Military Review

It is stated that the aircraft carrier "Prince of Wales" has a "accident factor"

51
The other day, the second British aircraft carrier of the Queen Elizabeth type went to sea trials. This is the 280-meter giant "Prince of Wales", the basis of the air group of which should be the deck fighter 5-generation F-35B. The first test frames published by the British Navy were, to put it mildly, not awarded the most flattering assessments of an aircraft carrier by foreign military experts.


It is stated that the aircraft carrier "Prince of Wales" has a "accident factor"


Most criticized zeal in China. The specialized publications are trying to outdo each other in terms of finding flaws in the British aircraft carriers of this class. Thus, the well-known Chinese portal Sohu in Russia publishes the opinion, which is expressed in the following: the latest British aircraft carriers have an increased accident rate.

In this regard, the question arises as to how Chinese experts on photographs of the “Prince of Wales” managed to understand this? In China, it is stated that the accident rate is associated not so much with the aircraft carrier itself as with its aircraft wing. Attention, in particular, is drawn to deck superstructures. The ship was built according to the project, which involves two such superstructures at a certain distance from each other. It is this distance that is defined as a risk and accident factor.


From the material:

Superstructures spaced along the deck can lead to sharp lateral gusts of wind and air currents. The speed of these flows between add-ons will increase. And if at this moment the plane lands on the deck, it can literally be blown off to the side, and it may lose the possibility of balance for a safe landing. Wind, which will increase due to the location of deck structures, can lead to an accident.

At the same time, China expects such a statement to be commented on by manufacturers of aircraft carriers such as Queen Elizabeth, among which BAE Systems occupies a special place. So far, comments from manufacturers have not been published.

And this is a comment by one of the Chinese users of the mentioned publication:

Is Britain still dreaming of a new opium war?
51 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 25 September 2019 12: 00
    -3
    It is stated that the aircraft carrier "Prince of Wales" has a "accident factor"
    Well, the British explained everything. in the staffing table, in advance, they entered the "Accident Factor", so that everything goes according to the previously approved plan.
    1. Volodin
      Volodin 25 September 2019 12: 05
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      Well, the British explained everything

      What about the British? .. The statement, as it were, was not from them
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 September 2019 12: 10
        0
        Quote: Volodin
        What about the British? .. The statement, as it were, was not from them

        And it will soon follow, on behalf of the "world famous" "British scientists"
      2. bessmertniy
        bessmertniy 25 September 2019 12: 12
        -1
        It would be interesting to see the list of accidents that were recorded on the aircraft carriers of this type.
        1. FenH
          FenH 25 September 2019 12: 16
          -1
          Quote: bessmertniy
          It would be interesting to see the list of accidents that were recorded on the aircraft carriers of this type.

          Yes please
          https://lenta.ru/news/2017/12/22/aircraftcarrier/
          or do you want the plane to smithereens?
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Prahlad
      Prahlad 25 September 2019 12: 06
      +7
      We are not able to build it!
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 25 September 2019 12: 10
        +1
        Quote: Prahlad
        We are not able to build it!

        Not able or ... just tell me - why?
        We open the military doctrine of Russia and try to stick the aircraft carrier there.
        There is no place. (Not even money and competencies, namely goal-setting is not provided).
        Let's add the item "force projection" overseas to the doctrine. Well, at least some number of miles to (Africa, Australia, South America).
        The doctrine, after all, is not scribbling, it determines the development and structure of industry, the redistribution of budget funds for YEARS ahead.
        1. A5V
          A5V 25 September 2019 14: 02
          +3
          Quote: Victor_B

          We open the military doctrine of Russia and try to stick the aircraft carrier there.
          No place

          You first read it at least.
          The Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation, approved in 2015, for example, puts forward the Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, Indo-Pacific, Antarctic and Caspian as the main regional directions of national maritime policy.

          Those. To solve problems in 5 out of 6 directions, an ocean fleet is required, which includes aircraft carriers as well.
      2. FenH
        FenH 25 September 2019 12: 14
        -3
        Quote: Prahlad
        We are not able to build it!

