’ve seen how some of the boats look on deadliest catch when freezing spray coats the whole boat in ice.
Sailors would be sliding off the deck if it was costed in ice and super slippery. Never mind the jets.
It’s the little snippets of knowledge from the SMEs which make this site invaluable!
There is a benefit.
Lower engine power settings which will increase engine and lift fan maintenance intervals and general lifespan.
So will there be more F35-B’s on the deck to navigate around once we get our full allocation…just askin’
I doubt it, UK doesn’t usual deploy regularly in peace time with the decks covered in airframes. We didn’t do this with the Harriers so no reason to think we’d do it with F35.
24 is eventual intended full scale deployment ( CSG21 size) .
The normal peacetime deployment for a carrier will be 24 jets or two Squadrons worth. This will be for the foreseeable future and will be a mix of U.K. and USMC. This will only change once we have enough jets to do both maritime and land based ops. The USMC will be seen on the carriers quite often as the USN have scrapped the LHD Bonhomme Richard due to excessive fire damage. So they need the sea time just as much as we do.
Last year the 1SL stated that the ships will deploy with between 1 and 2 Squadrons worth of F35Bs until the numbers reach a sustainable level to meet U.K. and NATO commitments. He also said depending on where the ship is deployed it could be sent with 36 jets.
According to the Navy, the carriers can easily operate around 48 jets plus supporting helicopters along with their crews and support staff, before the ship gets too crowded.
Thanks for the info 👍..when you say 48 jets is that from a single carrier (so double peace time allocation) or across both .
Just wondering if once the F35 B numbers are increased they will be ‘testing a mass onboarding.
That’s from a single carrier.
Some sources say 20 F35b can fit in the hanger but some sources say 20 aircraft mixed. Another 24 can fit on the deck with extra space.
There a point where to many aircraft slow things down. A bit like how a Nimitz can carry 95 aircraft and did in the Cold War but normally goes with less today
Yes, that’s what the 1SL stated with regards to numbers.
With 24 jets on board, an additional 12 can be looked after by the existing support staff for a short time. They will be run ragged trying to maintain the sortie rate, but it is doable. Which means a carrier can accept a surge in aircraft numbers quite easily when already deployed. Without the immediate ferrying of the additional support staff. This would be the same with three squadrons deployed with their support staff. An additional fourth squadron can be accommodated and maintained by the existing staff.
One thing that has yet to be tested is surging a wing of aircraft from the carrier. They have done a rapid launch of a couple of aircraft.
In emergency more bodies will be crammed on board to service the extra aircraft. Hermes in the Falklands war is a good example Her peacetime complement with half a dozen SHARS and a dozen Sea Kings was about 1,350. When she went south with every serviceable SHAR it was over 2,000. By the end she was operating almost two dozen RN/RAF Harriers.
I agree. But in the short term, it’s quicker to get another squadron of jets on to a carrier when it’s deployed. Then it is to get the additional supporting staff to the carrier. It’s purely the logistics of getting say an additional 100 or more bods to the carrier.
We don’t have a dedicated logistics aircraft like the Greyhound or it’s replacement the Osprey. So they would have to be flown to the nearest airfield, then ferried by Merlin, unless the carrier is able to dock nearby.
The embedded support staff will be able to cope with the additional jets for a short period, probably no more than a couple of weeks. Any more and they will get too fatigued.
DaveyB,
A modern riddle, as composed by and courtesy of the F-35 JPO: Which F-135 engine part(s) can induce harmonic resonance frequencies sufficient to induce vibration that results in Class A mishaps, in the manner of the Ft Worth incident, Dec 22? An issue that materializes after accumulating 600K+ flight hours? The interim repair is stated to be relatively inexpensive, require 4-8 of labor at Wing maintenance orgs., and be rolled out to entire fleet (890+ a/c) w/in 90 days, per JPO guidance. JPO still performing root cause analysis, ergo, no final mod proposed. This is becoming curiouser and curiouser…🤔😳
I could understand it if was purely a F35B problem. As you have different torque moments between the engine, gearbox, drive shaft and fan. These torques will set up imbalanced harmonics which will need to be damped out. Very similar to clocking and balancing helicopter driveshafts I’d imagine.
