But why mention the weight of the carrier in the report,
It's like saying, "Hit by a concrete truck." It doesn't really matter whether it's a small car or a big truck, if it hits a person, the result will be pretty much the same.
People have been saying that carriers will become irrelevant for years. I think they are right, especially if, like the UK ones, they do not have the ability to project power or, more accurately, bomb a small country back to the stone age all on their own.
How we gonna 'retake' Barbados back without one 🙂
They might be rubbish, and we may not be competent enough to actually launch one, but my, they sure are pretty
I appreciate that everyone has different tastes, but I think there are much prettier aircraft. From that view, it looks a bit hunched at the back and it's all angles, kind of like the younger brother of the F22 went to the gym and only did shoulders.
A mate of mine was testing the F-35 for the navy in the US. I'll ask him if he knows what happened.
I got sent the video a few days ago from a mate whos ex RAF in the US and was working F35s with the 'muricans.
He said it was as mentioned above - an engine cover left in place (unrecorded maintenance, not in the book!) and not noticed. Watch the Nozzle doing all sorts of odd stuff when it realises that the engines at high speed but no thrust (no EPR?).
Pilot pretty dumb not to feel/notice what was going on from the readouts aswell to be fair. Looks like they tried to abort but past the point of no go, which I guess for a carrier launch is very, very soon after (or before!?) the point of deciding to go!
mashr
Free MemberThe issue here isn’t the aircraft, they shouldn’t need sensors there. the issue is the failure of procedures that allowed it to attempt to take off
Surprising nonetheless that there weren't a tonne of warning lights flashing, not specifically for the covers being left on but for how much air was entering compared to what is expected at that throttle/altitude etc.
Working in aviation for a few years and doing so much study into accidents prevents me fromt typing "how can you miss it".
It happens!
Surprising nonetheless that there weren’t a tonne of warning lights flashing, not specifically for the covers being left on but for how much air was entering compared to what is expected at that throttle/altitude etc.
There absolutely will have been - which then of course leads to “how on earth did it still manage to plop off the boat?!”
I'm impressed with the "Visual Surveillance System" label stuck on with a bit of old sellotape!
This is likely to be a dumb question. But why mention the weight of the carrier in the report, other than a weird way to imply it’s size? it’s a floaty, so weight doesn’t really come into it if you go under it?
It does in Top Trumps, so it matters. HMS QE2 beat that sucker...
But why mention the weight of the carrier in the report
It's the way the size of ships is generally measured. 65000 tons makes it just slightly bigger than a ferry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Stena_Hollandica
" The (un)lucky pilot of the F-35 qualifies for membership of ejection seat maker Martin Baker's Ejection Tie Club, an exclusive organisation reserved for those who've used its products to escape from a crashing aeroplane. "
The tie is blue, I reckon brown would be a better choice of colours 😆
They stopped the ties a while back, as for the intake cover being raised as the issue, i'd wait until the investigation is complete, it's an easy one to throw at it, but reality is, an aircraft is most vulnerable on take off and landing for failures, you are effectively ramping the engine and systems up, especially on a short take off like this, where it's using the lift system as well.
I also wouldn't ask any mates who used to work on them or the likes, if they are serving then they should not be discussing any active investigation, and after the security leak on the QEII i doubt anyone wants to even speak about it with anyone as it's a pension trap!
I think rail guns are coming along a bit better though?
Have they found a workaround for Newton's third law?
As for lazers
What do helmets have to do with it it?
Have they found a workaround for Newton’s third law?
yep. Big boat vs much smaller weight shell.
Apparently the pilot, 2 engineers and flight deck manager all up for the high jump on this one.
Rail guns look great, but not sure how they will ever work onboard, they use a hell of a lot of power, which comes down to ships choosing between propulsion and firing, US have nuclear carriers, but why would you stick a rail gun on a carrier, plus there's the little issue of erosion wear on each firing being quite high, so low number of firings before having to replace expensive and time consuming parts.
I think rail guns are coming along a bit better though?
I heard they were a scam.
I think rail guns are coming along a bit better though?
No, they aren’t. The US has abandoned development of them, but they’re continuing development of laser weapons, by using a pulsed beam, it overcomes a number of issues that continuous beams have shown.
A pulsed laser wouldn’t be much use again capital ships, and line-of-sight also limits their use in that regard, you need weapons that can hit things well over the horizon, like twenty, thirty miles away.
Where the lasers come into their own is against drones and anti-shipping missiles, once there’s a radar lock on the object, there’s an almost instantaneous strike on the incoming missile or drone/aircraft. It’s not necessary to allow for gravity, or any of the normal ballistic issues involved with projectile weapons.
