Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Colin Bishop on August 29, 2022, 12:48:06 pm
-
Reports today that the PoW has broken down after leaving Portsmouth for a 4 month deployment.
More details here:
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince-of-wales-suffers-technical-issue-after-sailing-from-portsmouth/
Colin
-
Artemis 1 moon rocket launch this morning is on hold for technical difficulties. Is there a trend of today not being the best day for big and expensive government hardware?
-
Rocket launch cancelled for today.
PoW now proceeding towards Portsmouth in company of five tugs. RN says she is beingt taken to a more suitable anchorage for inspection. Looks like the problem is something to do with the propshaft.
Maybe not surprising as people have been saying for years thet the Prince of Wales has a screw loose....
Colin
-
Maybe a crew member may not have fancied 4 months away from home, personal problems, whatever . . . . .
-
Yep, Artey missed her flight.
And that sounds almost karmic in a way ...
Maybe not surprising as people have been saying for years thet the Prince of Wales has a screw loose....
-
Apparently the intention is to re anchor in Stokes Bay.
Colin
-
The bigger they are, the harder........... %)
-
They can't afford the electricity to recharge the Lipo.
-
Seeems to have been built to fail.
First time out... Propshaft seal failure
Next attempt... Self flooding via fire pumps
This short trip... Damage to propellor
Who knows what would happen if it faced a sea battle.
-
Seeems to have been built to fail.
First time out... Propshaft seal failure
Next attempt... Self flooding via fire pumps
This short trip... Damage to propellor
Who knows what would happen if it faced a sea battle.
Oh, but see, this is all a big psy-op to lure potential adversaries in to having a false sense of superiority.
-
No, no, no......I blame the news-hungry mongrel Media/Press for reporting on such minor technical issues... any such issue that happens in War, or in this case, in a Warship should stay on the Warship :-X :-X :-X
If there is any blame, let it be layed squarely at the feet of the Pin Stripped Politicians <*< who reduced the design spend, which by necessity creates the need for greater reliance on artificial intelligence which has an unproved intrinsic life or reliability
Derek
-
It's a sad reflection that when ships are made for us by other nations there's a hue and cry as to why, in the event of a breakdown, it wasn't built here with all our historical shipbuilding history?
Regards Ian.
-
Just to put things into perspective, the US Navy's latest carrier USS Gerld Ford took 8 years to build due to construction problems and amother 4 years after commissioning before she was deemed fit for service. Russia's only carrier is a floating disaster area and may never recommission after a severe onboard fire and a dockyard crane falling onto her.
Colin
-
Yes, but every new project, it's as if they have not done it before.
Class A submarines had foreseeable problems and the problems are still being dealt with.
Daring Class Destroyers are in an epic failure class of their own, even now they are coming into Cammell Lairds in turn for major engine modifications. How could they have foreseen that the ships just might deploy into the Tropics and so needed specialist engine cooling systems?
How can a pair on £3billion ships not have an alarm to report that the fire pumps have come online and why did it takes 3 days to notice?
Even we can fit effective seals on prop shafts.
-
A lot of this is politics and short term cost savings. The Daring power plants were deliberately cut back at the design stage on the basis that they would not need the originally intended capacity and when they did it wasn't there.
From what others have said, cost savings were also made on the carriers plus inadequately supervised work. The flight decks have had to be resurfaced to cope with the heat from the F35 downblasts. I think the seal on QE was OK but hadn't been fitted correctly.
Same old story really. The battleships Rodney & Nelson had such complex interlocks on their main armament that it took years before the guns were reliable, and even then all three guns in each turret had to be loaded at the same time even if only one or two were due to fire in the subsequent salvo, this reduced the overall rate of fire. The ships might well have been better off with the tried and tested 15 inch mounting which was proably a better gun overall and more accurate than the 16 inch. By the time the RN came to build the KGV class the building expertise for compex big gun mountings had been severely eroded whch caused all sorts of problems and reduced Prince of Wales to an unbattleworthy condition during the fight with the Bismarck.
In more recent times, the type 21 frigates, although pretty ships, were not really fit for purpose during the Falklands War. The original type 42 destroyer design was subjected to cost savings so the early ships were unable to be properly upgraded and later ones needed to be stretched by over 53 feet and displaced an extra 900 tuns to make them the ships they should have been in the first place.
Colin
-
There are now reports that the ship's propeller hit an obstruction and that it may be going to Amsterdam for dry docking instead of Rosyth. May be easier as I think Rosyth means that the ship's mast has to be taken down and access to the dry dock basin is tricky.
Colin
-
How can a modern warship not navigate safely out of it's own naval base?
The first A Class sub crashed into a Scottish island a few years ago and in 2002 HMS Nottingham met some rocks near Wolfe Island, Australia.
Perhaps we should issue charts and fit sonar.
-
Without going too far off track, its the same here in Australia
Back in the early 80's, a joint Parliamentary Committee decided that the Kockhams submarine [from Malmo] would be the best choice to replace our aging Fleet of Oberon Class submarines, then some Dingbat Minister of Defence >>:-( said yea that's a good choice, and our Australian Submarine Corporation was born, together with the directives that a minimium Australian content % must be achieves ...... which technically, was unachievable
Well....we still needed to have US and UK manufactured weapons & counter measure electronics systems, so that left very little for local content apart fro the high tensile/strength steel produced in my Port Kembla ........however the diesel/electronic propolsion systems were manufactured here but under Licence from the original European designers
40 years later, our dedicated Naval engineering Ratings are still placing Band-Aids on defects to keep 3 of 5 of our Collins Class Submarines operational.......