But for it to happen with a F35A is very intriguing. One out of the box thought could be caused by the diverterless intake and how the shockwave it generates interacts with the face of the compressor. I’m sure it’s been modeled to death. But how do the reflected shockwaves interact with the air intake tunnel. Does it cause panting which then causes fatigue. I guess we will have wait until the JPO releases a statement.
You also won’t see crowded decks covered with F35s exposed to sea spray in all weathers. The RN tends to keep aircraft under cover in the hanger deck, which is why it’s seen less corrosion/weather-damage compared to USN aircraft.
Why don’t they cover them on deck in protective sheets/covers like the Merlin below?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp4cCaNXoAUpU2R?format=jpg&name=small
I agree however I think it would serve a useful purpose both for training and a deterrent factor to have atleast one exercise every few years with a QE class in overload. I have seen suggestions that 72 F35’s in 6 squadrons could be accommodated at a push.
We won’t know what can be done until we try. A short exercise possibly in the summer with several RAF and USMC squadrons should be doable at-least for a short period of time without damaging in the aircraft through deck storage in adverse conditions.
We are currently entering a stand off with China, no matter the fait of Taiwan and the US pacific fleet the war will be won or lost between Malacca and Hormuz. A QE class might be the only available large deck carrier in the Indian Ocean if the USN is sucked in to the Pacific.
Knowing that it can operate very large numbers of F35B on short notice will serve as an increased deterrent to China.
Also we made the mistake of selling our carriers short in WW2 with the narrative that an Illustrious was able to operate 36 aircraft and a Yorktown able to operate 90.
That same myth exists today with QE being quoted at 40 aircraft on 65,000 tonnes and Nimitz Quoted as 90 on 100,000 tonnes when in reality the ships are much close to parity in size considering QE more economical design.
I think the QE class is optimised for sustained sortie rate as a strike carrier, which in turn will be limited by sustained availability of maintenance crews. I believe the logic says, if you can turn around 36 jets twice a day, giving 72 sorties, what do you gain from having 72 jets that you can only turn around daily? They’d just get in each others way and cramp operations.
However, if you keep reducing numbers, there will come a point when the limit will be something other than maintenance; then there’s resilliance to think about. I’d also assume this equation would fail in short timeframe scenarios such as carrier vs carrier or on Day 1 surges. So there might well be a good reason to put more than 36 F-35s on the carrier. The design requirements focusing on high sustained sorties came from a post Cold War mindset.
I’d hope they’ll eventually be able to do what USS Triploi did last year and actually try a few different things out, at least up to say 48 jets.
A couple of findings that I know of came out of the “Lightning” carrier trials. The biggest one was a lack of organic AEW. They had to rely on USN Hawkeyes or Sentrys flying from land bases. This meant at times the carrier did not have air cover, as the aircraft were leaving or getting on station.
The second issue was that a fully laden F35B requires the full length of a LHA/LHD to take off. This led to a few delays and deck parking issues as aircraft cannot taxi past the island when a jet is taking off. Similarly, aircraft returning to the carrier had to wait for the aircraft to take off, as the VL spot was in use.
Even though a USS America class is some 45,000t its flight deck is relatively narrow at 128ft (39m) compared to the 65,000t QE class with a 229ft (70m) wide flight deck. The new Italian Navy LHD Trieste, comes in at 38,000t and has a flight deck some 118ft (37m) wide. But it has a ramp, so a F35B can have a shorter run up, leaving the aft spot clear for VL.
Both Trieste and America have 9 helicopter landing spots. Though Trieste’s are sized for EH101s, whilst America’s are sized for CH53s. Which is why Trieste can get away with using a ramp. If America had a ramp it would loose one spot possibly two. It might be worth looking at a temporary ramp when the ship is being used as a Lightning carrier, then removed it when used in its normal LHA role.
The reason for the sizing of the QE was supposedly to be able to match the sortie-rate of American carriers. Now I’ve never seen mentioned what the expected sortie rate would be, or the expected number or aircraft or turnaround time required to achieve this.
So some exercises with increasing numbers of aircraft (up to the 72 surge figure) to identify the optimal number for achieving this rate would seem a good idea.