The overall design of the F-35 is Russian anyway. They just copied it from the YAK 141.
yep. Big boat vs much smaller weight shell.
Care to apply some standard grade physics to that statement? Then consider that the projectile would be acting on a certain part of the ships structure above the centre of gravity. That's a lot of naval architecture going on.
It’s the way the size of ships is generally measured. 65000 tons makes it just slightly bigger than a ferry – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Stena_Hollandica
/blockquote>They are 2 different measurements.
Merchant ships are measured by Gross Tonnage. It's nothing to do with the displacement/weight of the the ship, it's a measurement of internal volume but is in fact unitless.
To further complicate things you also have Gross Register Tonnage, Net Tonnage and Deadweight.
Warships are described by their displacement, the actual weight of the ship and hence the weight of water displaced when it is floating.
The aircraft carrier is way bigger than that ferry, you just need to compare the length and breadth, then their drafts to see that.
it’s a measurement of internal volume but is in fact unitless.
Just hypothetically imagine that I don't understand how a measurement of volume can be unitless and please explain this. Volume is distance x distance x distance. Distance is measured in units such as meters. Volume therefore is measured in units such as cubic meters. This can also be rescaled to units of mass of a substance of specified density, such as tonnes of fresh water at 4 degrees Celcius, with one tonne corresponding to one cubic meter.
Just hypothetically imagine that I don’t understand how a measurement of volume can be unitless and please explain this
From Wiki:
Gross tonnage (GT) is a function of the volume of all of a ship's enclosed spaces (from keel to funnel) measured to the outside of the hull framing. The numerical value for a ship's GT is always smaller than the numerical values of gross register tonnage (GRT). Gross tonnage is therefore a kind of capacity-derived index that is used to rank a ship for purposes of determining manning, safety, and other statutory requirements and is expressed simply as GT, which is a unitless entity, even though it derives from the volumetric capacity in cubic metres.
Net tonnage (NT) is based on a calculation of the volume of all cargo spaces of the ship. It indicates a vessel's earning space and is a function of the moulded volume of all cargo spaces of the ship.
A commonly defined measurement system is important, since a ship's registration fee, harbour dues, safety and manning rules, and the like may be based on its gross tonnage (GT) or net tonnage (NT).
Gross register tonnage (GRT) represents the total internal volume of a vessel, where one register ton is equal to a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.83 m3); a volume that, if filled with fresh water, would weigh around 2.83 tonnes. The definition and calculation of the internal volume is complex; for instance, a ship's hold may be assessed for bulk grain (accounting for all the air space in the hold) or for bales (omitting the spaces into which bulk, but not baled cargo, would spill). Gross register tonnage was replaced by gross tonnage in 1982 under the Tonnage Measurement convention of 1969, with all ships measured in GRT either scrapped or re-measured in GT by 1994.[2][1]
I don't really understand it either.
If you have the time you could read through this.
Ok, so gross tonnage is basically an ordinal scale derived from the ship's internal volume. A larger ship will have a larger gross tonnage, but it's not a linear relationship. Double the gross tonnage does not mean double the internal volume or double the displacement. I assume that's because doubling the displacement does not require doubling the crew size or requiring double the harbour infrastructure so it's more useful for calculating things like that.
Eve-01 is rejecting him!
Recovered and crew member arrested.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mediterranean-sea-f-35-queen-elizabeth-b1972566.html
1600m! Bladdy Norah, that's deep. Be interesting to see how they go about operating and recovering something that's likely to fall apart at that depth.
1600m! Bladdy Norah, that’s deep.
It's not that extreme for modern construction vessels and ROVs, plenty that can operate to 4000m.
Just a matter of using some kind of recovery basket or even a lifting frame.
he issue here isn’t the aircraft, they shouldn’t need sensors there. the issue is the failure of procedures that allowed it to attempt to take off
The T45 AAW Destroyers are powered by 2 x RR Gas Turbines (when they're working)
When not in use the intakes are covered with a thick, rubberised canvas cover.
Couple of years ago, following a shutdown period one of the Navy operators started a turbine with the cover still one, which was sucked straight through it.
Thankfully there was Rolls Royce Engineer standing next to him in the Ships control room, who put his hand over the start button for the second turbine to stop the RN starting that one.
Having worked with the RN as a supplier for the last 15 years i could write a book on the thinks they've lost/broken/wrecked/screwed up, however i'd probably loose my job.
‘Jack proof’…
Having worked with the RN as a supplier for the last 15 years i could write a book on the thinks they’ve lost/broken/wrecked/screwed up, however i’d probably loose my job.
I have a few myself.
The "procedures" that were "followed", that lead to the flooding of the engine room on HMS Endurance, were laughable.
