You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The reg have the video of a pilot ejecting from an F35 taking off from a British carrier. That is one unlucky/ lucky fella!
https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/30/f35b_ejection_hms_queen_elizabeth_video/
Edit: plane rolls down and over takeoff ramp, pilot ejects just on time, chute is caught, pilot saved.
Lucky boy.
Getting run over by an aircraft carrier would be quite a way to go.
looks to my eyes like the chute lands in the water past the bow, no? if it was caught it would go long and thin, it goes flat and spreads out on the water
That's nothing - what about the unsanctioned use of a mobile phone on the cctv system of a carrier? Just wait for that to unroll!
That’s nothing – what about the unsanctioned use of a mobile phone on the cctv system of a carrier? Just wait for that to unroll!
And the suggestion someone left a cover in place, so causing the incident....
Again, that's relatively trivial compared with the security issue.
Mind you, rumour has it that a current very very senior naval bloke may have lost a briefcase full of stuff in the 90's. So it may just all blow over... ;p
Clearly the pilot was planning to send it off the jump, bottled it and slammed on the anchors, this resulted in a £100m jet version of 'over the bars'.
I think most of us can sympathise with that.
Piece talks about recovering the plane before an 'enemy' can get hold of it, but I'm guessing that £90 million warplane is scrap or would anything be salvageable?
They'll be able to reuse the intake covers that were left on the engines I expect.
that £90 million warplane is scrap or would anything be salvageable?
I'm sure that the Chinese and Russians would love to get hold of the electronics from thing, even after being trashed by the sea water.
Piece talks about recovering the plane before an ‘enemy’ can get hold of it, but I’m guessing that £90 million warplane is scrap or would anything be salvageable?
Scrap but very informative scrap, they're not worried about the Russians actually flying it, just reverse-engineering its capabilities.
You mean the Russians aren’t buying “ the F35 iS RUbBisH”??
The embedded stealth materials would be of immense value to the Russians and Chinese who're apparently still using pure coatings which need extensive maintenance and repair. Similarly, the F35s engine is immensely powerful for its size and the Chinese are having difficulty creating reliable, powerful counterparts to western engine designs. I'd imagine the Chinese already have most of the software and systems information...
The real crime here is that someone filmed a landscape cctv video in portrait!
Bet the Russians and the Chinese are worried about our new multi billion pound front line defence systems if thats the standard operating procedure
Throw the planes into the sea before the wheels leave the ground.
Mind you, with the Chinese new hypersonic lr cruise missiles big, slow, floaty targets are basically obsolete if you go to war
All that money could have insulated Britain
Post colonial posturing and thousands of jobs for uk workers building the boats but at some poimt this level of expendure to not stop humans killing humans needs reassessment
Had he gone underneath the 65,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth or been caught in one of her two 33-tonne, 6.7m-diameter propellers, he may not have survived.
Do you think?
Bloody hell, the intake covers were left on? Someone's not getting many Christmas cards this year...
I'm inclined to agree with singletrackmind, carriers might soon become as irrelevant as battleships soon.
(I have read speculation of a new age of the battleship but I don't see it.)
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.
If the Chinese or Russians do manage to get proper hypersonic missiles working, then it will change the balance of power in that sphere. Whether it will stop carriers being used is doubtful; I'm not sure that either Russia or China will want to kick a war off just to prive that they can take a US carrier.
I’m inclined to agree with singletrackmind, carriers might soon become as irrelevant as battleships soon.
I agree that we should be looking at different things to spend money on, but carriers (and battleships for that matter) are probably far from obsolete in the way that the US wants to keep using them, and that's not going to be a war with China or Russia anytime soon.
^^ I believe by going non nuclear our carriers are also limited in what can be fitted in the future, lasers/ rail guns etc.
lasers/ rail guns etc.
lasers is still the stuff of science fiction. There's a US navy ship: the remarkably named USS Ponce that has a laser weapon fitted to it, it continues not to work.
^^ Wow. Not at the laser not working but at the name.lol
I think rail guns are coming along a bit better though?
I believe by going non nuclear our carriers are also limited
They are nuclear propulsion though?
Edit - my mistake looks like they have gas turbines.
Didn't realise the F35 just fell off the carrier ! Yikes. It's now been located though - quite deep water I believe.
I watched an article about the MIG 25 Foxbat - everyone crapped themselves with this aircraft as it was so fast. It wasn't until a pilot defected in one did they realise it wasn't all that it was 'feared'. Very heavy stainless steel, big wings just to keep it airborne, and the engines didn't last long, and it couldn't do Mach3 for very long due to engine damage. would have been crap in a dogfight.