        And we need it?
      3. KCA
        KCA 25 September 2019 12: 23
        +2
        I think if the General Staff of the Navy can justify the need for aircraft carriers, can we, and is Great Britain able to build an atomic icebreaker? Or not an atomic one, or just an ice class ship?
        1. FenH
          FenH 25 September 2019 12: 25
          -2
          Quote: KCA
          I think if the General Staff of the Navy can justify the need for aircraft carriers, can we, and is Great Britain able to build an atomic icebreaker? Or not an atomic one, or just an ice class ship?

          I think he can, but they need it, just like us aircraft carriers
          1. novel66
            novel66 25 September 2019 12: 39
            0
            meticulously noticed !! hi
            1. FenH
              FenH 25 September 2019 12: 43
              0
              Quote: novel xnumx
              meticulously noticed !! hi

              What is characteristic, the British do not fall into hysteria because of the lack of icebreakers, and here for a question why the aircraft carriers have already blown us laughing
              hi
              1. novel66
                novel66 25 September 2019 12: 50
                +1
                considered unpatriotic .. take it out and give it to them ..
                1. FenH
                  FenH 25 September 2019 12: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  considered unpatriotic .. take it out and give it to them ..

                  These are "future workers" of shipyards who do not get a job at a shipyard, due to the lack of orders for the construction of aircraft carriers, do not laughing
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 25 September 2019 13: 10
                    +1
                    Before you think about building, you need to answer so many questions .. but there is no answer!
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 25 September 2019 13: 52
                      0
                      Quote: novel xnumx
                      but no answer!

                      laughing Do you need an answer?
                      hi healthy!
                      1. novel66
                        novel66 25 September 2019 13: 56
                        +1
                        yeah! drew !! hi I will answer the classics -
                        you are on defense
                        here and give an answer to the enemy !!
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 25 September 2019 14: 09
                        +1
                        Alaverdi ..
                        On earth, in the heavens and the sea
                        Our chorus is both powerful and harsh
                        And the battleships will go, and the infantry will go
                        And dashing tachanka rush ..
                        Do not rush Romych !!!!!
                      3. novel66
                        novel66 25 September 2019 14: 21
                        0
                        I may not be in a hurry, but our enemies ...
                      4. Serg65
                        Serg65 25 September 2019 14: 35
                        0
                        what And where should they hurry? In the next world, they are clearly not in a hurry! To start a war, their gut is thin, it’s easier to throw a liberal-communists to denyuzhk that it will turn out!
                      5. novel66
                        novel66 25 September 2019 14: 55
                        +1
                        here you are right, there is no Stalin on our fifth column
          2. Livonetc
            Livonetc 25 September 2019 12: 58
            +2
            Quote: FenH
            Quote: KCA
            I think if the General Staff of the Navy can justify the need for aircraft carriers, can we, and is Great Britain able to build an atomic icebreaker? Or not an atomic one, or just an ice class ship?

            I think he can, but they need it, just like us aircraft carriers

            US icebreakers are needed, but so far there are none.
            Most likely, a couple of aircraft carriers will not hurt Russia, but icebreakers are needed in the first place.
            Since it is first to provide an economic basis (the Northern Sea Route and the defense of the northern territories and resources), and then additional opportunities can be developed.
            1. FenH
              FenH 25 September 2019 13: 04
              +2
              Quote: Livonetc
              US icebreakers needed, but not yet

              In 2021, mortgaged at 33 thousand tons
              http://www.ng.ru/columnist/2019-04-24/100_kolonka240419_2.html
              1. Livonetc
                Livonetc 25 September 2019 13: 09
                +2
                That's when the United States will have a serious flotilla of icebreaking ships then there will be something to discuss.
                In the meantime, parity.
                In the states, the icebreaker is out of order; in Russia, an aircraft carrier in the same position.
                1. FenH
                  FenH 25 September 2019 13: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: Livonetc

                  In the meantime, parity.
                  In the states, the icebreaker is out of order; in Russia, an aircraft carrier in the same position.

