Military Review

English aircraft carrier entered the final stage of testing

101
The latest English Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier can be adopted by the Royal fleet already in December of this year. According to navaltoday.com, the largest warship in stories The British Navy entered the second (final) stage of testing.


Final tests of the aircraft carrier should have begun last week. But because of the bad weather, they were moved, and the ship left Portsmouth only on October 30. The crew and acceptance team will spend weeks in the sea 5 – 6, after which the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth will return to the base, where the ceremony of its acceptance into the British Navy is scheduled for December 7.

English aircraft carrier entered the final stage of testing


The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was laid down in 2009, and on July 4, 2014, Queen Elizabeth II gave the ship its name, breaking a bottle of Scotch whiskey about it (in deference to the Scottish shipbuilders). The beginning of the sea trials was repeatedly postponed due to the failure of the contractors, however, in the British Defense Ministry they believe that the ship, as planned, will take up combat duty in the 2020 year.

The British aircraft carrier is smaller than its American "brothers"; it does not have a nuclear reactor, a catapult, and is almost three times cheaper than ships of the Gerald R. Ford type. The length of the Queen Elizabeth is 280 m, the width is 73 m, the total displacement exceeds 70 000 t. The ship can reach speeds up to 25 nodes (46 km / h), and its autonomy is 10 000 miles or almost 300 days of sailing, transmits "Warspot".
Photos used:
royalnavy.mod.uk
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrall
    Thrall 31 October 2017 15: 53 New
    +4
    Have the aircraft carrier already experienced girls with low social responsibility in the pool (according to the tradition of the Royal Navy)? smile
    1. san4es
      san4es 31 October 2017 16: 53 New
      +5
      Quote: Thrall
      Have you experienced girls with low social responsibility? smile

      soldier ... They are delivered complete, together with the ship (see for 36 sec.) bully
    2. Professor
      Professor 31 October 2017 17: 09 New
      14
      Quote: Thrall
      Have the aircraft carrier already experienced girls with low social responsibility in the pool (according to the tradition of the Royal Navy)? smile

      Is that all you have to say about the aircraft carrier? Yes ... crushed the site. sad
      1. Egorovich
        Egorovich 31 October 2017 18: 33 New
        +6
        A good British target for Russian Caliber.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. bulvas
          bulvas 31 October 2017 19: 56 New
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: Thrall
          Have the aircraft carrier already experienced girls with low social responsibility in the pool (according to the tradition of the Royal Navy)? smile

          Is that all you have to say about the aircraft carrier? Yes ... crushed the site. sad


          But the Professor had something to say ...
        3. Normal ok
          Normal ok 1 November 2017 00: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Egorovich
          A good British target for Russian Caliber.

          The problem is that the calibers are only enough for one salvo. release very slowly. And there are many more goals.
      2. xetai9977
        xetai9977 31 October 2017 18: 37 New
        10
        "Yes ... crushed the site."
        And don’t talk! Any discussion of the possibilities of technology directly drowns in the ocean of banter, ridicule, flat jokes and simply stupid utterances.
        1. Black5Raven
          Black5Raven 31 October 2017 21: 21 New
          +6
          And what can they say when the States, England and others rivet the ships like hot cakes, and the Russian Federation is proud of the new corvettes. Jokes and ridicule is the only thing left. And urya! yes zircons yet.
          1. bulvas
            bulvas 31 October 2017 22: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Black5Raven
            And what can they say when the States, England and others rivet the ships like hot cakes, and the Russian Federation is proud of the new corvettes. Jokes and ridicule is the only thing left. And urya! yes zircons yet.



            And what do you mean by that?
            Britain has become stronger and now climb to Russia?

            Or states with their ten aircraft carrier and all the rest climb?
            Or will NATO climb with all its armada?

            So far, they only tremble with their tongues, but they fight with lies.

            Nobody is proud of our corvettes, although the Americans will put the same Britain in any position (like all their allies) in spite of any aircraft carriers, but be afraid to get in touch with our corvettes
        2. Victorio
          Victorio 31 October 2017 22: 56 New
          +3
          Quote: xetai9977
          "Yes ... crushed the site."
          And don’t talk! Any discussion of the possibilities of technology directly drowns in the ocean of banter, ridicule, flat jokes and simply stupid utterances.

          =====
          so your message does not contain anything, except something in unison with the Israeli empty.
          on the topic, I note with a kind word the Soviet school of designers, and the springboard of the remake confirms this.
          1. MadCat
            MadCat 1 November 2017 06: 28 New
            +2
            Quote: Victorio
            fishing Soviet designer school, and confirmation of the springboard from the remake.

            do you seriously attribute the "Soviet school" the invention of the springboard? Well, you can’t be so fool
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 November 2017 18: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: MadCat
              do you seriously attribute the "Soviet school" the invention of the springboard?

