Some pretty incredible pics here of the takeoff and landing trials of the F-35B aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth

They are pretty high-resolution pics so I won't kill anyone with direct pic embeds here.

The aircraft are from the USN's VX-23 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron but flown by British pilots.

F-35Bs Aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth Fast fighter jets are once again flying from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier as the first F-35s have landed on the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

I got to tour the production line in Ft. Worth a few weeks ago. Highlight of the trip. No cameras kinda sucks though, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:
I got to tour the production line in Ft. Worth a few weeks ago. Highlight of the trip.

How did you get to do that? I thoroughly enjoy watching the F35s fly every time I see them, which lately has been once a month.

A cool vid of a VTOL landing from the same event.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9AJt8_1539543552

Wow, that is great!

I had some friends in high school whose brother was a DI in the USMC. I didn't know him at the time, but I was always impressed by that. Enough that I went in.

I recently reacquainted with him, and found out his son also became a USMC DI, then went Mustang, and now flies the F35. Not sure how many F35 pilots there are, but that's a $100mil airplane.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
A cool vid of a VTOL landing from the same event.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9AJt8_1539543552

Technically that’s an RVL (rolling vertical landing). We used to do them in the Harrier a lot. Quicker and easier than a straight VL and doesn’t require a lot of room (we’d primarily use when we landed on 2 lane blacktop roads down at Camp Lejeune)

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
A cool vid of a VTOL landing from the same event.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9AJt8_1539543552

Technically that’s an RVL (rolling vertical landing). We used to do them in the Harrier a lot. Quicker and easier than a straight VL and doesn’t require a lot of room (we’d primarily use when we landed on 2 lane blacktop roads down at Camp Lejeune)

Here’s more info from Popular Mechanics:
https://www.popularmechanics.c...carrier-landings-uk/

Big Lizzie visits the Big Apple

quote:

The United Kingdom's largest and most powerful warship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, this morning was greeted by Lady Liberty in New York Harbor, marking the start of a week-long visit.

The $4billion warship, affectionately nicknamed 'Big Lizzie,' anchored two miles from Manhattan in the Hudson River shortly before noon Friday. The behemoth boat, which has more than 1,000 personnel onboard, will take part in F-35B flight tests.

On the eve of the ship's arrival in New York, Captain Jerry Kyd who is due to hand over command of HMS Queen Elizabeth on Wednesday, addressed the ship’s company for the last time, telling those gathered in the vast hangar to 'enjoy New York'.

Thanking and praising them for their efforts, team work and professionalism during his stint at the helm, he said HMS Queen Elizabeth is 'now the future of the Royal Navy'.
....

About time the Brits got back into the Naval Aviation game.

What is it with the Brits and those ski ramps? I know it's to assist an aircraft taking off with a heavy load or fuel and ordinance but wouldn't a catapult be more efficient?

Or can the F35 not handle a cat shot? One would think that the VTOL technology would be sufficiently mature to allow for cat launches.

The VTOL capability for landing actually makes a lot of sense in some ways doesn't it? Asking the Navy pilots here).

The two separate islands are kind of interesting though.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
What is it with the Brits and those ski ramps? I know it's to assist an aircraft taking off with a heavy load or fuel and ordinance but wouldn't a catapult be more efficient?

Or can the F35 not handle a cat shot? One would think that the VTOL technology would be sufficiently mature to allow for cat launches.

The VTOL capability for landing actually makes a lot of sense in some ways doesn't it? Asking the Navy pilots here).

The two separate islands are kind of interesting though.

It’s cheaper and requires less man power.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
What is it with the Brits and those ski ramps? I know it's to assist an aircraft taking off with a heavy load or fuel and ordinance but wouldn't a catapult be more efficient?

Simplicity.
The USN has over 80-years of continuous operation on CATOBAR carriers, that's a lot of institutional knowledge gained operationally, as well as from a maintenance and design/engineering standpoint. The Royal Navy hasn't operated a fixed-wing carrier since the 60's, and it ended up being converted to a STOVL carrier.
Cats are manpower intensive both above and below decks, they can be finicky and require regular maintenance. If your industrial base isn't there or, you don't have enough hands to operate the system...than you have a white elephant. Engineering-wise, you have to devote a lot of internal space for the steam generation & delivery or, have a power plant that can generate the electricity necessary for the new EMALS-type systems. Then, when all that is worked-out, you still need to get your ship steaming over 25+kts to get enough wind over the deck to launch; now you're looking at the ship's power plant and overall design engineering so the ship can handle all that torque running through the hull.

There's A LOT of design compromises with this carrier design, some of which the USN would never-ever do.

Yeah, ski ramps are easy as are vertical landing recoveries compared to a traditional catapult and arresting gear carrier.

Of course you can't carry as much stuff with STVOL aircraft of any variety (ski ramp or not - USMC F35Bs will take off a flat deck sans ski ramp) compared to conventional carrier fixed wing with catapults and afterburners.

STOVL aircraft are the poor mans way to Naval Aviation, but they are far better than none at all. The F35B is far more capable than the AV8s but don't bring the load capacity of the F35C (Big Deck carrier version), which has greater range and weapons capability.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
The VTOL capability for landing actually makes a lot of sense in some ways doesn't it? Asking the Navy pilots here).

Depends. For landing a handful of STVOL jets, is simpler and cheaper.

But it's not conducive to large launch and recoveries in short periods of time - a USN big deck can launch 10-15 aircraft and recover the same number in <30 (depending on WX) and do that every 1+30 for 12-14 hours a day for a long time.

ETA - another advantage of a traditional carrier is simo launch and recovery operations due to the angled flight deck.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, ski ramps are easy as are vertical landing recoveries compared to a traditional catapult and arresting gear carrier.

Of course you can't carry as much stuff with STVOL aircraft of any variety (ski ramp or not - USMC F35Bs will take off a flat deck sans ski ramp) compared to conventional carrier fixed wing with catapults and afterburners.

STOVL aircraft are the poor mans way to Naval Aviation, but they are far better than none at all. The F35B is far more capable than the AV8s but don't bring the load capacity of the F35C (Big Deck carrier version), which has greater range and weapons capability.

Half the range, half the payload.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
A cool vid of a VTOL landing from the same event.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9AJt8_1539543552

Technically that’s an RVL (rolling vertical landing). We used to do them in the Harrier a lot. Quicker and easier than a straight VL and doesn’t require a lot of room (we’d primarily use when we landed on 2 lane blacktop roads down at Camp Lejeune)

A couple of weeks ago the BBC had an article that stated they were practicing rolling landings as well.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

Half the range, half the payload.

Yup and usually only 1/4 the number of planes on the carrier.

When your history is mostly behind you, and you are poor, one can only afford what one can afford, in this case, about ten billion dollars.

Having invented and used the world's most successful VTOL fighter [even in ATA combat, remember], and given them all away, the Brits now have to go elsewhere for suitable airplanes to fly off these two ships.

I note, however, that the USMC had to do much the same to acquire the VTOL fighter that THEY wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
I note, however, that the USMC had to do much the same to acquire the VTOL fighter that THEY wanted.

Agreed and the RN & RAF was far more successful with Harrier operations, instead of littering them all across AZ and NC like the USMC was keen to do.

The Harrier was novel and well used in UK service. "Sea Harrier" is still a favorite book of mine.

In US service it was more of a bad joke - it did have it's moments but they were very few and far between.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
When your history is mostly behind you, and you are poor, one can only afford what one can afford, in this case, about ten billion dollars.

Man, imagine if England applied some dynamic liberty to their people and markets.

US 2.0 (but more refined) would be pretty sweet on that island.