                  Well, purely theoretically, we already have an aircraft carrier, and the icebreaker will be laid only in 2021, so there is no parity, there is a question of what will be done faster, a new icebreaker will be built or an old aircraft carrier will be repaired? hi
                  1. Livonetc
                    Livonetc 25 September 2019 13: 16
                    +2
                    The United States has a couple of icebreakers, but is not operational.
                    One of them must have been repaired already.
                    I don’t know how it is.
                    1. FenH
                      FenH 25 September 2019 13: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Livonetc
                      The United States has a couple of icebreakers, but is not operational.
                      One of them must have been repaired already.
                      I don’t know how it is.

                      What is typical in the post-war years of the United States built and leased the USSR 3 icebreakers
                      1. Livonetc
                        Livonetc 25 September 2019 13: 35
                        +3
                        This is characteristic because of business.
                        But the Frenchmen behaved stupidly and uncharacteristically, refusing to sell helicopter carriers.
                        But Russia also acts quite characteristically.
                        The United States proposed hypersonic missiles.
                        Saudi Arabia air defense systems S400.
                        Russia is typically a normal country, always ready for cooperation.
                        Assisted Americans in Afghanistan.
                        And the Anglo-Saxons only have highlie likes, bullshit and endless sanctions.
                        It is uncharacteristic for a normal business.
                      2. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 25 September 2019 14: 05
                        -1
                        Quote: Livonetc
                        The United States proposed hypersonic missiles.
                        Saudi Arabia air defense systems S400

                        Russia managed to hire an intelligent sales manager to promote this product in target groups.
        2. A5V
          A5V 25 September 2019 14: 21
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          I think if the General Staff of the Navy can justify the need for aircraft carriers, we can,

          Given the number of problems with building (or modernization) much smaller and more complex ships, it is very doubtful.

          Quote: KCA
          Or not an atomic one, or just an ice class ship?

          Quite :) Now for example, the RRS Sir David Attenborough, a research vessel for the British Antarctic Service, is almost completed.
  3. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 25 September 2019 12: 10
    +2
    It turns out that the Chinese finally realized that it is possible and necessary to criticize not only Russian weapons and ships, but also to criticize the NATO. For the Chinese, the best is their own, which from an ideological point of view is absolutely correct.
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 25 September 2019 12: 32
    +3
    Here is a photo that shows that the two towers of the superstructures are located quite far from each other. And they are not very tall. It is unlikely that a wind tunnel will arise between them.
    1. marshes
      marshes 25 September 2019 12: 39
      -2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And they are not very tall. It is unlikely that a wind tunnel will arise between them.

      Yes, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of the pipe, as it were, in visuality, the definition of the first tower or the second.
      Yes, and one, as I understood from above, probably refused to build. In one dispatcher to another office.
    2. novel66
      novel66 25 September 2019 12: 40
      0
      under certain conditions - a wind corridor is quite possible;
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 25 September 2019 12: 47
        +2
        Well, actually the landing on the F-35B is vertical, in the stern of the ship. Add-ons do not interfere. And the run-up of this model is so short that it won’t blow it away ...
        Now, if in the future they switch to the F-35C, then there will be some kind of influence of the side winds.
        1. Avior
          Avior 25 September 2019 12: 56
          0
          Will not be. For this, two towers were made to remove one large and associated turbulence of the flow
        2. BARKAS
          BARKAS 25 September 2019 12: 58
          +1
          I thought that when a fighter takes off, an aircraft carrier is always set against the wind.
          1. novel66
            novel66 25 September 2019 13: 12
            0
            and abrupt change of wind is not considered?
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 25 September 2019 20: 38
              +3
              Quote: novel xnumx
              and abrupt change of wind is not considered?

              Roma, change in direction or strength !? More precisely, put the question! bully
              And the second. Aircraft flights are limited by weather. At a wind speed of more than 20 m / s, I believe that "verticals" will not fly.
              But you can always "choose" the speed of the AVM of the order of 10 m / s of the "resulting" speed of the carrier when landing the aircraft.
              AVM has a normal hydro-meteorological service! If she numbered as many as 4 people on "Kiev", then you can imagine what she is like on a real AVM !!!
    3. Livonetc
      Livonetc 25 September 2019 13: 04
      0
      The pipe may not.
      But here is the experience of the layman.
      When you travel along a highway from a forest zone to an open space during a side wind, the car begins to demolish.
      And this despite the fact that the car is not in the air.
      With a side wind, not with a vertical landing, some difficulties may arise.
      However, this was probably modeled and tested in a wind tunnel during design.
      And the aircraft carrier can maneuver providing the necessary conditions for landing.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 September 2019 20: 28
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      two towers of superstructures are located quite far from each other. And they are not very tall. It is unlikely that a wind tunnel will arise between them.