              Somehow I don’t understand too much about the invention of the springboard :)))) A person writes that the USSR used a springboard, and believes that this was a clever decision, since the British use the springboard even in the 21st century.
              As for me, he is wrong, but ...
            2. Victorio
              Victorio 2 November 2017 10: 11 New
              0
              Quote: MadCat
              Quote: Victorio
              fishing Soviet designer school, and confirmation of the springboard from the remake.

              you on you seriously attribute the invention of the springboard to the "Soviet school"? Well, you can’t be so fool

              ===
              Have I written or attributed this invention to them? The springboard for take-off was used on Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, and its current use by the British already confirms its effectiveness
      3. midivan
        midivan 31 October 2017 20: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        Is that all you have to say about the aircraft carrier? Yes ... crushed the site.

        Each seaman has a package of coke and a 7-foot reef to him under the keel! wink laughing
  2. NF68
    NF68 31 October 2017 15: 56 New
    +6
    "and its autonomy is 10 000 miles or almost 300 days of sailing"

    Presumably, autonomy will not be 300 days, but still 30.
    1. 73bor
      73bor 31 October 2017 16: 28 New
      +5
      Yes, they are even ready to ascribe zeros, the autonomy for food at Peter the Great is about 60 days, and here the diesel barge, plus aviation kerosene!
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 31 October 2017 20: 44 New
      +3
      Quote: NF68
      Presumably, autonomy will not be 300 days, but still 30.

      No less. 10000 Mile is the range of the 15 knot in progress. Apparently, in terms of fuel reserves. Now divide and get 27,7 days. But this, if you scoop up the tanks to dryness, not counting the dead stock. So, and 30 of the day does not work. yes
  3. ImPerts
    ImPerts 31 October 2017 15: 57 New
    +2
    Poor islanders, on their scanty military budget, this floating island will fall on a huge stone ...
    Z.Y. I wonder how this vessel will smoke ?!
  4. family tree
    family tree 31 October 2017 16: 00 New
    +3
    People who know what for him two islands?
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 31 October 2017 16: 06 New
      10
      Quote: perepilka
      People who know what for him two islands?

      Volodya hello, such a layout separation of control. In the first ship control service, in the second air group control.
      1. family tree
        family tree 31 October 2017 16: 16 New
        +2
        Great! Got it, thank you Sanya.
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich 2 November 2017 07: 33 New
      +1
      There, in this way, the problem with the wiring of the gas ducts of its power plant was solved. (Bow / stern vehicle)
      It has a gas turbine with the resulting inconvenience.
      Plus got a place for the aircraft lift.
      I add to this that to this day the negative effect of a large superstructure on the aerodynamics of air jets along the flight deck has been determined.
      How much is a good decision .... let's see.
  5. Chelentanych
    Chelentanych 31 October 2017 16: 23 New
    +4
    Well, as they say - Torpedo to him under the waterline !!!
  6. LAWNER
    LAWNER 31 October 2017 16: 40 New
    +2
    "World Island" decided to regain the glory of a sea power?
    Without the EU (USA), it will not work, and escorting an aircraft carrier alone means leaving their shores without cover. To create new colonies? Are also late. Now every monkey has not grenades, but ATGMs.
  7. Piramidon
    Piramidon 31 October 2017 16: 55 New
    +1
    The British aircraft carrier is smaller than its American "brothers", does not have a nuclear reactor, catapults ...

    And what kind of aircraft are the Britons going to place on it? There is no catapult. Is the Harrier again? And so that some sort of F-18 from the springboard could fly, I did not hear something. Or the hope that the F-35 Yankees will bring to mind?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 October 2017 17: 02 New
      +4
      It has an F-35B. They have already been bought, pilots are training for them.
      In the future, part will be replaced by F-35C

      F-18s can take off from a springboard, but the British will not have them.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 17: 16 New
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It has an F-35B. They have already been bought, pilots are training for them.

        Nope. They will complete their air group after 2020, but for now the British have an aircraft carrier without aviation
        Quote: voyaka uh
        In the future, part will be replaced by F-35C

        Nobody will replace them, there are no cat remote control
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 October 2017 17: 38 New
          +2
          A place for an electro-catapult is provided.
          There is a direct deck area next to the diving board. There she will be
          (if they allocate money for the purchase + installation).
          The first 17 F-35B the British ordered. And American flew to Britain
          F-35B for demonstration to the British (and returned back). I got it mixed up.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 17: 47 New
            +7
            Quote: voyaka uh
            A place for an electro-catapult is provided.

            Yeah. But there are no plans for its installation or funds for its acquisition. In fact, the British do not have the means to equip the air group in a timely manner - they plan to receive a regiment of 24 aircraft for the aircraft carrier only by 2023.
            Well, of course, you should not think that as soon as they purchase the F-35V, they will immediately rush to buy the F-35S and the electromagnetic catapult
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich 1 November 2017 21: 54 New
              0
              In addition to this catapult, I still need to buy aerofinisher.
      2. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich 2 November 2017 07: 36 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh

        In the future, part will be replaced by F-35C
        .

        How is this?
        This requires a very radical restructuring of the ship and a reduction in the wing. Without that small one.
  8. The comment was deleted.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 17: 17 New
      +6
      Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
      And nafua small brittam aircraft carrier?