So what happens .... another joint Parliamentary Committee decides we need a replacement for our Collins Class fleet, and awards the Contract to the French to modify an existing French nuclear Class submarine design, but to conventional diesel propulsion......so after some 6 years no evidence of building, just more & more plans revised and more Committees continually reviewing progress........there is no evidence of progress, so our Government rips up the Contract........naturally the Frogies are more than a little upset.............[I think $50 million was the cancellation cost with nothing to show for it..and no disclosure of all previous costs]
You guessed it,.........just after ripping up the French Contract, another joint Parliamentary Committee announces we are to get a new Fleet of nuclear propelled submarines, however without any nuclear weapons......
But where is this design to be sourced?...obviously one of our ORCUS partners [US or UK] and when?.....
When questioned of the build time frame, one of our Politicians suggested possibly within a 45 year window?....one of bright spark Opposition from across the floor reminded the Minister, that submarines don't have windows
If all this weren't so serious >>:-( ...it would be funny {-)
Derek
-
There are now reports that the ship's propeller hit an obstruction and that it may be going to Amsterdam for dry docking instead of Rosyth. May be easier as I think Rosyth means that the ship's mast has to be taken down and access to the dry dock basin is tricky.
Colin
Message doing the rounds now is that they neglected to grease the prop shaft bearing <:( now if you had done that on your model you would have called yourself a TOTAL ****.
-
It might have been down to some poor little mate alot but believe me, how many sub (bad pun) committees and paper pushers have been in line to determine the necessity to do it let alone the equivalent chain to choose which grease to use and the safety committee for risk assesment and then - - - -
Regards Ian.
-
Ian....could I suggest that Dockyard Pub talk, is either 100% correct, to 0% factual ;D
The days of a Junior Stoker Rating wandering around with a grease gun are well gone
All lubrication systems are computer functioned & controlled......
A Senior Chief PO would be on shift 24/7 in each engine room of the Elizabeth Class vessels & his job during each shift is to read all operational systems reports via computers
If a lubrication component failed, it would have flagged an alarm of sorts within the intelligent electronic systems
So if lubrication ...or the lack is not down a human error, clearly investigating the cause further would be warranted
I previously used the words..... artificial intelligence, and intrinsic reliability O0 without the latter, we are stumped :kiss:
Derek
-
I found it somewhat amusing that the news reader on the 10pm ITV news bulletin kept calling her “HMS Prince Charles”, when the guy on the rubber duck doing the news report while bobbing around in the Solent had the correct name.
The type 3 42’s were indeed a big improvement on the type I & 2, but it was interesting to see that although they had the same power output as the earlier versions, were just as fast if not slightly faster, through the water.
LB
-
Ian....could I suggest that Dockyard Pub talk, is either 100% correct, to 0% factual ;D
The days of a Junior Stoker Rating wandering around with a grease gun are well gone
All lubrication systems are computer functioned & controlled......
A Senior Chief PO would be on shift 24/7 in each engine room of the Elizabeth Class vessels & his job during each shift is to read all operational systems reports via computers
If a lubrication component failed, it would have flagged an alarm of sorts within the intelligent electronic systems
So if lubrication ...or the lack is not down a human error, clearly investigating the cause further would be warrantedI
Derek
It may be that the lubrication system was AOK, but the problem was with the intelligent electronic system . I Don't trust electronicals they are bad enough in cars
-
Derek, AB Popeye may be an exaggeration, But If you think everything behind is not reality, it's a long time since your active service.
Regards Ian.
-
It's a sad reflection that when ships are made for us by other nations there's a hue and cry as to why, in the event of a breakdown, it wasn't built here with all our historical shipbuilding history?
Regards Ian.
Ian dont quite follow your point, they were built here if its the QE class you are on about.
Bob
-
Being reported on the BBC this morning that its a failed shaft coupling. Will probably go to Rosyth for repairs.
Jim
-
Precisely Bob, Johnny foreigner is not the only builder to screw up. With ALL our maritime construction history EVEN we can get it wrong BUT, we have the advantage of ours costing more. %)
Regards Ian.
Wonder where the coupling materials came from?
-
Hydraulic coupling which joins the the tailshaft/intermediate if thats the case.
-
Are not each & every member of the Crew on board the HMS Prince of Wales, all sworn to :-X under your National Security Act?
So any comments are .....'Dockyard Pub talk, being either 100% correct, to 0% factual'.......
Derek
-
It's not pub talk that she (or rather HMSPOW) went up the Solent with only the Port screw turning
NAVY LOOK OUT
Broken coupling
The reason HMS Prince of Wales could not begin her planned deployment is that an external SKF coupling that connects the outer propellor shaft to the drive shaft from the propulsion motors failed. This is a rare event and a situation described by the First Sea Lord as “unprecedented” as few marine engineers can remember an instance of this happening. Random unpredictable failures are uncommon but can still occur even if equipment is well designed, maintained and operated.
However, unconfirmed sources suggest HMS Prince of Wales was already experiencing some significant problems with her starboard motors and under pressure to sail, required special permission to leave on Saturday with a known defect. Her sailing had already been delayed by 24 hours and she put to sea with civilian staff from the original equipment manufacturer (GE Power Conversion) onboard, presumably confident the motor could be repaired while underway. Whether the coupling failure was related to the motor issues is unclear. She appears to have sailed using only the port shaft and her propellors did not strike the sea bed as has been rumoured. Press reports that the breakdown was caused because RN engineers “forgot to grease the shaft” are contemptible nonsense. (The external bearings are sea water-lubricated for starters).
