Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[derekwarner]

There is little to say of the mechanical failure apart from that speculation and Pub Talk will rear its ugly head again   after Her Majesty is finally laid to rest


I could not imagine an RN Capital ship docking outside of the UK, or in any location of the World however with the possible exception of the USA or Australia


Should a long sea transportation event be required, the Dutch Dockwise Vanguard vessel has a flat deck foot print of 275 M length, x 70 M beam and a sea transportation capacity of 85,000 tonnes


 https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=de89491718873b70JmltdHM9MTY2MzIwMDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0xYTRmYWU1MS05Yzk0LTZiNDUtMjQyOS1iZmFjOWRhNjZhNmImaW5zaWQ9NTE3NQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1a4fae51-9c94-6b45-2429-bfac9da66a6b&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2hpcC10ZWNobm9sb2d5LmNvbS9wcm9qZWN0cy9kb2Nrd2lzZS12YW5ndWFyZC1oZWF2eS10cmFuc3BvcnQtdmVzc2VsLw&ntb=1

The Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers are about 280 M length x 80 M beam and approx 65,000 tonnes


Who built what to suit what?...or maybe a big box of Dutch Guilders may be needed?


Derek

[rnli12]

Specualtion as always, lets have facts  if they emerge in the public domain

[Circlip]

Levels of military sophistication lead to better solutions to 'get through' defences. Given that after the Falklands Exocet saga, the solution was a gatling gun, I wonder how effective this would be against the 'new' Hypersonic missiles?


   Regards  Ian.

[dodes]

I believe there is a dry dock at Southampton capable of taking her, it was used for QE2 and several other large vessels, also I believe that Southampton was typed to be emergency back up berthing for these vessels, though I expect this problem could come under build guarantee, then BAE would want her in their dock and work personnel. But i would have thought there would be a oil seal somewhere in the stern gland to make it water tight and give lubrication, salt water would cool it, but it is also abrasive. The vessels i served in had neox oil lubrication to seal and lubricate the bearing, plus water cooling to keep it at a working temp.

[Colin Bishop]

While there are a number of dry docks capable of taking the hull, they are not designed to cope with the great overhang of the flight deck of carriers without removing the cranes and any buildings along the sides.

Wiki reports that the Southampton dock was decommissioned in 2005 and now serves as a wet dock berth.

The QE class could no doubt make use of facilities in the USA but Rosyth is a bit nearer....

Colin

[derekwarner]

So Colin says.......'The QE class could no doubt make use of facilities in the USA but Rosyth is a bit nearer'...

Well this is very true, however our Australian Captain Cook Graving Dock.....built to RN Admilitary requirements...at 347 x 45M wide should also provide a docking facility for a QE Class Carrier in Southern Oceans should the need arise

In October 1945, we hosted and docked the HMS King George V...she was 221M in length....

[my induction history at GID was that she [King George V], was experiencing a below-waterline population issue


[Interesting point in the image, is that shoring timbers placed along the length of the anti-torpedo hull armour belt just below the deckside length]


Derek




 

[dodes]

Hi Colin, yes you are correct, i forgot about those massive box's fitted on each side, along with her tumble out she is even a pain to berth. Ref the aft bearing spoke to a recently retired commander e , he explained to me how water stern bearings work, he mentioned three types from the white metal bearing to a special plastic typ using high pressure water to a very hard black rubber type. When the local press was talking about the lube oil running out, they were probably near the truth, in that the water pump failed leading to a dry bearing surface??? But the dock in Roseth is probably the one especially lengthen for the Hood.

[Colin Bishop]

Hi Dodes,
Yes the carriers are fendered well out from the quay and there are huge apparently retractable gangways in use. I think I have some photos but am not at home at the moment.
Colin

[Colin Bishop]

I seem to have deleted the gangway photos - not exciting!

Meanwhile PoW is languishing in Portsmouth presumably destoring and waiting until Rosyth are ready to proceed with the repairs. HMS QE is now in the USA.

It is all unfortunate but these things happen.