      Unlike you, they know that the fleet cannot operate offshore without air cover.
      1. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 31 October 2017 17: 29 New
        +7
        And what is the United Kingdom? Where do they operate with or without air cover?
        Now it is a small country, the size of a country toilet, and she needs an aircraft carrier like a dead poultice.
        Stupid cut money, it would be better if they spent money on special services, to shit around the world, in the United Kingdom it works best.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 October 2017 17: 49 New
          +5
          "Now it is a small country, the size of a country toilet" ///

          With GDP almost equal to Russian
          Come to London somehow, take a walk. I like it ...
          1. bulvas
            bulvas 31 October 2017 22: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            "Now it is a small country, the size of a country toilet" ///

            With GDP almost equal to Russian
            Come to London somehow, take a walk. I like it ...


            Have you been to Moscow for a long time?
            Look, you'll like it too

            And we already know everything about our GDP.
            We had figures, they helped the country well.
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 31 October 2017 17: 50 New
          10
          Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
          Stupid cut money, it would be better if they spent money on special services, to shit around the world, in the United Kingdom it works best.

          This aircraft carrier must be regarded as a combat unit of the sea, not of the navy of England, but of NATO. Then everything falls into place. hi
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 17: 51 New
          11
          Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
          And what is the United Kingdom? Where do they operate with or without air cover?
          Now it is a small country, the size of a country toilet, and she needs an aircraft carrier like a dead poultice.

          British aircraft carriers settled the Falkland issue in 1982. If it weren’t for the aircraft carriers (even if they were so poor as VTOL carriers), Britain would either have to wipe it out and put up with the fact that some Argentina was taking its territory by force, or use nuclear weapons.
          Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
          Dumb cut the money

          Yes Yes. In China, too, they are sawing money - they are not sawing it, implementing their own aircraft carrier program :)
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 31 October 2017 20: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes Yes. In China, too, they are sawing money - they are not sawing it, implementing their own aircraft carrier program :)

            The Chinese are excusable, they are not a maritime power, but the British - it’s unforgivable to be so wrong in matters of military development.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 November 2017 18: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              The Chinese are excusable, they are not a sea power, but the British - it’s unforgivable to be so wrong

              That's what I like - the probability that you are mistaken, and not the British (sea power), you obviously do not allow :)
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 1 November 2017 21: 51 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                That's what I like - the probability that you are mistaken, and not the British (sea power), you obviously do not allow :)

                I admit, but I see no evidence that it was I who was mistaken, probably something with eyesight.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2017 18: 16 New
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  I admit, but I don’t see evidence that it was I who was mistaken

                  1) If you studied history, you know that aircraft carriers played a crucial role in major maritime conflicts of the 20th century
                  2) If you studied the current state of affairs, then you know that there are many arguments in favor of aircraft carriers. Of course, there are arguments against it, but the problem is that they are mostly theoretical - they have not been tested by practice
                  3) There is a position of many countries seeking to have AB in their fleet. Including those prone to sailing, like England.
                  In view of the above, the categorical statement that
                  Quote: Setrac
                  the British - it’s unforgivable to be so wrong in matters of military construction

                  Looks pretty self-confident.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 2 November 2017 21: 26 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    1) If you studied history, you know that aircraft carriers played a crucial role in major maritime conflicts of the 20th century

                    There are two objections at once.
                    First, the Second World War at sea was not won by aircraft carriers but by destroyers and Freedom transports.
                    Secondly, you probably do not know that now is the 21st century.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    2) If you studied the current state of affairs, then you know that there are many arguments in favor of aircraft carriers.

                    This is hypothetical, and you give specific examples in favor of aircraft carriers, so as not to be unfounded and so that I had something to answer you.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    3) There is a position of many countries seeking to have AB in their fleet. Including those prone to sailing, like England.

                    The inertia of thinking, until there is a big war at sea - the thinking of "big shoulder straps" does not change.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Looks pretty self-confident.

                    Some things are too obvious.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 November 2017 17: 58 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      There are two objections at once.

                      Sure, not a problem
                      Quote: Setrac
                      First, the Second World War at sea was not won by aircraft carriers but by destroyers and Freedom transports.

                      I'm sorry, but I have to redirect you to the sources. In the Atlantic, wolf packs were defeated precisely by aircraft carriers, which:
                      1) Prevented Luftwaffe scouts from detecting convoys
                      2) DO NOT allow German submarines to escort convoys in the surface position (i.e. broke the tactics of wolf packs when they pursued convoys in the surface position, and attacked at night)
                      The presence of numerous destroyers / frigates / corvettes to a certain extent minimized the loss of transports, but the aircraft carriers achieved a fundamental victory (when the Germans began to pay 1 submarine for 1 sunken transport)
                      It’s ridiculous to recall the Pacific Ocean - it was the aircraft carriers that ensured the defeat of the Japanese Nihon Kaigun and the capture of the United States by the territories from which their Air Force and submarines destroyed the economic potential of Japan
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Secondly, you probably do not know that now is the 21st century.

                      Secondly, you might notice that I wrote
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      aircraft carriers played a crucial role in major maritime conflicts of the 20th century

                      But you preferred to ignore it.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      This is hypothetical, and you give specific examples in favor of aircraft carriers, so as not to be unfounded and so that I had something to answer you.