I doubt actually demonstrating this capacity to the Chinese will act as a deterrent. Their military planners will already be working on the basis that this is possible.
As for differences in capacity, RN v USN. Could it be due to the RNs preference to keep aircraft under cover on the hanger-deck whereas the USN happily leaves aircraft exposed on the flight deck?
These were the rates I thought were designed in.
The carrier will support joint combat aircraft, carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and will be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 joint combat aircraft sorties in 24 hours.
The standard air group of 40 aircraft includes 36 Lockheed Martin F-35B joint strike fighter, and four EH101 Merlin helicopter. It can also include other maritime surveillance and control aircraft (MASC).
The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.
Wow, thanks for those details…
So trying to boil things down, the first target is a max 110 sorties by the 36 F35Bs in 24 hours.
Which is 3 sorties for each F35B in 24 hours, so each aircraft has an 8 hour window to take-off, conduct the sortie, land, be checked-over and possibly minor maintenance performed, then refuelled and rearmed, ready for take again.
Obviously couldn’t be done day-in day-out but for a short period? Of course the big question is how the long the mission is, flying to and from the target.
Then dropping to 84 sorties per day over 5 days, or 2 sorties per day per aircraft (with spare capacity for breakdowns and losses).
Good to see that take-off and landing doesn’t seem a factor. Both appear to be possible in very short time frames, minimising queuing. Perhaps another advantage of having such a big flight deck.
I surprised that the QE class didn’t come with pop-up jet deflectors. As these would have allowed concurrent take-off and vertical landings to occur. Though I guess a lot would depend on the weight of the aircraft that is taking off. As a heavier weight necessitates a longer run up to the ramp.
Though from memory the aircraft in beast mode did a run up 2/3 the length of the flight deck to the ramp. I have yet to see aircraft concurrently landing and taking off.
Grim reapers DCS do some good queen Elizabeth simulations, UK Vs China is a highlight.
yes
It would have been worth emphasising in the piece that SRVL is a UK innovation, as were several key post WW2 carrier/aircraft interface. innovations. Not a big deal, but credit where credit is due.
Yes, I saw this and thought it was very cool. The F35B also has sensors to detect the ramp on the QE2 class. And now there’s a ‘leaked’ PowerPoint ‘official graphic’ of a Ghost Bat landing on a QE2 class carrier with an arrestor wire. Intriguing!
Looks like it’s more a presentation of what may be possible rather than revelation of an actual plan…
https://www.janes.com/amp/official-rendering-shows-ghost-bat-loyal-wingman-landing-aboard-queen-elizabeth-class-carrier/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
If its that easy, why is the Pilot Training some 2.5 years behind schedule.
POW delays
No it is a systemic thing. Check the typhoon pilot situation. It’s all public domain.
Well lots of reasons why flight training takes a long time.
The easy bit referred to is landing the F35b on the carrier. The computer on the plane does most of the hard work.
Flight training to get to the point of landing on the carrier involves learning to fly a basic plane, then a turbo prop, then advanced jet trainer, then joining a squadron that operates the aircraft you have done all that training to get to. While there the process of tactics, operating the aircraft, systems, weapons effectively will be learned along with a load of other skills.
Throughout the process there will be lots of classroom work, simulator work among other things.
Then you will be a pilot that joins a front line squadron.
All that will take 3+ Years if it runs smoothly.
This is my Amateur view.
Because the Flight Simulator the Pilot Training is using needs a 20TB software update and the MOD is only paying for a 28.8K modem …It will take a while to download…and the fax machine is on the same line and when that is used it breaks the connection.
Yes. It’s a outsourced contract. The MOD get free modems but have to pay £10,000 for each repair.
The 50 year contract was given to AOL in 1999 at the rate of £10 per mb. Deal of the century I remember it being quoted at the time. Also it was going to suffer no ill effects from the millennium bug. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Is it possible for these carriers to simultaneously recover and launch F35s, like the US angled deck conventional carriers?
Off-topic, but good news for Ukraine!
“Imagery released by the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine shows that the service is operating a UH-60A Black Hawk helicopter.
Two images of a UH-60A in a paint scheme that features the Ukrainian flag and roundels were posted by the directorate on social media.
n one image the helicopter is pictured next to an Mi-24. Accordingto the intelligence service, both helicopters have been conducting front-line combat missions with specialist units of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine.”
