- Aug 14, 2009
- Reaction score
Great pictures, and on the other threads. Thanks for uploading.Hood said:Here are a series of CVF configuration studies published in, 'Warship '97 International Symposium: Air Power at Sea'.
An interesting set of proposals across a range of sizes and a change from the flashy 3-D models mainly used to promote these designs.
large enough to accomodate a F-18 with the wings folded . And two for bringing a/c down into the hangarhole in the ground said:edit:
also, figure 25 why have so many lifts? and why are they all so small?
The outlay to revise the design in build, procure the hardware and revise the contract was too much for the budget to bare at this time so the F-35 JCA selection reverted back to the F-35B and the QEC class will be completed as desigined in STOVL format. The UK are not getting F-35C and PoW is not being built in CTOL configuration. The selling point being that both carriers will be completed and the 2nd carrier will be confirmed as entereing service under the next SDSR in 2015 so that 1 QEC will always be available.royabulgaf said:As I understand it currently, Britain has decided to go with the STOVL F-35B to eliminate the catapault on the QE and save some money. I understand the PoW will however, have the CTOL F-35C and a catapault? This seems so shortsighted, as this prevents cross-use with the French Navy, which really wanted that. BTW, I'll believe the PoW will be built when I see it.
These are deck edge elevators and pretty impossible to get an aircraft in sideways like that. Well not impossible but try 10 point turn. However the outside edge of the elevator is open so the aircraft can overhang up until the location of the landing gear. These elevators on USN carriers are sized to carry two strike fighters side by side.Jemiba said:large enough to accomodate a F-18 with the wings folded . And two for bringing a/c down into the hangar
and two for bringing them up, with the weaposns lifts nearby ?
Whether or not it's how the USN operates, the RN used to operate its' conventional carriers that way: aircraft were always aligned fore-and-aft below decks and on the elevators. It's quite possible that those associated with this study had experience with this method, and decided to carry it over.Abraham Gubler said:These are deck edge elevators and pretty impossible to get an aircraft in sideways like that. Well not impossible but try 10 point turn.
I've never seen aircraft fore and aft on USN deck edge elevators. I would also suggest that no one else has. Aircraft are fore and aft in the hangars sure but that's what allows for the easy 90 degree turn onto and off the elevator. Further there is nothing in this study that suggests fore and aft spotting on deck edge elevators.RLBH said:Whether or not it's how the USN operates, the RN used to operate its' conventional carriers that way: aircraft were always aligned fore-and-aft below decks and on the elevators. It's quite possible that those associated with this study had experience with this method, and decided to carry it over.
There's nothing in the few drawings we've seen to suggest one way or the other.Abraham Gubler said:Further there is nothing in this study that suggests fore and aft spotting on deck edge elevators.
Oh, cool! Never new that bit about either of them. Now that you mention it, they aren't resurrecting the double hanger for any of the new ships are they? Haven't seen anything to know one way or the other.pf matthews said:Eagle (R05) was never fitted with a deck edge lift. When completed she was fairly close to the intended design as modified during WW2.
Ark Royal's deck edge lift only served the upper hangar, it was also quite small, was deemed to be not a success and as a result was removed.
Two 1:44 scale models – the 37,000-tonne 200m-long (659ft) tanker has been reduced to 4.5m (15ft) in length, while the 65,000-tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth has been shrunk from 284m (931ft) in length to 6.45m (21ft) – were built and taken to the enormous ‘ocean basin’ test tank, owned by defence research firm QinetiQ.
(Video: Royal Navy)
Source:By placing the island structure in the middle of the ship, there is the possibility of two runways. Of course, only one aircraft could be launched at the same time, but it would permit a staggered-start and thus a faster launch time. Since it is a STOVL carrier there is no real risk that the aircraft would hit the island structure since they land vertically. All the storing of aircraft is at the stern of the ship but having two runways limits the number of aircraft that can be stored on deck.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/50-days-go-hms-queen-elizabeth?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20140519_AW-05_797&YM_RID='email'&YM_MID='mmid'&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_6In 50 days time, on July 4, Her Majesty the Queen will formally name the U.K.’s newest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth and of course, bless all those who sail in her.
I don't understand what that means.Geoff_B said:HMS Queen Elizabeth, its named in honour not after her Majesty
I agree she could quite reasonably be called Queen Elizabeth II - there was a King George V in WWI & WWII.J.A.W. said:So is she Queen Elizabeth II.? Or Q.E. - no number?
But what I also don't understand is why they didn't name her after another famous carrier. The RN has a lot of them. Why not preserve that tradition?
Q.E. wasn't scuttled in Hong Kong - after being with drawn from service she was sold to American interest to be first used as a floating hotel: a la Queen Mary, in Philadelphia - sufficient backing could not be raised for this. She was then moved to Fort Lauderdale where again sufficient backing could not be found; she was actually scuttled there due to an approaching Hurricane, she was then raised and sold to the Hong Kong shipping magnate CY Tung. She was refitted in Hong Kong as large scale floating education facility and named C Y University. As the refit was ending a number of fires were started onboard; generally believed to be caused by arson, the volume of water used in the attempt to put the fires out caused the ship to become top heavy and capsize (echo's of the Normandie). She was declared a constructive loss and scrapped in situ over the next three decades.J.A.W. said:Yeah right, & look what happened to the liner Queen Elizabeth, scuttled in Hong Kong..
Isn't the into service/for sale question - still up for grabs anyhow?
Well, since it was a comment on it, yes, maybe I ought to have included it as a quote.. ..a new page thing..GTX said:
Doubtless plenty of crustaceans were scuttling about the poor old former Q.E...GTX said:As JohnR's post makes quite clear there was no scuttling.