                      I admit, I do not understand what arguments you need. In major conflicts of the late 20th century (there simply weren’t 21 in them), carrier-based aircraft showed no less effectiveness than land aircraft.
                      https://topwar.ru/105522-i-esche-nemnogo-pro-avia
                      noscy.html
                      But, unlike land, they can act over the sea.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      The inertia of thinking, until there is a big war at sea - the thinking of "big shoulder straps" does not change.

                      I can only advise you to study history. You can’t imagine how many times a battleship has been declared insanely expensive, useless by anybody, outdated its weapons system!
                      Of course, at one time he really outlived his own, but ....
                      Well, and most importantly - you did not say anything, from which it would follow that "a great war at sea will overturn the myth of the invulnerability of an aircraft carrier"
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Some things are too obvious.

                      Timeo danaos et dona ferentes
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 3 November 2017 21: 17 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I admit, I do not understand what arguments you need. In major conflicts of the late 20th century (there simply weren’t 21 in them), carrier-based aircraft showed no less effectiveness than land aircraft.

                        Here you are categorically mistaken, decked aircraft showed worse performance, much. the worst. You have the wrong opinion about me, I am not against aviation, I am against aircraft carriers. Build aircraft carriers in the twenty-first century ... sheer insanity. Instead of investing in an aerospace plane, instead of increasing the radius of action of military aircraft, we are building it is not known what. Aircraft carriers are becoming a thing of the past, as they were once a thing of the past as airfields of a jump.
        4. MadCat
          MadCat 1 November 2017 06: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
          Now it is a small country, the size of a country toilet, and she needs an aircraft carrier like a dead poultice.
          Stupid cut money, it would be better if they spent money on special services, to shit around the world, in the United Kingdom it works best.

          you from the village of Gadyukino know better where you get these from?
  9. Firework
    Firework 31 October 2017 17: 01 New
    +6
    admittedly, the UK economy allows the construction and operation of such expensive ships
    1. Sands Careers General
      Sands Careers General 31 October 2017 17: 42 New
      +7
      Rather, the "UK economy" allows you to cynically cut loot on a completely unnecessary trough.
      1. Black5Raven
        Black5Raven 31 October 2017 21: 17 New
        +3
        Well, she is far from a cynical pilgrimage, where is the stadium crushed by cormorants laughing And why then does the Russian Federation want its aircraft carrier so much? Too to cut too?
      2. MadCat
        MadCat 1 November 2017 06: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
        Rather, the "UK economy" allows you to cynically cut loot on a completely unnecessary trough.

        envy silently
  10. K-50
    K-50 31 October 2017 17: 03 New
    +1
    English aircraft carrier entered the final stage of testing

    Here is his "Russian hackers" and test. True, their traffic is low, porn .. slowly goes. yes laughing
  11. ukoft
    ukoft 31 October 2017 17: 03 New
    +6
    I wonder when f35b get anyone in the know?
    it will be supposed to have an air wing before 2020, it seems, like they have upgraded or made helicopter drills.
    Of course there is no catapult and tankers, but it’s better than nothing anyway. with this aircraft carrier they can threaten any fleet. Only the United States and France have catapults, and they are friends.
    for the rest they will be a real threat.
    they have a very balanced fleet:
    1 - there are air defense destroyers, and the best in the world.
    2 - an aircraft carrier with an air wing will be in the near future.
    3 - frigate platype23 dukes have not yet exhausted their resources. Yes, and they are preparing a global battalion commander spike it seems to him to replace.
    4 - multi-purpose apl are new with astyut
    5 - apl strategists

    in addition to the United States, which have complete superiority over all, there are only the French, but they have only 2-3 air defense horizons and are inferior to dering. although charledegol has a catapult, and the rafals are still inferior to f35. we can say that the fleets are approximately equal, although the British are building a second aircraft carrier, and the French are not pulling the first from the dock. the second is not even planned. therefore, all the same, the piano will flit stronger.

    the Chinese are building a bunch of aircraft carriers, but there are problems with the wing. new destroyers TP 055, even so despite the secrecy it seems far from dering. Samson and missiles with agsn n the final section and super maneuverability in 60g. China does not have this.
    multi-purpose workers are behind them too. strategists too. the British are stronger, of course IMHO

    The Russian fleet is outdated morally and physically. replenishment in the form of corvetofrigates in the open ocean will not do weather. there are few ash trees and boreas. that's all. Kuznetsov in fact training. The total British in the open ocean is stronger.

    India has aircraft carriers with air wings, the rest are not close.

    it turns out this is the second fleet after the United States. China may catch up in the long run. so by the years 2030th
    1. Magic archer
      Magic archer 31 October 2017 18: 28 New
      +2
      Almost everything I agree with, except for Raphael! The French flight performance is a cut above! Plus an excellent avionics! The American is not brought to mind, it flies worse and it’s better to keep silent about the price! And by the way, the Frenchman has more payload
    2. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich 1 November 2017 21: 59 New
      0
      The Russian fleet is outdated morally and physically.
      Well, yes. To be able to and finally build an analogue of "Kuznetsov"))). Only without missile weapons.
      They thought for a long time.
  12. Firework
    Firework 31 October 2017 17: 46 New
    +1
    Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
    Rather, the "UK economy" allows you to cynically cut loot on a completely unnecessary trough.