LINK
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52703369998_7faef127b0_b.jpg
Promising news!
LINK
Good news, but what I’d really love to see is the Ukrainians getting some Apaches…
Clearly. What interested me was this.
JANES
“Official lists of equipment supplied to Ukraine by the US government do not include UH-60 helicopters.”
LINK
Maintenance Repair and Overhaul
“Ace has the ability to purchase UH-60As from the US Army and offer for sale with the following airframe options:
Basic UH-60A conformed to the ACE RCTC, PMI 1&2 and paint to customer specifications
UH-60A to UH-60A+
Full aircraft and avionics depot maintenance support”
LINK
Not surprised at all. A third nation could have donated its own Blackhawks or bought them for Ukraine, or Ukraine itself could have bought them from the financial aid it’s received.
I serious doubt second-hand Apaches are so easily obtained…
Grim Reapers do some excellent and stupid battle sims on DCS if you like YouTube stuff.
I liked their battle using A10s against s300 and s400 defences. They were also operating from roads. OK its a sim but they kicked the Russian armours butt! with few losses so ot would be interesting to see a real battle
The US carrier group from the 80s v 50 Tu-22m was an interesting scenario. Very cinematic too. Watching those Tomcats struggle to get supersonic then they really cut loose.
Saudi Arabia has just joined up to FCAS, not clear jet whether thats just the unmanned drone element or they also intend to sign up to the GCAP manned element as well.
https://twitter.com/kbsalsaud/status/1630968002467201029
I didn’t see that coming! I suppose we’ll have to wait to see how significant this is.
I can’t see Saudi involvement being on the same level as the three principals. The picture is of a signing with Mr Benn, without Italian or Japanese sign off. We also don’t know where Sweden will land up.
I think this has to be good news.
Saudi can supply the lubricants🙈
I guess we need to wait for more news on how big the cooperation is and check our Japanese and Italians friends are ok with it.
Breaking defence has an article about it. https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/saudi-arabia-to-join-uk-led-fcas-program-after-signing-new-military-agreement/?amp=1
Seems like a letter of intent on part of the project
Well I hope that ends up well for you…
Off topic:
BAE have announced another VTOL combat drone called STRIX, but as this is BAE Autralia it might actually get produced, with a prototype underway and a hoped for an operational date of 2026. A rotary tailsitter they say was inspired by tiltrotors, it isn’t really either, and it’s certainly a strange looking beast.
A hybrid tandem wing design, each of the wings has a large rotor, but unlike smaller hybrids where the four rotors sit on top of the wings to give VTOL capability, these rotors are in front of the wings, like conventional propellors. The wings and rotors are canted maybe fifteen degrees upward to the body. Add to all that a significant bend in the middle of the front wings, and the whole thing looks pretty radical.
It isn’t quite a tailsitter in that it starts with the body maybe 30 degrees from horizontal propped up by high front wheels.On take off the drone first raises itself so the wing surfaces and rotors are pointing upward before it leaves the ground. Once in the air, it transitions to normal flight, where the wings and rotors point forward and the body is tilted fifteen degrees downward. That body tilt means the front wing surfaces are lower than the tail surfaces, which makes it reminiscent of a biplane.
Range is 800 km, duration up to two hours. MTOW is just shy of a ton, around 900kg, with a payload of about 160kg, a disappointing ratio, not enough for a Paveway, but enough to carry a couple of Brimstones or maybe a Sea Venom. There’s an announced link-up with MBDA in the UK and both these missiles have been pictured with it. A single Spear is also possible, but if Spear gets most of its effect from swarming, will one be of much use? BAE have also announced they’ll be producing their own new low-cost munition in Australia called RAZER.
Aimed at multi-domain operations, they are trying to sell it in to army and navy customers. It’s not only the design thinking that’s out of the box; the drone itself folds into a 20′ standard crate, or if the RN take it, a NavyPOD. I can’t see this being big enough for project Vixen, but it might be better than QinetiQ’s Banshees for project Vampire. I wonder if it will scale.
There’s a page on the BAE site and The Drive has a good article too with a couple of videos. I like this a lot and I hope it takes off.