-
Press reports that the breakdown was caused because RN engineers “forgot to grease the shaft” are contemptible nonsense.
And everyone thought it was IVAN who was terrible
Maybe it is merely a thing with my brain, but those 2 statements seem to very much go together ...
-
Well, I think we all feel the embarrassment for the Crew of HMS Prince of Wales, and for that matter, the entire RN...... but be rest assured the Legal Team for the Swedish SKF group are on high alert
You have to love the language...."forgot to grease the shaft” are contemptible nonsense" <*< :-)) ,
Reading the report, these words could be implied as from the First Sea Lord. It will be interesting to see the amount of dignity, the outgoing PM can muster
Derek
-
I think the more serious consideration is the statement that" HMS Prince of Wales was already experiencing some significant problems with her starboard motors" which was why the Swedish team were on board when the coupling let go. I get the sneaky feeling that this is not a quick fix
[/size]
-
It appears that it was GE Propulsion Engineers signed on as 'Supernumeraries' when the P of W sailed.....and the vessel required special authority to sail.......
https://maritime-executive.com/article/ge-delivers-last-of-eight-propulsion-motors-for-giant-uk-aircraft-carriers (https://maritime-executive.com/article/ge-delivers-last-of-eight-propulsion-motors-for-giant-uk-aircraft-carriers)
I agree with Baldrick, 'not a quick fix' and am sure the story will have many, many twists & turns as the weeks & months turn over
[in a previous life, I was required to sign on as a 'weapons supernumery' when onboard HMAS vessels during post refit sea trials']
Derek
-
You are quite erroneous in YOUR assumption of "Dockyard pub talk", but trying to put a bit of levity in the situation, as a tax payer whom yet again is expected to foot the bill for questionable workmanship. Err, didn't the sister (Mother) ship also have a leaky bottom.
Sadly, the general public seem to be impressed by media reports whose information MAY be obtained from some floppy gobbed rating for the price of a couple of pints. Unfortunately todays sensitivities don't allow the same justice to be metered out for "Loose Lips".
Only yesterday I read a report from our illustrious press, of the recent attendance by one of our cabinet ministers at the launching of HMS Astute?????????????????? Don't know whether this is a piece of late copy or a time warp.
Don't forget Derek, while you were employed as weps for HMAS, there are OTHER people with informed knowledge. ;)
Regards Ian.
-
I saw that report about Astute too. Looks like somebody was actually trying to describe the comissioning of HMS Anson of the Astute class and something got lost in translation.
The problem with HMS QE was an incorrectly fitted shaft seal. Things could have been worse as it might have been a walrus or sea lion.... The media wouldn't have noticed the difference.
Just imagine the media frenzy were it to be reported that the ship had hit a dolphin while berthing....
Colin
-
Hi Colin, appreciate your bit of humour there {-)
(not sure if everyone will know what a dolphin is though... apart from being a marine mammal of course).
Ray.
-
Can anyone clue me up on the propulsion systems of the QE carriers ? We know that she has two thumping great gas turbines (36Mw each) and Four Wartsila marine diesels (11.6 Mw each ) Am I correct in thinking that all these prime movers are or can be variously arranged driving alternators and that the final drive is electric ie. not mechanically coupled ?
-
Machinery information here:
https://www.forces.net/services/navy/hms-queen-elizabeth-all-her-glory
Final drive is electric motors powered from a combination of diesel and gas turbine generators. (Very much like the Queen Mary 2)
Colin
-
Thanks Colin, that's what I thought.
Reading further from that same source they report that diver inspection reports there has been serious damage to both the coupling and the prop shaft, propellor and also some damage to the rudder . What the heck ! Can only think that a bearing seized and the shaft and prop ran amok
-
* We only need one carrier anyway!
-
Hi,
I know it's a sales blurb from RR but it was interesting enough as a very quick read...
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/news/6-page-qe-booklet-tcm92-58802.pdf (https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/news/6-page-qe-booklet-tcm92-58802.pdf)
Rich
-
* We only need one carrier anyway!
Which means in practice you only have one carrier available 50% of the time. Not altogether sensible really.
Colin
-
The 2 carriers already provide one carrier for half the time !
-
Damage to PoW confirmed as serious, prop and rudder affected.
https://maritime-executive.com/article/hms-prince-of-wales-has-significant-damage-likely-requiring-dry-dock
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince-of-wales-to-be-dry-docked-while-hms-queen-elizabeth-takes-on-some-of-her-tasking/
A bit of Deja Vu here as the Battleship Prince of Wales was crippled in WW2 by a torpedo hit on a propshaft which opened up the ship to extensive flooding which led to her subsequent loss.
Colin
-
The local paper reported lack of lub oil in stern gland, would have thought a visible check before sailing would have resolved the problem. If it is the stern gland it is a very big and expensive job. Is this the vessel which limped into Pompey with two out of three securing bolts snapped with the coupling swinging round and if the final one went the coupling would have gone through the vessels side Only three bolts instead of 5 used to reduce costs!!
-
he local paper reported lack of lub oil in stern gland
That claim was rubbish according to the Navy Lookout website. The exterior seals are reported as water lubricated. However the shafting is in sections with couplings between them and the tailshaft coupling apparently failed. As mentioned in earlier posts there seem to have been some other issues with the motor/driveline too but of course the Navy aren't saying!