    Do you remember the Falkland incident?
  13. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 31 October 2017 18: 40 New
    +6
    Quote: NEXUS

    This aircraft carrier must be regarded as a combat unit of the sea, not of the navy of England, but of NATO. Then everything falls into place. hi

    I agree. This is NATO, but England is too cunning to work for NATO disinterestedly.
    Quote: Salute
    Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
    Rather, the "UK economy" allows you to cynically cut loot on a completely unnecessary trough.

    Do you remember the Falkland incident?


    I can’t remember, because I did not participate in these events.
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Now it is a small country, the size of a country toilet" ///

    With GDP almost equal to Russian
    Come to London somehow, take a walk. I like it ...


    And who will let me go there? And do I want to go there?
  14. adma
    adma 31 October 2017 19: 09 New
    0
    British! British aircraft carrier. not English.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 19: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: adma
      British! British aircraft carrier. not English.

      If to be absolutely a grammar-Nazi, then the aircraft carrier is not British and not English, but His Majesty (HMS, that is, hee magi spike, forgive my English :))))
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 31 October 2017 19: 37 New
        +3
        Still, Her Majesty. Grandmother is alive and well on the throne. fellow
        Her majesty ship hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 20: 21 New
          +1
          Well, yes, for sure. If the queen rules, then Her Majesty, if the king, then His Majesty. drinks
          1. adma
            adma 1 November 2017 16: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            if the king

            It remains to wait a bit laughing
  15. Yeah
    Yeah 31 October 2017 19: 22 New
    0
    Dear interlocutors, can someone enlighten how planes will land? As far as I know, even the f-35 is reluctant to sit down vertically, and if on an airplane, then where is the cable and the place of discharge from the aircraft carrier (is it right on the springboard and under the bow of the ship?) Yes, and if the catapult is put in, the POWER INSTALLATION is several times more powerful, or all the same gum stretched like a slingshot?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 October 2017 19: 45 New
      +2
      Landing deck - closer to superstructures
    2. Professor
      Professor 31 October 2017 20: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: yeah
      Dear interlocutors, can someone enlighten how planes will land? As far as I know, even the f-35 is reluctant to sit down vertically, and if on an airplane, then where is the cable and the place of discharge from the aircraft carrier (is it right on the springboard and under the bow of the ship?) Yes, and if the catapult is put in, the POWER INSTALLATION is several times more powerful, or all the same gum stretched like a slingshot?

      Your question is very correct. Typically, the landing deck is located noticeably at 10 degrees to the left of the ship's axis of symmetry so that it is easier for the plane to go to the second circle if necessary. The British here decided to be special.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2017 20: 30 New
      +5
      Quote: yeah
      Dear interlocutors, can someone enlighten how planes will land?

      F-35V - vertically, as far as I remember, there are no air finishers on Queen Elizabeth.
      Quote: yeah
      Yes, and if the catapult is delivered, it is necessary and the POWER INSTALLATION is several times more powerful

      Difficult question. Here, after all, either EU, or energizers ... in general, I can’t comment, but the British EU’s power seems insufficient
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 October 2017 21: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Here, after all, either EU, or energizers ... in general, I can’t comment, but the British EU’s power seems insufficient

        Andrew, hi
        The Angles are going to install an E / M catapult on the Prince, after running it at the am. To ensure this, an additional 90 MW of power is needed. DG is an additional fuel ... and its only 8600t along with jet fuel. Yes, and it's expensive. New F-35C, E / M catapult, modern project "Prince" ... No, they won’t pull it in the Foggy Albion ... They also have a new SSBN program at stake ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 November 2017 18: 25 New
          +1
          My regards! hi drinks
          thanks for the clarifications
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          No, they won’t pull it in the Foggy Albion ... They also have a new SSBN program at stake ...

          Absolutely agree
        2. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich 1 November 2017 22: 03 New
          0
          90MW it is actually necessary to double their energy.
          I wonder how?
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 1 November 2017 22: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: Kyzmich
            90MW it is actually necessary to double their energy.

            Energy Quinn is 190 MW. But the fact is that on the Prince they are going to install 2 catapults instead of a springboard. So count!
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich 2 November 2017 14: 07 New
              0
              190 MW?
              What do you mean?
              He has a total power plant of 80 MW in two less than that of Kuznetsov.
              Steam turbines: 4 × 50 liters. with.
              And the EU itself (generating) at Kuznetsov’s
              TG: 9 × 1500 kW
              DG: 6 × 1500 kW
              Only 22 MW
              From where did you get 190MW from "Elizabeth"?
              Obviously they were mistaken.