Colin

[dodes]

As they say, "you get what you pay for", the other day I was reading an old Janes and was reading about the old Victorious, apart from her heavy weapons system, 3" armoured deck and 3 x Foster Wheeler three drum boilers, her aircraft complement was 30 Buccaneers, various helicopters and 2 x Gannets. On half the P.o.W's tonnage! Never really understood why the old Illustrious was not fitted with a magnetic catapult with a couple of marinized R.A.F fighters, to investigate and trial the possibilities, as fixed wing planes have a greater payload than jump jets.

[Colin Bishop]

The US Navy have been experiencing problems with the magnetic catapults.

With regard to the Illustrious class, they would not have had the electrical generating capacity to operate magnetic catapults. They also had very small hangars with limited cpacity. They were never really intended as 'proper' aircraft carriers anyway. Their initial classification was as 'Through Deck Cruisers'.

They did give pretty effective service with the jump jets though.

The QE class can cary a decent number of aircraft but the problem is that we can't afford them!

Colin

[KitS]

'Marinizing' isn't just a matter of building in a wing fold and adding an arrester hook these days, as it was in WWII.


There's a lot more expensive engineering involved, plus the FAA's attitude of not wanting any old 'ex-RAF cast offs' to deal with.


Having said the latter, the RAF has exactly the same attitude toward anything the FAA have finished with, viz the Buccaneer S2s and the Phantom FG1s!

[raflaunches]

You’ve also got to remember that modern aircraft also weigh significantly more than WW2 aircraft. I know that BAE did consider a maritime version of a Typhoon which was going to be a joint venture with the Indian Navy but it never happened- I believe that the redesign was too drastic for a modern aircraft as the arrestor hook would have to be changed, strengthened frames and undercarriage would have to be designed into the airframe before the idea of other features such as folding wings, new nose undercarriage (two nose wheels instead of one to prevent shimmering) it would be easier to design a new aircraft from scratch then to convert these days.

[dodes]

Hi Nick, i would not describe Buccaneer's as WW2 aircraft, what I was implying that these new hulls do not carry enough aircraft or have the mix necessary to meet various combat demands, as the R.N does not have dedicated Interceptors to protect the fleet, though there is not much of a battle fleet to support these hulls. I mentioned the Vic because she had about half the displacement of the present hulls, but carried more weight in build, engineering and self-defence weapons than the present hulls. But I do worry that the R.A.F. has grab these airframes and are now dictating what the Fleet gets, they did prior to WW2 and the aircraft supplied by them to the fleet was pathetic.

[raflaunches]

Hi Dodes


I agree, the Bucc wasn’t a WW2 aircraft but is closer to that era than modern jets. I believe that the Bucc up until the F35B was the biggest/heaviest aircraft to operate off a British carrier and the Victorious was specifically chosen for conversion to operate the bigger aircraft. The F35B isn’t a light aircraft by any standards especially lugging a lift engine around for 99% of the time unused- it’s approximately 1.5 to 2 tons heavier than a Bucc depending on which spec you read. Coming from a ‘fast jet’ background I know that the amount of support equipment compared to the old aircraft is surprisingly immense.
As a carrier I suspect that much of the space is given to its crew as I’ve heard that each sailor/airman has their own room instead of shared bunks. I’m guessing that the reason why the new carrier are bigger is so they can operate the modern aircraft much in the similar way that the Vic and Ark were suitably modernised to operate Phantoms and Buccs.
Unfortunately in these modern days the aircraft are incredibly expensive so shared operations is only possible way of keeping these expenses down. A lot of people say we should have scrapped the Tornado fleet instead of the Harriers but from a position where the RAF had both arms tied behind its back it was common sense to retire the 89 Harriers compared to the 250 Tornados as Britain wouldn’t have any real numbers of strike aircraft other than 80 odd Harriers and the 100 or so Typhoons we had in service at the time. Personally I’d have found a way of giving the navy the Harrier fleet and the RAF keep the Tornado in the 2010 SDR which would have made sense but unfortunately the money comes out of one pot instead of three.

[ScottW]

Since Buccaneer is a favorite Naval aircraft I'll take a moment to interject that it looks like design work on it was started in November 1953.