PoW is not showing up on Marine Traffic at the moment. Presemably she is either en route to or arrived at Rosyth for dry docking. There are auggetions that she may be u/s for a while.
Colin
-
The saving grace in this instance is that the breakdown occurred early - shudder to think of it happening mid-atlantic. :o
Ray.
-
If my memory is correct they had to plan for a particularly low tide to get her out of Rosyth ( Bridge crossings ) so it seems they might have to plan the same to get her back in again
-
Yes. tidal access slots for Rosyth are very specific although the topmast can be folded down. Rosyth has the right repair facilities unlike the more accessible Dutch docks.
Hopefully the ship will be back in action quite soon.
I think that all this highlights the fact that very sophisticated military assets are subject to all sorts of vulnerabilities. The simple days when you just dropped an unguided bomb on the target seem to be long gone. There is a lot of 'eggs in one basket' about modern weapons sytems as is being demonstrated in Ukraine at the moment.
Colin
-
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 (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
-
Specualtion as always, lets have facts :police: if they emerge in the public domain
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :o
[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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
'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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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..... :-)
-
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 O0
Derek
-
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.
:}
-
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 O0
Derek
-
A Frigate [nor a Destroyer] are not a Capital ship, which the accepted definition is a Battle Ship or an Aircraft Carrier
As it happens, I am aware of that. While he didn't have a duty station on a Frigate, Dad graduated from Destroyer School in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1969 or 70.
And was then on USS Ingraham, DD-694, with OHP class frigate, FFG-61 being the next ship to carry USS Ingraham name and being last of the OHP class to be built.
FFG-61 was eventually sunk as a target just last year, 2021.
Dad's USS Ingraham, DD-694 was likewise sunk as a target about a decade previously after its retirement from the Greek Navy.
-
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..... :-)
I’m not denying that the name I used is different but unfortunately it’s still a large lump to carry around with associated systems to support it compared to other variants and aircraft regardless if it’s called an engine or a fan. Whilst its an impressive bit of engineering it isn’t used for 99% of the time.
-
Main reason I spoke of the catapult is that a fixed wing plane such as a F35A can carry more weapons in weight than the F35B can, yes as a stealth plane it is supposed to target and fire a missile at the incoming plane at a considerable distance without being seen on radar. But if the missiles fail then it has to dogfight which I believe is the F22 's fortieth, talking of the 22, believe the USA is now actively going to supersede them soon with next generation fighters, so perhaps the MoD may well be able to buy some 22's in the not-too-distant future?
-
hi
I am posting a link which may be of interest to some. I found it very interesting to read - as I was searching the web for Sea Trials. This was because I do know the Ark Royal which was built on the Tyne did sea trials where she ran on one shaft and was made to steer a straight course. This was repeated on the other shaft over the measured mile. So, no doubt the new aircraft carriers would have to do the same - I therefore cannot see any problem with HMS Prince of Wales doing a journey to Rosyth on one shaft. If the powers to be had the foresight to keep the docks on the Tyne instead of building houses on the empty docks - Prince of Wales could have nicely fitted into one or two docks to that were there on the Tyne.
John
Sea trial - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_trial)
-
The old Invincible did a lot of single shaft running during her time due to faulty gearbox's .
-
As John says, twin screw ships can navigate perfectly well on one screw. There is a bit of history to this as in the late 19th Century, steamers initially carried sail as a precaution against the single screw falling off. In fact some vessels carried spare screws aboard well into the 20th Century. And even the Queen Mary 2 has a set of spare propeller blades for her propulsion pods mounted like artworks forward of the bridge - they are known as 'The Commodore's Cufflinks'. (photo below)
Once ships had two screws, the fallback of a sailing rig could be dispensed with.
The Brittany Ferries vessels across the Western Channel frequently travel with just one screw operating if they are not in a hurry which is the case when they slow down to arrive at the destination port at a civilised hour.
Getting back to the PoW, she would have initially been destored at Portsmouth and the stuff they needed for her mission removed. The ship is based at Portsmouth so there is no need to move her to Rosyth until the bits and bobs needed to make her port shaft operational again are ready to be installed. I doubt if they are 'off the shelf' items.
Colin
-
The Brittany Ferries vessels across the Western Channel frequently travel w[/size][/font]ith just one screw operating if they are not in a hurry which is the case when they slow down to arrive at the destination port at a civilised hour .
[/size]
As I well remember , A late booking with no accommodation on offer was a pain. The prospect of 8 hours trying to get some rest on the floor in the corner of a lower deck corridor was an experience not to be repeated. Fortunately after a few hours a Brittany Ferries steward took pity on us and ushered us into a vacant cabin .
-
HMS PoW departure to Rosyth has apparently been delayed as the damaged propeller could not be removed in time. Obviously, it it can't rotate then it would cause a lot of drag and maybe further damage en route. The feeling seems to be that repairs could take months rather than weeks. :((
https://www.forces.net/qe-class-aircraft-carriers/hms-prince-wales-sail-scotland-monday-repairs
Colin
-
Ship has now sailed.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-finally-on-way-to-scotland-for-repairs/
Colin
-
Found out what the problem is, doubt whether it will be ever admitted to.
-
Just been reading on the Microsoft/Edge news , Rudder was hit as Screw and shaft went back into it, shaft coupling failure I should imagine. Any way the piece was saying, what went wrong was strange, it could be over a month repair and future deployments under a shadow!