      The comment about "gusts of wind" during landing on the deck of aircraft is the delirium of a Chinese non-seaman who, because of his desk with keyboard, does not see the "dynamics of the process" at close range! fool
      The thing is that the AVM "turns its nose into the wind and goes at full speed" in order to reduce the resulting relative motion speed (landing speed) of the aircraft when it lands on the deck. The air flow around the superstructures is practically laminar!
      Variant of vertical landing F-35B.
      What prevents the "Prince / Elizabeth" from turning downwind and equalizing the relative wind speed to zero or very close to 5 m / s! on the flight deck ... What "lateral" gusts did a hack from the Chinese media dream about !? fool
      Nonsense! Unless, of course, who understands the dynamics of the process ... am
  5. EDWARD
    EDWARD 25 September 2019 12: 35
    -2
    I have vague suspicion .. that Mrs. Olga Skabeeva .. is registered on the VO website.
  6. HAM
    HAM 25 September 2019 12: 39
    -1
    One question arises: since when did the Chinese become great experts? They fought ... we know ..
    Although, I guess: they’ve already sorted and cloned all the equipment ... and therefore they understand the sausage scraps ....
  7. Lexus
    Lexus 25 September 2019 12: 39
    +1
    The "prince" should not approach the Chinese coast. And how they blow "between the superstructures"! To be honest, "warned." lol
  8. PPD
    PPD 25 September 2019 12: 48
    +1
    Is the Prince of Wales a drunken Nazi salute thrown away?
    Hmm, can something be done with the name?
  9. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 25 September 2019 13: 11
    -2
    Quote: Prahlad
    We are not able to build it!

    Tell me, why do we need this piece of iron?
    In order to play some noticeable role in the oceans, they need to have at least no less than all NATO countries combined. One or three things still will not solve anything. You are ready to put your teeth on a shelf in order to build two dozen, and a couple of thousand aircraft (without aviation, the carrier is the target, not the weapon).
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 September 2019 20: 49
      +2
      Quote: Vkd dvk
      One or three things still will not solve anything.

      Colleague! You do not confuse Aircraft carriers with tanks! These are two different things, as they said in Odessa ... yes
      Three AVMs on one MTVD are an umbrella for all fleet forces - both surface and underwater! And besides, it has tremendous impact power with a capacity of up to 120 s / sorties of strike groups AB during the first 5 days of the database!
  10. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 25 September 2019 18: 58
    +1
    This is not the first aircraft carrier that the British built. I think that the issue of crosswind during takeoff and landing was considered and taken into account. So this argument narrow-film eskperdy clearly sucked out of the finger.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 September 2019 20: 50
      +1
      Quote: TermNachTER
      the issue of crosswind during takeoff and landing was both considered and taken into account. So this argument narrow-film eskperdy clearly sucked out of the finger.
      Absolutely in the hole! good
  11. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 25 September 2019 21: 45
    0
    Quote: BoA KAA
    Quote: Vkd dvk
    One or three things still will not solve anything.

    Colleague! You do not confuse Aircraft carriers with tanks! These are two different things, as they said in Odessa ... yes
    Three AVMs on one MTVD are an umbrella for all fleet forces - both surface and underwater! And besides, it has tremendous impact power with a capacity of up to 120 s / sorties of strike groups AB during the first 5 days of the database!

    But for this you need to take not only from you, but from your whole family not only salaries, pensions, pants and houses, in order to use these funds only to write the title section of the project for the construction of these three AVMs. How did the toast sound there in the immortal film "Prisoner of the Caucasus" - about opportunities and desires? Check out this tutorial frequently.