Seahawk Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, jpk said: ... I think the RN made a mistake not making the QE, PoW with cats, arresting gear and F-35C capable. Was the possibility of conversion built into the QE and PoW to later install those capabilities if funds permit? We were told such flexibility was built into the design. It was even said that PoW might be built with them or that they might be installed at first major refit. But it wasn't. Either that or BAE got greedy and ted quoted completely unacceptable prices for something they didn't want to do. PS Those in the know may well tell us that providing cats and traps at a later date was never going to be a realistic option once the first steel was cut. That doesn't affect what the taxpaying public were being told at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, FIGHTS ON said: "jet efflux" burning the flight deck netting on the sides of the flight deck] I would never have thought of that ! Wonder what the weight penalty would be to have metal netting? We will just need to get those awfully nice chaps at Westlands Leonardo's to stretch a Merlin (like S-61N) then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Didn't the then new Conservative government look into redesigning QE2 to fit steam cats and change the order from F-35B STOVL to F-35C CTOL types?? It proved impossible - with one of the reasons given is that because of her turbine (essentially RR Trents) powerplant, she cannot make steam to power the cats. She could be fitted with EMALS cats - but they are not yet operational. Bottom line - it can't be done. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 This says that the Gerald R Ford has EMALS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, Max Headroom said: This says that the Gerald R Ford has EMALS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier Trevor Yeah, but they still aren't working properly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Latest update on cat and trap: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 Okay, showing my ignorance, but what’s COD? Graham 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, GrahamS said: Okay, showing my ignorance, but what’s COD? Graham Carrier On-board Delivery = COD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamS Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 41 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: Carrier On-board Delivery = COD Well all I could think of was Cash On Delivery so I guess I wasn’t too far off! 😁 Thanks Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 It’s good with chips 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 On 8/12/2018 at 1:01 PM, GMK said: The V-22 also has greater speed and range than either the Wildcat or Merlin... and the Chinook. On 8/12/2018 at 1:32 PM, Hockeyboy76 said: The V-22 is the only carrier capable aircraft able to carry the F35s engines. As a slung load. Pretty sure it will not fit internally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 3 hours ago, hairystick said: and the Chinook. As a slung load. Pretty sure it will not fit internally. No - it’s internal. That was a mandatory requirement so that the CMV-22 could fly the F-35 engine out to the carrier battle group. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 20 hours ago, GMK said: No - it’s internal. That was a mandatory requirement so that the CMV-22 could fly the F-35 engine out to the carrier battle group. Good to know. I wonder if that engine is for a "C" or a "B"? With all the extra stuff protruding out the front for the lift fan, perhaps that was where the additional space/weight was being added into the equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 1 hour ago, hairystick said: Good to know. I wonder if that engine is for a "C" or a "B"? With all the extra stuff protruding out the front for the lift fan, perhaps that was where the additional space/weight was being added into the equation? My understanding is that the F135-400 (engine for the F-35C) and the F135-600 (engine for the F-35B), in terms of physical envelope of the engine itself, is essentially the same. The -600 plugging into the separate Integrated Lift Fan Propulsion System (ILFPS) module. For the purposes of the CMV-22, the COD requirement includes delivery of carrier air wing spare engines onto aircraft carriers. So, that’s the F404 for the C/D Hornets, F414 for the E/F/G Super Hornets/Growlers, and the T56 for the E-2, with the F135-400 for the C model Lightning. As the conventional C-2 COD can’t land on an Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD, LHA, etc.), I’m not sure carrying the F135-600 (or the F402-RR for the AV-8B, for that matter) was a requirement. All that being said, taking the commonality between the F135-400 and F135-600 engines, I imagine that freighting the -600 engine internally via CMV-22 wouldn’t be too tricky to pull off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitewolf Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/5/2018 at 7:49 PM, Shar2 said: Yeah, but they still aren't working properly. Who told you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now