-
Was/is it a Huco? :D
Coat, gone.
Regards Ian.
-
So Dodes says....."Just been reading on the Microsoft/Edge news"....... on the P of W
I cannot find any Microsoft-Edge reporting on the P of W mechanical status beyond 2nd October
Any chance of a link?.............
Is the Microsoft-Edge news reliable?
or is it just hacked crap?
Derek
-
Hi it seems that item ref this vessels problem has been taken down, but it stated quite clearly that the shaft went back sufficiently to foul the rudder. So, to do that an intermediate shaft coupling must have failed, believe when she first arrived in Portsmouth, she had problems with failed intermediate shaft coupling bolts. The Mod now says it will be at least a month to put right what is wrong, and it was an unforeseen problem. There has been gossip she may have the bottom with the prop, but her berth and turning area is dredged to a maintained depth for these vessels and the middle of Pompey harbour is soft mud and old bits of rubbish from very old R.N. vessels, I picked up my stern anchor in mid harbour once and found a complete cosgrieve cannon of about 1830 jammed in the flukes complete with carriage.
-
There is a report here:
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince-of-wales-to-be-dry-docked-while-hms-queen-elizabeth-takes-on-some-of-her-tasking/
But, as Dodes says, it has been reliably reported that the shaft coupling broke allowing the propeller to slide aft and hit the rudder, damaging both.
Subsequently, problems were experienced at Portsmouth in removing the propeller while the ship was afloat which delayed her departure for Rosyth.
It remains to be seen how long repairs will take but only Rosyth has the facilities to undertake them.
Colin
-
RO9..THINGS TO DO LIST
1) Rudder Hit by Prop, unship rudder and examine for extent of damage ensure prop shaft is not bent and pintles and bearings are still within tolerance. repair big dent in rudder hammer back into shape and repaint ( do not bodge up with Isopon !)
2) Prop Blades Damaged, unship hub and blades . Examine all parts for damage and replace any damaged or out of tolerance ( do not just hammer back into shape) X ray any retained blades and replace seals to hub. ensure unit is still in balance.
3) Rear A Frame Damaged, Have new unit fabricated and skip existing. Examine hull and fixings for A frame , consider beefing up whole fabrication. New bearing to shaft to be fitted and ensure that lubrication is adequate to withstand working loads , if in any doubt give it a squirt of WD40
4 ) Tail End Shaft , Check that shaft is still straight and not corkscrewed, we don't want it forever wagging the butt end , especially now that William has to be answered to . If out of tolerance order up a new one ,perhaps make it two in case another one goes.
5) Shaft Coupling . Most obviously we need a new one of these. Where did we buy the one that failed ? Perhaps try Sweden this time (make sure it has a 12 month guarantee ).
6) Intermediate Shafts. All the intermediate propulsion shafts need to be withdrawn and examined before replacing in the correct order.
7) Main Propulsion. As there were artificer reports of worrying noises in the area of the main starboard turbine and gearbox get someone from the manufacturs in under warranty to check the whole lot over and obtain written assurances that all is tickety boo (Don't mention the foregoing issues to them or they may say we have invalidated any claim).
8) Put all together in correct order , give two coats of navy grey and a good run down the river .
-
At least the old crate was launched and did sea trials, more can be said for the Caley Mac contract with Ferguson, 5 years overdue and 100 million overspent.
-
As requested on another thread, some photos below of my Corgi model of HMS QE at 1:1250 scale. (it was a Christmas present - hence the delay).
I am impressed with it. It comes in a display case and although displayed as a waterline model at sea it is actually a full hull model which is screwed to the bottom of the stand.
I bought mine at a discount from Antics for £56.75 (Prince of Wales also available)
I thought the comparisons with the liners QM2 and Titanic would be of interest.
Colin
-
Reading in the Daily Mail, that this bus has spent more time unavailable for sea due to defects than being available for service and she will not be ready until late spring/early summer. I think some hard questions should be asked if not already in secret, of the builders and designers of this build.!!!
-
As mentioned in the article on the Type 26 frigate programme, it does appear that there are faults resulting from poor workmanship and a lack of expertise by the builders. Not enough properly qualified people just like in the 1930s.
It happens in other areas too. We are all exhorted to insulate our houses and particularly the lofts but round here there are no firms I would regard as being competent to do the job. Any cowboy can spray foam on the underside of the rafters but that can give rise to damp problems and can make the house unsaleable. Same with cavity walls. You need people who really understand what they are doing and probably there are simply not enough of them in UK shipbuilding now. No use having the right bits if you haven't got the right people to weld or screw them together!
Colin
-
Hi Colin, not a truer comment made, all part of a past MP who said she wanted everyone in service industry not dirty manual work!!!
-
Colin….
You need to ask what was different between QE and PofW
It wouldn’t be that BAe had less input into the build of PofW and Babcock started to take over the entire show.
Also a lot of people working on PofW didn’t know what a boat was.
I’m hearing rumours that Babcock is now paying significantly more for engineers to move from glasgow to help on the T31s.
-
While we await an update from the POW situation here is an earlier shot curtesy of https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/εpsilon (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/εpsilon)
(https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/images/2022/12/28/743ABE61-A927-4C93-9915-90283E317F05.jpg) (https://www.modelboatmayhemimages.co.uk/image/tZDCG)
-
Wonder why they used a Spitfire to take that shot?