              The 110 MW power plant for QEC was created by a consortium of Thales UK, GE Converteam, L-3 and Rolls-Royce. The installation includes two gas turbine generators MT30 with 36 MW capacity and four Wärtsilä 38 diesel generator sets with total power 40 MW; power distribution system; integrated management system (IPMS); stabilizers; and four advanced asynchronous 20 MW electric motors for driving two shaft lines and propellers.
              If you put 90MW into the catapult, what will remain on the rowing installation and power supply of the ship.?
    4. WUA 518
      WUA 518 31 October 2017 21: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: yeah
      As far as I know, even f-35s are reluctant to sit down vertically,

      What's the problem?
      1. Yeah
        Yeah 1 November 2017 08: 19 New
        +1
        The problem is in fuel (it takes a lot to do with such a landing), the problem is in rolling the aircraft carrier and landing abruptly on the deck (as far as I remember, the Yak-141 struck tanks with the landing gear and burned out), IT IS NOT POSSIBILITY TO Bring A DRL Aircraft WITH YOURSELF (which American carriers carry on conventional aircraft) , well, the aircraft itself with very limited capabilities
  16. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 31 October 2017 19: 39 New
    0
    Quote: yeah
    Dear interlocutors, can someone enlighten how planes will land? As far as I know, even the f-35 is reluctant to sit down vertically, and if on an airplane, then where is the cable and the place of discharge from the aircraft carrier (is it right on the springboard and under the bow of the ship?) Yes, and if the catapult is put in, the POWER INSTALLATION is several times more powerful, or all the same gum stretched like a slingshot?

    It is not clear, because. it is stated that it is planned to be operational no earlier than 2020. If only the donkey would not die!
  17. Yeah
    Yeah 31 October 2017 20: 51 New
    0
    Seems to have found words in a song! Similarly, the F-35B is not too favored abroad. Of the 11 countries that have expressed their interest in the JSF project, only two agree to purchase a “letter B” aircraft - Great Britain and Italy. Initially, the British contemptuously wrinkled their noses at the sight of the F-35B, hoping to equip their aircraft carriers with more decent F-35Cs. But then they didn’t have enough money for an electromagnetic catapult, and they had to take what Queen Elizabeth fits in her current, very unfortunate state. To alleviate the fate of naval aviators, the British promise to equip the Queen with a bow diving board.

    As for the cheerful naval forces of Italy with the funny-showy aircraft carrier "Cavour" - there are no long comments here. The Italians ordered as many as fifteen (!) Verticals in the interests of the sailors and also 75 machines (60 F-35A and 15 F-35B) for their air forces.

    The creation of the F-35B is impractical from a military point of view. The appearance of these machines is dictated by the desire of the Marines to emphasize their "exclusivity" and to maintain the continuity of traditions. Any other explanation is excluded here. this is from the article PROBLEMS AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE F-35B FIGHTER
    Feb 3, 20147479 4 / Oleg Kaptsov http://army-news.ru/images/logo270x92.png, topwar.ru/ so there is a problem carrier, or rather a HELICOPTER + 5-10 aircraft with vertical take-off and landing AND EVEN WITHOUT aircraft AWACS !!!
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 November 2017 01: 20 New
      0
      "The creation of the F-35B is impractical from a military point of view" ///

      This is a controversial statement. F-35B can be used from any large (and not so ship).
      From any helipad. That is, you can create mini-aircraft carriers.
      It has a smaller range than conventional deck aircraft and less bomb load during vertical take-off, but this is offset by the unexpected use where the enemy does not wait at all.
      1. Yeah
        Yeah 1 November 2017 07: 51 New
        0
        Read the article that I suggested, I will make excerpts for you (this is not just an analysis of the F-35 family, this is an analysis of all aircraft with a short take-off and landing) -But ... Why the F-35B cannon weapons if it is contraindicated in maneuver battles? The available overload of the F-35B is only 7g (versus 7,5g for the deck modification and 9g for the land-based fighter) - with such characteristics, the vertical plane will not be able to catch the tail of most modern fighters. Even a slightly lower wing load and greater thrust-weight ratio, due to the lower take-off mass of the VTOL aircraft themselves, are not able to correct the situation - the F-35B is categorically unable to conduct close air combat. Only as BOMBERS? Yes, and the experience of using the yak-38 is a FORCED measure, and therefore the Kuznetsov design team was designed
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 November 2017 12: 44 New
          0
          "with such characteristics, the" vertical line "will not be able to hit the tail of most modern fighters" ///
          -----
          Why do this? Modern explosives can deploy on the spot. Start up
          her back to the haunting plane.

          "Yes, and the experience of using the yak-38 is a FORCED measure" ///
          -----
          Forced, because the vertical mode was in manual control.
          Only aces coped, and combat pilots fought one after another.
          Harrier was better, but also steamed by hand.
          And on the F-35B, vertical take-off and landing are carried out by an autopilot. Pilot
          doesn't interfere. Quite a different matter.
          Radar and avionics on the F-35B are the same as on conventional F-35s. Melee - Rare
          statistics cases dating back to the 80s.
          1. Yeah
            Yeah 1 November 2017 16: 48 New
            0
            yes they are good, GOOD, build more of them !!! And there we’ll figure it out, there was also invisibility in-2, only the Yugoslavs did not know about it, and Israel accidentally caught a “bird” on f-35 from the s-200 of the 70s release, so we need to look ..
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 November 2017 16: 54 New
              0
              Both of your arguments indicate insufficient
              competence in a dispute on this subject.
              Especially Yugoslav. It is broken down in many forums,
              and only very "fresh" people in the subject resort to it.
              Yes, and with the S-200 (the incident with the bird was a few days before the shelling
              Syrian battery) - the same level. hi
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 November 2017 18: 29 New
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Why do this? Modern explosives can deploy on the spot. Start up
            her back to the haunting plane.

