Queen Elizabeth Class Flight Deck

[skca54]

This picture is of a Queen Elizabeth class simulator showing landing tests on carrier deck.

It may just be me not knowing what I am looking at, but is that flight deck only slightly angled? Or is it just the perspective?

The article (below) also highlights the UK lack of experience and using US F-18 pilots for testing flight deck layout.

I assume the RN carriers will have a deck layout very like the current US carriers and not like the last big deck RN carriers i.e. HMS Ark Royal?

Picture is from: Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Leave the landing light on

Interestingly the article also mentions the ability, eventually, of 'JPALS' (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System) being able to 'auto-land' aircraft! Have the Americans pursued 'auto-landing' before?

Thanks for reading and putting up with my questions . . .

[Chogy]

Auto-land is definitely in the future, especially when we consider major drones will be operating from carriers soon enough. As for the angle, it might just be perspective... it also feels like the airplane is in a slight right bank, further skewing the image.

Good article!

[Dreadnought]

Certain classes of carriers (No US mainly) have the flight deck canted slightly or angled. This allows any parts, pieces or foreign material that is dropped onto the flight deck to roll off. The USN performs "walkdown" visually to ensure the deck is clear before launching planes to insure that nothing gets sucked into the jet engines. An ounce of PM if you would. It takes a pretty good eye to notice it.

That is if that is what you are refering to instead of the decks arrangement or the ship itself slightly listing due to wave reaction.

[skca54]

Sorry. Didn't explain myself very well. Meant angle of flight deck to port away from the bow. Thanks for the responses. Still learnt something.

[Dreadnought]

Sorry. Didn't explain myself very well. Meant angle of flight deck to port away from the bow. Thanks for the responses. Still learnt something.

Well, if they were to follow the US designs, your elevators (3) are starboard side, (1) Port but can still launch helos, props , jets etc from a shorter runway with two cats and jet blast defelectors leaving the elevators open to service the deck and hangars. Port side (longer runway) IMO, would be for both launch and recovery simultaniously with two other cats and jet blast deflectors since longer could no doubt launch planes with bigger armament loads and a pilot could "wave off" if the landing is aborted without causing the deck traffic much problem as far as safety but it happens. Having the deck skewed or cocked also permits a greater area of airflow across the deck allowing them to launch several kinds of aircraft loads assisted by the cats at virtualy anytime they wished.

[Anixtu]

The USN performs "walkdown" visually to ensure the deck is clear before launching planes to insure that nothing gets sucked into the jet engines.

In UK parlance that is called a "FOD plod".

WRT the OP, I think it's just the perspective that diminishes the apparent angle of the flight deck in that picture.

[Gun Grape]

The US Navy calls it a "FOD walkdown"

Here is another view of the ship to show the angle of the landing deck.
I think this is what you were asking about.

[RustyBattleship]

That class of British Carrier was originally designed to have a "ski-jump" ramp and carry mostly STOL and VTOL aircraft. But the design changed dramatically when it was decided to follow American design to handle the hot fighters. Even then, two designs of that concept was made. The one shown in GG's posting is the latest. The "in-between" design also had an angled landing deck but not as extreme and THAT is the one I think is shown in the trainer vew of the original posting.

[Dreadnought]

That class of British Carrier was originally designed to have a "ski-jump" ramp and carry mostly STOL and VTOL aircraft. But the design changed dramatically when it was decided to follow American design to handle the hot fighters. Even then, two designs of that concept was made. The one shown in GG's posting is the latest. The "in-between" design also had an angled landing deck but not as extreme and THAT is the one I think is shown in the trainer vew of the original posting.

I'm not crazy about the double island on the starboard. One would think this will look about as oddball as the former BB's Nelson and Rodney. Odd but they did their jobs.

Interestingly enough if you notice the islands and elevators are both in close proximity. Not crazy about that one for the obvious reasons.

[Dreadnought]

The US Navy calls it a "FOD walkdown"

Here is another view of the ship to show the angle of the landing deck.
I think this is what you were asking about.

Thanks GG, I witness it but forgot the term. Pretty much the entire deck crew involved from bow to stern.

[skca54]

Thanks for your answers, everybody.

From a professional point of view would any of you expect these carriers to be possible british 'white elephants' (like the Nelson/Rodney mentioned) or possible trend setters for future carriers of similar size/displacement?

[USSWisconsin]

Thanks for your answers, everybody.

From a professional point of view would any of you expect these carriers to be possible british 'white elephants' (like the Nelson/Rodney mentioned) or possible trend setters for future carriers of similar size/displacement?

IMO, these will be a great thing for the RN. I doubt they would be white elephants unless they aren't funded enough to let them be useful

Now: on the concept of Nelson and Rodney being white elephants - far from the truth, they were fine and heavily utilized ships. They did look odd by contemporary standards, and they were a compromise between the N3 anf G3 designs - a compromise forced by the naval treaties. But the RN got yeoman service from them, they served in many battles, and steamed immense distances doing their duties - shrugged off heavy damage more than once and survived the war to be scrapped. They were very successful battleships.

[skca54]

I think I used 'white elephant' incorrectly. I do know that HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney were very successful and served with distinction, they were just a bit un-conventional in their layout!

[Dreadnought]

I think I used 'white elephant' incorrectly. I do know that HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney were very successful and served with distinction, they were just a bit un-conventional in their layout!

When compared to other designs of their day, yes they were but that is what worked for the Brits and the design criteria they had to work with.

[Gun Grape]

I think I used 'white elephant' incorrectly. I do know that HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney were very successful and served with distinction, they were just a bit un-conventional in their layout!

The 2 island idea has been batted around for about 20 years.

A forward one for navigation,/control of the ship. Aft one for PriFly. One that offers a better view of the whole deck