Regards Ian.
-
Hi all, as an adjunct to having these 2 aircraft carriers and I am sure they will eventually be useful warships, well with some aircraft as well. Generally we do not seem to have done done much of a job on the construction of these ships, I know new tech is not easy but......
The US Navy is having a re-think about strategy after the Ukraine missile attack on the pride of the Russian fleet, Moskva. Clearly very disabled if not sunk. There is stuff on the 'net suggesting Battleships, unmanned fighters and drones maybe the next big weapons in whatever combination.
Unless I am also being sucked into a mis-information web!
regards
Roy
-
" and I am sure they will eventually be useful warships, well with some aircraft as well."
" There is stuff on the 'net suggesting Battleships, unmanned fighters and drones maybe the next big weapons in whatever combination."
Roy
What's the difference between a drone and an un-manned fighter?
-
Hi un-manned fighters seem to be very expensive and use computer systems to manoeuvre and use evasive systems to attack. Also they come back to re-arm etc.
Drones would seem to be as per the Iranians ones as supplied to the Russians and more the kamikaze idea.
Anyone got any comments on this?
Roy
-
Wonder why they used a Spitfire to take that shot?
Perhaps because a couple of them fly out of Goodwood, not that far away, and they just happened to spot both carriers below them?
-
The US Navy is having a re-think about strategy after the Ukraine missile attack on the pride of the Russian fleet, Moskva. Clearly very disabled if not sunk. There is stuff on the 'net suggesting Battleships, unmanned fighters and drones maybe the next big weapons in whatever combination.
Unless I am also being sucked into a mis-information web!
A reliable RN source told me that the RN was also surprised about just how easily the Moskva appeared to have succumbed to a couple of Harpoon type missiles. However this may have been down to outdated equipment and Russian incompetence as much as anything. Their military is making a pretty poor showing at the moment and much of their latest gear doesn’t seem to be working too well.
Drones are and unmanned weapon platforms are of course all the rage at the moment but this is simply another manifestation of the pendulum swinging between offense and defence. It used to be all about guns versus armour back in the Victorian navy days and topped out at 16 inch guns and 24 inch armour until things got a bit ridiculous as these huge guns took ages to reload and were unlikely to hit a moving target while ships became unable to carry the weight of armour needed to defeat them. And then the French came up with the idea of a navy on the cheap whereby small, nimble torpedo boats could ‘swarm’ battleships and make them obsolete. It never happened, although the torpedo (along with the bomb), did kill off the battleship when used from aircraft, and, to a lesser extent, submarines.
Drones are having some success in Ukraine because they are operating over land where the targets are easily identified. As one of our Admirals has said, it’s a different story at sea because the targets are moving around and have to be found. So to make a successful strike, the drone or missile must be guided in some way. Either via a remote link or by using its own active and passive sensors which in both cases render it electronically or physically vulnerable to defensive action. At the moment the latter will be surface or to air missiles, electronic jamming or high volume gunfire. Many warships now building are being given extra electrical generating capacity to allow for the use of high energy beam weapons as they become available. And so the pendulum begins to swing back.
Colin
-
Perhaps because a couple of them fly out of Goodwood, not that far away, and they just happened to spot both carriers below them?
And those spits are both tandem cockpit (experience flips )
-
The implication, therefore, is that weaponry delivery systems have to be reactive. They need to be adaptable in a much shorter time than POW/Type26 etc. The actual weapon, whether a lump of stuff to hit with or a "magic" beam is irrelevant. Nor is whatever fires/transmits the payload over a relatively short distance to the target. Drones are cheap, can be cloud launched and are adaptable. Any supposedly "worldwide" navy is going to have to carry the drone/unmanned plane/boat/vehicle to the theatre, as it did in mid 1982 and in that context Prince of Wales is worse than Ben-my-Cree because the latter fulfilled the "now" while the production line, including the political musings, of the former is typically disastrous.
H >>:-( rrump!
-
You are not wrong, aircraft carriers have their uses, but they are extremely vulnerable to missiles and have been for some time. Just think half a dozen super sonic missiles coming in and it only needs one to hit. I see those 3 x hi tec destroyers they have are now being armed with 9 x super sonic missiles, says something.
-
You are not wrong, aircraft carriers have their uses, but they are extremely vulnerable to missiles and have been for some time.
Ah, but we don't know that for sure as no aircraft carriers have been hit by missiles to date. As with all weapon systems, it is only when they are actually in action that you will see the reality. As an example, who would have expected the Russian tanks invading Ukraine to be so vulnerable to portable anti tank missiles? They stored their ammunition in the turret next to the crew and when hit, everything exploded and blew the turret sky high. I bellieve the American tanks store their ammunition separately from the crew compartment which gives the crew a better chance of survival. In any event, the cost of a shouder mounted missile is peanuts compared with the cost of a destroyed modern main battle tank.
Aircraft carriers are expected to be screened by their escorting ships and submarines and also their own aircraft which detect incoming threats. It is a layered defence and the emphasis is on co ordinated electronic management and reaction to incoming threats by all the vessels and aircraft involved. That is why everything is so expensive these days.
The underlying lesson is that things do not always turn out as expected and this has always been the case so the outcome of a conflict can be very difficult to predict. The Russians expected to just roll over Ukraine with their superior numbers but have been fought to a standstill and reduced to simply lobbing shells and missiles into Ukranian territory which might do a lot of collateral damage but doesn't necessarily impact much on the military situation.
