Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:59 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,832
HMS Queen Elizabeth Supercarrier launching and recovering F-35's

Just a video (set to music) of the new HMS Queen Elizabeth launching and recovering F-35's. I thought it was pretty cool and had been waiting for the UK to get it's shipment and get them starting to do operations on the new carrier. It's been a long time coming for them to get the carrier fully spun up. Looks great!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiLMFILDEBA

One weird thing is that the F-35's still have the marine corp markings on them for some reason.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 10-09-2018 at 09:01 AM.
  #2  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:09 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
... One weird thing is that the F-35's still have the marine corp markings on them for some reason.
That's because they ARE USMC F-35s. The UK only owns like 4 of the new jets so far, and I don't believe they're involved in this testing.

ETA: I saw pictures of some of the operations. They looked really cool.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-09-2018 at 10:11 AM.
  #3  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:11 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,832
Ah...I thought I recalled seeing that they had taken order of the first batch so assumed they were using their own. Makes sense though if they aren't operational yet that they would borrow some marine F-35's to start getting operational experience with the carrier.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #4  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:34 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,432
I believe it is USMC pilots on USMC planes.
They expect to use the Queen Elizabeth in wartime. Like they did with the Harriers and the Invincbles.
  #5  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:42 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
... Like they did with the Harriers and the Invincbles.
What? Did the USMC deploy USMC Harriers on the Invincibles?
  #6  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:43 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,832
There are what appear to me to be British markings on the tail sections of the F-35's.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #7  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:56 AM
Dave.B Dave.B is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The UK only owns like 4 of the new jets so far, and I don't believe they're involved in this testing.
We currently have 9 F-35Bs at RAF Marham, and several more in the US, but none of ours are instrumented for testing. So we are borrowing USMC ones.
Pilots are a mix of RN/RAF/USMC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What? Did the USMC deploy USMC Harriers on the Invincibles?
No, we used our own RN Sea Harrier F/A2s and RAF Harrier GR3s.
  #8  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:23 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What? Did the USMC deploy USMC Harriers on the Invincibles?
Not deploy as such. Operate from. Beginning in 2007.
It’s purpose was to increase interoperability amongst NATO forces and also allow for flexibility in usage of alliance assets.

Last edited by AK84; 10-09-2018 at 11:23 AM.
  #9  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:28 AM
Dave.B Dave.B is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Not deploy as such. Operate from.
I assumed from the "in wartime" reference that we were talking about the Falklands Conflict. I may have assumed wrongly.
  #10  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:43 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave.B View Post
We currently have 9 F-35Bs at RAF Marham, and several more in the US, but none of ours are instrumented for testing. So we are borrowing USMC ones.
Pilots are a mix of RN/RAF/USMC. ...
Thanks for the correction. Speaking from the western side of the pond, I'm delighted to see the UK getting back into fixed-wing naval aviation, and working closely with the US military. You guys rock.
  #11  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:19 PM
Dave.B Dave.B is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm delighted to see the UK getting back into fixed-wing naval aviation, and working closely with the US military.
My thoughts exactly. It's been way too long.
  #12  
Old 10-09-2018, 04:14 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
There are what appear to me to be British markings on the tail sections of the F-35's.
It's planes from the joint testing group. The work-up at this point is carrier ops - the RN is after all testing the systems on a first-in-class prototype, and they've been out of the fixed wing business for a while.

There is a decent three-part documentary that the BBC did called "Britain's Biggest Warship" that's available on some video upload sites. It's about the later stages of construction and first sea trials of HMS Queen Elizabeth. There's some salty old sea dogs aboard, but it's really striking that most of the sailors are on their first ever ship. Worth a watch if you can navigate your way to Vimeo...

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 10-09-2018 at 04:17 PM.
  #13  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:22 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,535
The plane operating from that deck is one thing. A much more important thing is whether all of the systems integration and networking juju works with UK systems. That's the most revolutionary aspect of this aircraft: not the stealth, or the VTOL. The ability to share what it sees, from a variety of passive and active sensors, and both send that to other nodes in the network, as well as synthesize the take from other nodes, makes it the revolutionary airplane that it's supposed to be.

In brief, AIUI, it's supposed to be a flying AEGIS system.
  #14  
Old 10-10-2018, 06:30 PM
Declan Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,234
Beautiful aircraft, Canada needs to get off the pot and buy them.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #15  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:23 AM
GreedySmurf GreedySmurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,578
I got a pretty close look at the HMS Queen Elizabeth down in Portsmouth recently, very impressive piece of kit.

I wonder how much extra take off weight the ski ramp allows as opposed to a pure vertical take off?

I felt sorry for one of those pilots, his nickname is (presumably) just a shortening of his actual name to Nath, and no cool moniker like Maverick or Iceman.
  #16  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:32 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
Beautiful aircraft, Canada needs to get off the pot and buy them.
Canada, being a national security risk to the USA, should not purchase any military equipment from the USA.
  #17  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:05 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,514
I know "supercarrier" has no true military definition, but the Queen Elizabeth is a 100' shorter than the USS Ranger, one of the earliest supercarriers. The Queen Elizabeth is significantly longer and heavier than the Ark Royal. Is that the basis for calling it a supercarrier?

It seems to be about the size of the USS Midway which was not considered "supercarrier".
I believe the USS Forrestal (CV-59) is considered the first "supercarrier", the lead ship in the class by Ranger belonged to.
  #18  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:51 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
I know "supercarrier" has no true military definition, but the Queen Elizabeth is a 100' shorter than the USS Ranger, one of the earliest supercarriers. The Queen Elizabeth is significantly longer and heavier than the Ark Royal. Is that the basis for calling it a supercarrier?

It seems to be about the size of the USS Midway which was not considered "supercarrier".
I believe the USS Forrestal (CV-59) is considered the first "supercarrier", the lead ship in the class by Ranger belonged to.
Yeah, thought of that too -- it's a large Fleet Carrier but I question the "super" bit. It does end up with some 20,000 tons over the other European Fleet Carrier, the DeGaulle, which is a catapult/arrester design while the Brit ship is STOVL-only as commissioned. (The current model Russian, Chinese and Indian carriers, derived from late Soviet ships, use jump-ramp launch AND arrested recovery so a design like the QE could probably be modified in that direction.)
  #19  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:52 PM
Declan Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Canada, being a national security risk to the USA, should not purchase any military equipment from the USA.

Sorry but that's not going to happen. As long as its for sale to Canada, the military should be able to source what ever they need to carry out the wishes of parliament. By the above reasoning, we should not buy anything Chinese, as the Canadian gov decried the sale of Aceon on the basis of national security.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #20  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:16 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Canada, being a national security risk to the USA, should not purchase any military equipment from the USA.
Is Canada going to start buying Russian, or just give up on having a military altogether?
  #21  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:24 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreedySmurf View Post
... I wonder how much extra take off weight the ski ramp allows as opposed to a pure vertical take off? ...
A lot, although I don't have the precise figures available. While the F-35B can do a pure vertical take-off, at least under the right circumstances, it can't do so with a useful load of fuel and weapons. It needs a runway, at least a short one, to get lift from its wings to be able to get airborne with enough missiles / bombs and fuel to accomplish its planned missions. The ski jump basically means a shorter take-off roll, if I understand the math correctly.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-11-2018 at 05:25 PM.
  #22  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:25 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is Canada going to start buying Russian, or just give up on having a military altogether?
There are non-US NATO countries who make aircraft, you know
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017