Aircraft Carriers III

See I am less worried about it on the Queen Elizabeth's deck she has the room and can even have the pilot bank off the port side.
This is the one I am a little more worried about Jura.

The spacing between stored fighters and landing is closer.
If the jet suddenly starts sliding starboard there is no room for error. If it sides port it's right into the sea. Yet at the same time. It's hard to imagine how a F35B could start sliding like that in approach, that the pilot wouldn't have the time to compensate or wave off to come around for another pass. Even in a pinch drop excess weight and go for a Vertical landing.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The same accounting where a crash on a CVN deck would be Jura.
However ...

Click to expand...

Yesterday at 9:17 PM
and
Today at 7:39 AM
I was talking in the context of 'SRVL or just vertical landing',
I wasn't talking about some 'generic' risks of operating naval aviation (LOL you even brought up Infantry Today at 3:56 AM)

in other words, for me it's hard to believe the SRVL is as great as presented in the last few pages here

time will tell the rest

That's my point Jura, the Risks are the same as any other point in Naval aviation. You however seem hung up on them as if they are new.
Those risks date back to the start of naval aviation.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

That's my point Jura, the Risks are the same as any other point in Naval aviation. You however seem hung up on them as if they are new.
Those risks date back to the start of naval aviation.

Click to expand...

LOL one more try:

I meant specifically the SRVL risks (as compared to the way F-35Bs normally land), not any risks, while saying

"for me it's hard to believe the SRVL is as great as presented in the last few pages here" 35 minutes ago


and saying

"where would be 'savings generated by the SRVL' if an aircraft slammed it into the row of aircraft (for example starboard to the ski jump)" Today at 7:39 AM

and saying

"thanks, sounds pretty dangerous though (but that's me)" Yesterday at 9:17 PM
in response to the specific description in
#4062 Obi Wan Russell, Yesterday at 9:10 PM

it's getting ridiculous, LOL it looks like my English requires translation, so have the last word if you want

Jura said:

LOL one more try:

I meant specifically the SRVL risks (as compared to the way F-35Bs normally land), not any risks, while saying

Click to expand...

There are risks in the Vertical landing. Harriers pilots have lost control, the engines have cut out a strong wind can drive the jet into the island. The Russians suffered a set back with there Yak41 when one crashed into the deck.

"for me it's hard to believe the SRVL is as great as presented in the last few pages here" 35 minutes ago

Click to expand...

like all things it has advantages and detractions. The advantage is you are loosing less fuel and dumping less ordinance that has to be replaced. The disadvantage is you need more deck space and you can't rapidly land a few without clearing the deck.

and saying

"where would be 'savings generated by the SRVL' if an aircraft slammed it into the row of aircraft (for example starboard to the ski jump)" Today at 7:39 AM

Click to expand...

But that's a situation where in everything has failed. This is short landing on a straight line deck. The line of jets are not in line with the landing path of the Queen Elizabeth class they are off to the side which is why I worry less about it on her compared to America class. If a F35B was doing SRVL then they shouldn't be rolling that far forward or starboard. They should have stopped far before then at 200 feet or so. Along a straight line from fan tail to ramp.
If this is the deck of the Queen Elizabeth class
____________/ \______
++++++ [ ___________ ]
《---------《 < * <<<<<|
\___________________
《 is the ramp
Then "<" is the direction of both rolling take off and landings with the "*" being about where the SRVL should end and the "+" being the jets you are talking about.

You are saying that the jet is going to start landing straight and not stop but keep going then hang a hard right.

and saying

"thanks, sounds pretty dangerous though (but that's me)" Yesterday at 9:17 PM

Click to expand...

That's a relative term I would I admit rather a angled deck for this especially if you want to do it on LHA sized decks. That landing track would give a nice bit of extra safety.

Another factor you may not have considered is that they still have emergency nets to prevent a fighter from rolling to far.

in response to the specific description in
#4062 Obi Wan Russell, Yesterday at 9:10 PM

Click to expand...

And @Obi Wan Russell tried to point out that they were less an issue you seemed to feel it to be.

it's getting ridiculous, LOL it looks like my English requires translation, so have the last word if you want

Click to expand...

Word Homme!! LELZ

Meanwhile back in Rosyth, CVF-02 HMS Prince of Wales R09 (pictured here on October 16th) is well on course for completion next year when she is due to host the third and final phase of sea trials for the F-35B Lightning before it is fully cleared for operations at sea, leading to operational sqn deployments from 2020 onwards. PoW will be required as QE is due to return to dry dock for hull recertification:

More everyday flight ops aboard Big Liz:

in case you didn't know, here's the tweet





. is due to drop anchor in New York tomorrow. A Royal Navy aircraft carrier in the Big Apple - always photogenic

I'll see your 1950's Ark Royal and raise you a 1970's Ark Royal!

The Lightning trials aboard QE are drawing to a close for now with impending visit to New York New York (so good they named it twice), so here's some shots of more recent tests of the F-35B. With Bombs. Under the wings:
Oh, and with Trafalgar Day (October 21st) about tobe celebrated by the Royal Navy everywhere globally, QE's chefs have made these chocolate Galleons especially for the occasion!