There is a lot being said about hypersonic missilles but also evidence that they are not necessarily that effective against a moving target which requires last minute course corrections at high speed. A near miss is still a miss and American carriers undergo shock tests to check that they are resistant to proximity explosions.
All of us armchair warriors don't know the half of it!
Colin
-
Ah, but we don't know that for sure as no aircraft carriers have been hit by missiles to date. As with all weapon systems, it is only when they are actually in action that you will see the reality. As an example, who would have expected the Russian tanks invading Ukraine to be so vulnerable to portable anti tank missiles? They stored their ammunition in the turret next to the crew and when hit, everything exploded and blew the turret sky high. I bellieve the American tanks store their ammunition separately from the crew compartment which gives the crew a better chance of survival. In any event, the cost of a shouder mounted missile is peanuts compared with the cost of a destroyed modern main battle tank.
Hi Colin
The main reason discovered as to why Russian tanks seem to be so susceptible to the anti-tank missiles has found to be that the explosive reactive armour (ERA) isn’t actually fitted! What appears to ERA plates are just the plates without the explosive part! So they look all singing and dancing modern tanks but in reality they are only pretending. And as you say, the internal layout doesn’t help either with internal explosions.
-
That's really interesting Nick. Is the implication that somebody has syphoned off the funding for the reactive armour or was it never fitted in the first place due to budget constraints?
I have only visited Russia once on a Baltic cruise calling at St Petersburg. The palaces etc. were spectacular but it is an alien place. We were there for two days and took two coach excursions to see the sights. During these we witnessed no less than 30 separate road accidents. One was a huge fire involving two vehicles. There were survivors sitting on the roadside and other victims dying in the burning wreckage as we subsequently heard. Meanwhile the traffic just kept flowing around the conflagration as if it was just a minor obstruction. Just unbelievable really.
Colin
-
Hi Colin
No-one is 100% certain which is the case as both are plausible.
I’ve always wanted to see the Aurora but I think that’ll never be possible with current events and my job being exact opposites of what is considered to be safe or wise.
-
We missed seeing the Aurora too due to traffic delays. Still, there is always the Averoff in Greece.
Colin
-
Aircraft carriers are expected to be screened by their escorting ships and submarines and also their own aircraft which detect incoming threats. It is a layered defence and the emphasis is on co ordinated electronic management and reaction to incoming threats by all the vessels and aircraft involved. That is why everything is so expensive these days.
It's not just the escorts which support the carriers. What's important as well is the supply vessels which, generally, are soft targets. No fuel, spares or food and the shooting stops. Little boats such as those below worked in the Straights of Hormuz. They can carry anti ship missiles with ranges up to 170Km for the Chinese C705 or they can come in close with batteries of 8 short range ones.
You may find the attached intesting O0
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/iran-boosts-ircg-navy-swarm-attack-capabilities/
-
Yes, an interesting article.
Colin
-
Remember that the two large modern for then Italian Battle ships of the Litta Loro class were sunk by one remote controlled 350lb aerial bomb each dropped from 40,000 ft. As mention before the Chinese developed some years ago 7.5 ton missile with 1600mile range, which leaves low orbit then dives vertical at the intended floating target, much like the old V2's. If one of those missles hit the Gerald Ford it would not need a warhead as it's kinetic energy would disable it or probably sink it. As our previous comment mentions the soft target, when the old previous class of three , were at sea, following below the horizon was a RFA Fort class vessel as their mobile bomb bay.
-
Hi Dodes
The Fritz X flying bomb is the weapon you’re thinking of- three of them sunk the Roma- they had 720lb war heads fired by a Dornier 217 at about 18,000ft which had to stay in visual contact with the target so they could correct via radio control. The most famous battleship to be hit by two of them was the Warspite which survived the attack but quite badly damaged.
The main issue that modern missiles still suffer is that they still have to find the target and at sea it’s difficult to find a moving vessel and even then it must be a nightmare to actually hit it due to sea conditions and weather conditions.
-
Hi Nick, yeah I was watching a programme on t/v and that was what the figure was given, one bomg went down right through the armoured decks and blew a whacking great hole in the bottom of the hull shell, but what I am saying a 7.5 ton vertical diving missile at the faster than the speed of town will take out a aircraft carrier or disable it to such an extant it is none operational. These super sonic missiles do not need a warhead as their kinetic energy is like a tactical nuclear bomb going off. Though I hear our new carriers are not supposed to get within 1600 miles of a hot area, that is the reasion given for not shock trialling them or fitting any of their equipment on shock absorbent mountings which used to be the norm. There is a use for them , but what I believe is that they are now going the way of the battleship. Against small countries with limited weaponery okay but China or even Russia, then !!!!
-
but what I believe is that they are now going the way of the battleship.
Actually they are becoming more numerous! America are committed to replacing their Nimitz class, Russia is spending a lot of money trying to refurbish the ancient one they have got, Japan are building one and converting two other ships to fixed wing operations, India has just commissioned a new one in addition to the second hand one they have, France has one and is designing a nuclear powered replacement, Spain and Italy both have one small one each. Carriers have never been more popular since WW2.
Colin
-
Aye Colin the major navies seem to be building new updated, though most seem to be fixed wing carriers which tells us something, but at 71 soon 72 I am more interested now in my spirit store than new warships. New boats come with a fanfare, then along comes something more newer and the former goes the way of the former on a beach with low paid workers with sledge hammers and gas axes ripping them apart. Watched the film " Sink the Bismarck" I was impressed when the last Ark Royal played her name sake in the film, she really looked the part of a pucker carrier and she had a full load of fixed wing aircraft. But before I sign off i wish everyone on this site A happy and prosperous New Year. (At least I manage to get some comments on this page!!!!)