[Circlip]

Yes Scott BUT ideally suited to its working environment. Long gone are bottomless budgets where (in the UK) sole purpose aircraft are designed and manufactured. We don't have Lancasters and Vulcans in service anymore, so the ability to deliver a 'Big' bomb are long gone. We are now presented with a compromise so flat tops need to be bigger to cater for the multi role capability need for todays aircraft, not for the sophistication of them but the need to carry more for past capabilities. Jimmy Doolittle wouldn't have a problem with todays carriers but I haven't seen a B52 land on one.
  Nick will probably be able to answer this one. What was the lifespan of the Harriers engaged in the Falklands 'Exercise' and these were 'Marinised'.



  Regards  Ian.

[JimG]

It has to be accepted that the new carriers have less aircraft than the older ones. But no thought seems to have been given to how effective the new F35s are compared to the old Buccaneer and Phantoms. The electronics and weaponry on the new aircraft are several generations better than the old so one F35 can do the job of several older jets. As for building a larger carrier to allow for the carrying of more jets this would lead to a considerable increase in crew needed. With the present manpower in the RN I doubt if they could man the carrier as well as the battle group need to give it protection. The increased space given to the crew is because of the amount of automation on board of the carrier leading to a much smaller crew than would otherwise be needed.
As for keeping the Harriers, they were basically obsolete with out of date electronics for their purpose as naval aircraft. There was some discussion on an old model aircraft forum with one of the members who was quite high up in BAE. His comments were that the Harrier airframe couldn't take the necessary upgrades in electronics needed to keep them battleworthy. Remember that when they were sold on to the US Marines it was for spares only as the instrumentation was not compatable with the US aircraft. Also the US use is purely as ground attack aircraft with no fighter requirement. We have already seen what happens when you try to cram electronics in an airframe too small with the Nimrod fiasco.

Jim

[Colin Bishop]

HMS QE is designed to carry over 65 aircraft at a stretch so actually a few more than HMS Eage but I doubt if we will ever be able to afford that number!

Colin

[dodes]

Hi Colin, first time i have heard of numbers being carried, still think they should have fitted catapults and used fixed wing aircraft. But as yet no fighter cover for the fleet though.

[JimG]

Hi Colin, first time i have heard of numbers being carried, still think they should have fitted catapults and used fixed wing aircraft. But as yet no fighter cover for the fleet though.

I'm sure the F35 carries air to air missiles and has a cannon on board. It's not a dog fighter but in todays air warfare if they are close enough to dog fight then their missiles have failed. The idea is to destroy your enemy before it is in range of the ship.

Jim

[KitS]

The F-35B doesn't have a lift engine to lug around, it only has one engine, and that works for lift and forward thrust via its moveable nozzles. The bit that doesn't do anything during normal flight is the lift fan and clutch that are between the engine and the cockpit.


I installed the monster welding machine at Rolls Royce which makes the lift fan itself, so I know what I'm talking about here..... 

[derekwarner]

On September 15th Colin, you mentioned... 'tidal access slots for Rosyth are very specific'..

So is it a low tide for under the Bridge, then a high tide required to berth the PoW in Dock at Rosyth?

The media previously stated that the PoW was 'limping' back to Portsmouth after the initial Port side machinery failure and she was also shown at sea, assisted by a Tug Boat

Capital ships do not to limp on the failure of one shaft............so it is clear to understand that she still has more than ample electrical energy available to provide 1/2 of her total population power being the 20MW Stdb electric motor drive

What has become of the Civilian GE Propulsion Engineers who salied with the PoW when she originally commenced her Deployment?

The longer the PoW is left in Portsmouth, the greater the Pub Talk will evade the truth  

Derek

[ScottW]

Capital ships do not to limp on the failure of one shaft.

And that brings us to today's Q&A:

Q: How is an Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate just like a Capital Ship?
A: It does not 'limp' anywhere on the failure of one shaft.


Q: How is an Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate not at all like a capital ship?
A: It has one shaft.
 

[derekwarner]

Scott... we had a number of FFG's [Perry Class Frigate ] in our Australian Navy [I worked on each of them as an Above Water Weapons Foreman]

So from this, understand only too well the FFG's main claim to fame was the GE LM2500 gas turbine main engine ...... 28 minutes from cold engine to maximum power on a single shaft as compared to 4 hours for a DDG x 2 shafts


A Frigate [nor a Destroyer] are not a Capital ship, which the accepted definition is a Battle Ship or an Aircraft Carrier


So my comment.......'Capital ships do not to limp on the failure of one shaft' .....is still valid


Derek