            And alas, you can’t get anywhere :) Because planes usually have no rear-view radars, and without them the issuance of a missile defense system is impossible. Accordingly, all hope for the GOS missile, and on it ... let's just say, there is not too much hope
          3. Kyzmich
            Kyzmich 1 November 2017 22: 11 New
            0
            Excuse me, why is Harrier better than the Yak 38?
            And where did combat pilots fight on the vertical?
            They fought mainly because of a negligible-emergency raid of less than 50 hours.
            And about the vertical take-off and landing on the F-35B.
            It is enough to take a look at its max take-off and empty weight, in order to understand - to take off and land vertically, it can be practically empty and with a combat radius of 130-150 km.
            The F-35B is still a STOVL aircraft.
            The vertical line did not work out for them.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2017 18: 06 New
              0
              Quote: Kyzmich
              Excuse me, why is Harrier better than the Yak 38?

              The fact that Harrier has one engine, and not three, two of which Yak was forced to carry in the form of a “payload” in the air. Altogether, this gave Harrier an increased combat radius relative to the Yak. In addition, Harrier had radar, while Yak did not.
              Quote: Kyzmich
              And where did combat pilots fight on the vertical?
              They fought mainly because of a negligible-emergency raid of less than 50 hours.

              ??? This is where such a miracle comes from in the USSR, and even in naval aviation? :)))
              1. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich 2 November 2017 20: 43 New
                0
                The Yak-38, with vertical take-off and landing with a 1000 kg bn, had a combat radius of 195 km.

                Wikipedia is cunning when it indicates the combat radius of your Harriers.
                The combat radius is indicated during take-off take-off and normal landing.
                With great difficulty, you will find the real combat radius at Harrier at vertical take-off and landing.
                But in fact we have.
                Your Harrier GR.3 had a combat radius of only 90km, with a minimum combat load.
                This greatly upset the United States and its Marines when they purchased it from England under the name AV-8A.
                Specially created in 80g, the ship's version of Sea Harrier was equipped with a "mega radar" ... from a helicopter, the effectiveness of which was very good and it was more suitable as a navigation radar.
                His combat radius did not exceed 130km.
                For this reason, it was used primarily as a STOVL aircraft.
                Since 1973, in the United States and England (jointly), attempts were made to deeply modernize this craft but to no avail spent (drank) a lot of money and the program was either closed or opened.
                Finally, in 1978 Harrier GR-5 (AV-8B) was born, the combat radius slightly increased ~ 200km and the aircraft remained STOVL.
                It entered service in 1985 and only in 1987 did a normal radar appear on it.
                This aircraft entered service in 1993 (!)
                By that time, our Yak 141 had already set 12 world records))
                And Yak 38 rested in a Bose in a place with his ships.
                At the expense of the "dead load" in the form of two PD RD-36-35FV.
                Its mass is .... 199kg
                199kg Carl.
                But your Harrier was supposed to drag the oversize engine by weight, the thrust of which in flight. Was not really used due to the bifurcated nozzle.
                For comparison
                R27V-300-weighed 1350kg
                Pegasus 11-61 weight 1796kg
                The difference in weight is the same 400kilo.
                So, a hundred winnings are not there.
                By the way, this absurdity was repeated already on the F-35B — its lifting “windmill” weighs ... 1800kg (!?) With the same thrust of two taxiways 41 (290kg x2).
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 November 2017 18: 33 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Wikipedia is cunning when it indicates the combat radius of your Harriers.

                  Yes, I spit on the wiki :))))
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  With great difficulty you will find the real combat radius at Harrier with vertical take-off and landing.

                  In fact, I will not even search - simply because I know how both ours and Europeans (in particular) like to trick about TTX.
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  This greatly upset the United States and its Marines when they purchased it from England under the name AV-8A.

                  Let’s not consider Americans to be big idiots than they really are, and that they did not familiarize themselves with 8A technical documentation prior to purchase. Bachil eyes, sho buys.
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Your Harrier GR.3 had a combat radius of only 90km, with a minimum combat load.

                  I would not like to depict grammar Nazism, but GR3 is a bit out of line with the Yak-38, because I stood on the wing 9 years earlier than the Yak-38. Maybe we will still compare the comparable?
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  Specially created in 80g, the ship's version of Sea Harrier was equipped with a "mega radar" ... from a helicopter, the effectiveness of which was very good and it was more suitable as a navigation radar.

                  I absolutely agree with you - the X-Harrier radar did not shine with special advantages. That's just the Yak-38 and this was not.
                  You, in my opinion, do not understand that the same Harrier, after completing the assignment, could calmly return to AB using his radar, which is very useful, given the limited radius of action and time spent in the air. And our pilot on the Yak-38 could only rely on his own eyes, despite the fact that if the TAVKR hacked the flight control system, then he unmasked himself on a half-ocean.
                  This is just one of the many advantages of having a radar over its lack.
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  For this reason, it was used primarily as a STOVL aircraft.