Mind you, rumour has it that a current very very senior naval bloke may have lost a briefcase full of stuff in the 90’s. So it may just all blow over… ;p
Longish story..
I drank in the Florence Nightingale pub, in the late80s/early90s - just off Westminster Bridge. There would be a mix of hospital staff, builders, accountants, MPs, workers from the Houses of Parliament, all sorts. Just after I left London, my mate got mixed up in a bit of a sticky situation, where someone had been offering around stolen computer stuff from the Houses of Parliament. I think my mate had been interested in buying some of it. The police turned up at the research unit where he worked and eventually interviewed him. Shortly after, the thief was found hanged - a genuine suicide apparently - in the HoP, leading to pub discussions about how he died, and whether he was entitled to a state funeral. (The rumour was that anyone who dies in the HoP is meant to have one. I don't think that's correct but it was a memorable conversation.) To my knowledge, nothing ever made it into the press about any of this.
Clearly the pilot was planning to send it off the jump, bottled it and slammed on the anchors, this resulted in a £100m jet version of ‘over the bars’.
Mint! I'll gi-ya a clap for that frank and your very own gif
My guess is brake failure, its happened before and there was nothing the pilot could do about it in the time available.
I watched an article about the MIG 25 Foxbat – everyone crapped themselves with this aircraft as it was so fast. It wasn’t until a pilot defected in one did they realise it wasn’t all that it was ‘feared’. Very heavy stainless steel, big wings just to keep it airborne, and the engines didn’t last long, and it couldn’t do Mach3 for very long due to engine damage. would have been crap in a dogfight.
Was EMP proof though, on account of a lack of complex electronics IIRC
Rockhopper
Free MemberMy guess is brake failure, its happened before and there was nothing the pilot could do about it in the time available.
This was take-off rather than landing though, unless you think he had a catastrophic engine + brake issue. Are you thinking of the F/A-18 crash where the arrestor cable snapped and he rolled off the deck?
In my considered opinion, definitely a brake cable failure. What a way to spend money.
I read about this on the BBC website a few days ago - Video appears to show UK F-35 fighter crash after take-off - BBC News
As others have suggested I suspect that whoever provided the video to the commentator who shared it on Twitter is in for a stern talking to (the BBC article suggests that the video comes from the carrier's own surveillance system as presumably constitutes a fairly major breach of security).
I have just re-watched with the 'plane on a conveyor belt' question in my head...
Talk about compounding the cluster fudge, if that video came from the carriers own surveillance systems and was leaked.
Carriers are so obselete the Chinese are still building them
Carriers aren't there to take on the Chinese or Russian mainland, there's plenty of the globe where they can successfully operate.
As for lazers they are line of sight weapons, that limits their effective range
big_n_daft
Free Member
Carriers are so obselete the Chinese are still building them
Just to be devil's advocate here but the west is easy behind China and Russia in hypersonic middles so Chinese carriers have less to fear on that regard.
That said, your point is valid in reality, plus our subs are superior and a definite threat to their carriers.
This is starting to sound like that old ad on tv, "you sunk my battleship!"😁
that limits their effective range
And paint, and clouds, and warm and cold air, and dust and power and cooling and refraction and so on and on and on. There's a reason it's mounted on the USS I'd Forgotten We Had This, and not the USS Showing Off The Extremely Effective Weapon System.
In my considered opinion, definitely a brake cable failure. What a way to spend money.
Huh? No arrester cable on those. There'll be a crash barrier presumably, but they'll be there for crashy landings.
I've read that it was an internal engine bung, so the engine was able to breathe enough to override the brakes but not enough to soar majestically into the sky. Someone basically forgot to pull the bungs out and this one was hidden by the shape of the intake.
Absolutely inexcusable.
I did once check a Cessna out when training and one of the access hatches under the tailplane was open. Only fist sized, and it was held in place by one of the bolt in "open" position. It got the maintenance guys into a spot of bother, and the guy who'd just flown it was proper bollocked!
He was moving out ready to take off then attempted to stop for whatever reason, no wheel brakes but still a certain amount of forward thrust applied. I don't think he was ever close to take off speed and the engine wouldn't spool up quickly enough to get him airborne in that short amount of time.
He was moving out ready to take off
Looks a bit speedy for just moving out (before then slowing on the ramp)
As comments above say, it's believed a cover was left on over the air intakes.
https://twitter.com/sebh1981/status/1465351592018956295
https://twitter.com/Clintus1982/status/1465361862762053640
In my considered opinion, definitely a brake cable failure.
Should have fitted hydros.
The most expensive and technological advanced fighter aircraft and they don't have a sensor for the air intake covers. Shocking.
The 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
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?
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.