Off topic:
BAES have announced another VTOL combat drone called STRIX, but as this is BAE Australia it might actually get produced, with a prototype underway and a hoped for an operational date of 2026. A rotary tailsitter they say was inspired by tiltrotors, it isn’t really either, and it’s certainly a strange looking beast.
A hybrid tandem wing design, each of the wings has a large rotor, but unlike smaller hybrids where the four rotors sit on top of the wings to give VTOL capability, these rotors are in front of the wings, like conventional propellors. The wings and rotors are canted maybe fifteen degrees upward to the body. Add to all that a significant bend in the middle of the front wings, and the whole thing looks pretty radical.
It isn’t quite a tailsitter in that it starts with the body maybe 30 degrees from horizontal propped up by high front wheels.On take off the drone first raises itself so the wing surfaces and rotors are pointing upward before it leaves the ground. Once in the air, it transitions to normal flight, where the wings and rotors point forward and the body is tilted fifteen degrees downward. That body tilt means the front wing surfaces are lower than the tail surfaces, which makes it reminiscent of a biplane.
Range is 800 km, duration up to two hours. MTOW is just shy of a ton, around 900kg, with a payload of about 160kg, a disappointing ratio, not enough for a Paveway, but enough to carry a couple of Brimstones or maybe a Sea Venom. There’s an announced link-up with MBDA in the UK and both these missiles have been pictured with it. A single Spear is also possible, but if Spear gets most of its effect from swarming, will one be of much use? BAE have also announced they’ll be producing their own new low-cost munition in Australia called RAZER.
Aimed at multi-domain operations, they are trying to sell it in to army and navy customers. It’s not only the design thinking that’s out of the box; the drone itself folds into a 20′ standard crate, or if the RN take it, a NavyPOD. I can’t see this being big enough for project Vixen, but it might be better than QinetiQ’s Banshees for project Vampire. I wonder if it will scale.
There’s a page on the BAE site and The Drive has a good article too with a couple of videos. I would link, but that just sticks my comment into the approval awaiting queue. I like this a lot and I hope it takes off.
The design is quite simple but ingenious. As it flies much like a quadcopter does. In that it uses differential thrust to control its attitude. So from rest it will accelerate the forward two propellers faster than the rear two, thereby producing more thrust. This makes it sit up at the front. When it’s pointing near vertical, all four are coordinated to produce the same amount of thrust. Which makes it lift off vertically. By using differential thrust through all four propellers, you can alter the aircraft’s attitude and make it turn in the hover, as per a quadcopter.
The only downside is the amount of weight it can lift in the hover. This is dictated by a combination of engine power and the sum of the surface area of the propeller blades. So for maximum lift you want large blades. But this is curtailed by the wing span and the need for a gap where they meet the fuselage. This is why helicopters can lift more than a tilt wing/tilt-rotor aircraft that weighs the same and has equal engine power outputs.
By having fixed forward propellers and a fixed wing, makes the aircraft less complex and maintenance heavy. It does mean that the aircraft at rest must sit nose up or have a wing that is angled up. As it need the downwards thrust from the propellers to make sure the nose ruses before the tail. However, when transitioning to forward flight, the aircraft’s attitude can be corrected so the wings are at a nominal angle of attack, so they can generate lift without masses of drag.
There is a similar concept aircraft called the Blackfly eVTOL personal transport. It sits on the ground with the forward and aft wing angled at 30 ish degrees. Again using the forward propellers to lift the nose first, then rising vertically when all eight of the forward and aft propellers produce the same amount of thrust. The company have a number of flying prototypes and have clocked up over 10,000 miles. Depending on the battery pack it can max out just over 80mph with a range just under 50 miles. It first have much of a payload.
I wouldn’t discount the Banshee just yet! This smallish target drone is very stealthy. When used as targets they have to fly with IR beacon and radar reflectors. Without them they are a fair comparison to a F35.
The aircraft is predominantly made from composites. Its range can be extended with additional internal fuel tanks and has a useable payload. Though Qinetiq are being tight lipped about what this entails when not used as a target drone. It could quite easily carry a version Leonardo’s Britecloud DRFM active jammer for example.