                  Let’s clarify - in combat, the Yak-38 could be used in the same way
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  At the expense of the "dead load" in the form of two PD RD-36-35FV.
                  Its mass is .... 199kg

                  Most likely still 205, but who counts them for you? :)
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  But your Harrier was supposed to drag the oversize engine by weight, the thrust of which in flight. Was not really used due to the bifurcated nozzle.

                  Let's clarify :))) The power of the Yak-38 marching engine was about 6100 kgf, while Harrier had 9100 kgf, that is, in flight Harrier, having a comparable mass, was 30% more armed. I guess you don’t need to explain what this means in aerial combat
                  And this, by the way, among other things, also means less fuel consumption at cruising speed.
                  Quote: Kyzmich
                  This aircraft entered service in 1993 (!)
                  By that time, our Yak 141 had already set 12 world records))

                  Yeah. Among the VTOL aircraft, you forgot to add :))) The plane, one and a half times more complex than the MiG-29 and barely reaching it in terms of certain characteristics, in 1991 was still not close to the series.
                  I more like the following VTOL aircraft from Yakovlev - with engines from stratobombs ... in my opinion, Yakovlev Design Bureau set itself the task of comparing the cost of a VTOL aircraft with an American aircraft carrier
  18. Yeah
    Yeah 31 October 2017 21: 07 New
    0
    PROBLEMS AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE F-35B FIGHTER
    Feb 3, 20147479 4 / Oleg Kaptsov, topwar.ru/ read the article about f-35b, although the analysis of the whole family is 35, but judging by the runway, there will not be a catapult, there will be no AWACS aircraft, so the "budget" version of the aircraft carrier Also, the F-35B is not too favored abroad. Of the 11 countries that have expressed their interest in the JSF project, only two agree to purchase a “letter B” aircraft - Great Britain and Italy. Initially, the British contemptuously wrinkled their noses at the sight of the F-35B, hoping to equip their aircraft carriers with more decent F-35Cs. But then they didn’t have enough money for an electromagnetic catapult, and they had to take what Queen Elizabeth fits in her current, very unfortunate state. To alleviate the fate of naval aviators, the British promise to equip the Queen with a bow diving board.

    As for the cheerful Italian Navy with the amusing and ostentatious aircraft carrier "Cavour" - here long comments are unnecessary. The Italians ordered as many as fifteen (!) Vertical flyers in the interests of sailors and another 75 cars (60 F-35A and 15 F-35B) for their
  19. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 31 October 2017 21: 48 New
    0
    there is an aircraft carrier, but with an escort, trouble!
    total 6 destroyers type 45
    our submarines see them for 100 miles
  20. afrikanez
    afrikanez 31 October 2017 21: 52 New
    0
    I never would have thought that bad weather could become an insurmountable obstacle to testing the ship. In bad weather, you can certainly find out what the ship is capable of and what not ... Although maybe I'm wrong?
  21. Sergei75
    Sergei75 31 October 2017 22: 01 New
    0
    why two add-ons?
  22. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 1 November 2017 09: 48 New
    +4
    Quote: MadCat
    Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
    Rather, the "UK economy" allows you to cynically cut loot on a completely unnecessary trough.

    envy silently

    What to envy, let me ask?
    1. Kyzmich
      Kyzmich 2 November 2017 07: 52 New
      0
      Yes indeed?
      What is there to envy?
      A certain continuation of the freaks of the tiap "Lastastris" and "Invesible" a little in large sizes.
  23. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich 2 November 2017 07: 40 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    It has an F-35B. They have already been bought, pilots are training for them.
    In the future, part will be replaced by F-35C

    F-18s can take off from a springboard, but the British will not have them.

    Quote: voyaka uh
    A place for an electro-catapult is provided.
    There is a direct deck area next to the diving board. There she will be
    .

    These are your fantasies - there is no place for a catapult - there is a simple sponson as a technical position.
    There is no diagonal section of the deck and with its length it is clearly not enough to land the F-35C.
    Example aircraft carrier of France "Charles de Gaulle"
    Shorter done, now they think. What to do next.
    In fact, this is an attempt to copy our project 1143-4 (TAKR Kuznetsov), though without aerofisher and a missile strike system.
    Probably they were led to the fact that the F-35B will be brought closer to the Yak41. And it will completely replace conventional aircraft with a similar MiG29K.
    A clear saving was drawn on the landing gear and ship length.
    A little shorter and a meter wider.)))
  24. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 November 2017 12: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    Here you are categorically mistaken, decked aircraft showed worse performance, much. the worst

    Where? I gave you a link to the material, which gives the number of sorties on a plane in the Drill in a Glass, which is equivalent for land and sea aircraft. At the Falklands, British decks flew much more often than Argentine land aircraft. I am silent about the WWII - there is NONE an example where ground aviation would defeat an aircraft carrier formation. Tell me, where and when did the decks show the worst performance?
    Quote: Setrac
    Aircraft carriers are becoming a thing of the past, as they were once a thing of the past as airfields of a jump.

    ??? Leap airfields are more alive than all living :)))