-
Spain and Italy both have one small one each
[/size]
I thought that was Goring and Himmler.
-
When was the last time an aircraft carrier was used, by anyone, practically in anger and not (a) to give assistance with civil disasters or (b) a psychological projection of national ego? I honestly don't know {:-{
-
Russia sent there's to Syria and I believe it flew off aircraft in offensive sorties. Of course that didn't last long as the carrier was soon non operational and limping home.
-
On that basis, when was the last time a nuclear submarine fired an ICBM in anger? It's all about power projection and deterrent.
In fact the last time a carrier used fixed wing planes in anger was in 2016/2017 by the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov during the Syrian campaign. Two planes were lost in accidents.
Then of course back in 1982, the Hermes and Invincible were key assets in the Falklands War with many sorties against the Argentine forces with their Harrier aircraft. They were vital to the war effort.
The measure of success of a naval asset is not necessarily determined by it's military strikes but in th extent it deters enemy action. The presence of the RN nuclear submarines kept the Argentinian navy in port after the sinking of the General Belgrano and the two carriers provided air defence over the Islands while they were retaken by British forces - a pretty convincing demonstration of applied naval air power.
The two QE class carriers have been labelled as targets by Russia and China but they don't sail alone and in order to get to one involves taking on their integrated support forces which include nuclear attack submarines. Same applies even more to the US Carrier groups.
To hit a carrier the incoming missile has to face the support group defences and then the target will be moving around very quickly. A carirer at full speed will cover its own length in under 30 seconds which doesn't give much opportunity for course correction by incoming missiles especially in the face of electronic countermeasures. Hypersonic missiles are subject to course correction issues in identifying the target and making last minute changes at those speeds. All very difficult stuff in a real life sitiuation.
Colin
-
The presence of the RN nuclear submarines kept the Argentinian navy in port
... A certain R. N. diesel / electric Patrol submarine also performed this vital role throughout the campaign. (name of the boat withheld) ;)
Aye,
Ray.
-
Interesting! But where was it based as the diesel electric subs don't have the range or endurance of the nuclear boats?
Colin
-
As far as I'm aware that information remains under wraps Colin, even now... %)
Ray.
-
and refuelling at sea or while at anchor could still be done, as long as no one notices it next to a tanker during the night
-
Cricky <*< ....it's been #37 posts since October 2022, when any mention was made to the HMS Prince of Wales..... so offered or presented here
What was the price offered and accepted [so far] by workers at Rosyth Dockyard to keep closed lips? :-X :P :-X :P :-X :P :-X :P :-X :P :-X
Derek
-
So Kuznetsov worked in a mainly friendly Syrian environment and the 20 year old Hermes alongside Invincible worked but the support group suffered rather a lot, so how much luck rather than judgement? Don't forget the Arctic Conveyor as well! How much did she cost to build? Bu**er all in relative terms. %)
-
Here you go Derek! She should be mended by the Spring. Of course one never really knows when Spring will be these days with climate change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-64146381
https://www.forces.net/news/repairs-hms-prince-wales-will-continue-until-spring-2023
Colin
-
... A certain R. N. diesel / electric Patrol submarine also performed this vital role throughout the campaign. (name of the boat withheld) ;)
Aye,
Ray.
You mean the one that ran aground? I think it was an "O" boat.
LB
-
You mean the one that ran aground? I think it was an "O" boat.
LB
Well, it was definitely an O-boat :-))
Ray
-
Hms Onyx? She left Plymouth on 26 April for Ascension island were she picked up some SAS bods for ops down south.
-
I reckon it was Onyx too - read about it’s Falkland’s trip about a week ago!
Phil
-
Colin ref the con/sub, easy, they have endurance to cross the Atlantic to the USA, so a couple of R/V's with a RFA and they can play all day and all week in the area.
-
Hi is the Onyx the same class as the HMAS Oven at the Sydney maritime museum? ( A lovely example of what a maritime museum should be, as well as Perth)
Roy
-
Roy...HMAS Ovens was one of your famed Oberon Class submarines.......
In earlier life, I walked & ducked & crawled in an operational Oberon Class boat at my workplace, however the Russian submarine at the Maritime Museum [Foxtrot 540] was more spectacular.....
But all of this ..... >>:-( has nothing to do with the thread subject HMS Prince of Wales in dock at Rosyth........ :-X
Derek
-
Hi Derek I agree that the PoW is the title of this thread but it is new and the underlying point is that was the construction of these ships the right way to go? There also seem to be some rather public breakdowns as well. Then you wonder about spending our money etc.
I know there is much planning and building time before they become active naval units and accept that those at the top need to plan for the future. Other developments will also be on-going and possibly as counter-measures. For instance Iran is producing drones and they have a 'swarm' approach to attacking large naval units.
Iran has small boats carrying torpedos or small missiles, over 100 of them, with speeds of 50 knots to developing ones that can attain over 100 knots. You can appreciate it may only require one or two to get close. Carriers are not battleships but may need to take damage and still remain active.
It is always an escalating problem and then comes along another option, like the high energy 'beam'.
I am learning a lot with this thread but I think the end will always be the same, it is best to be friendly rather than aggressive!
Regards to you Derek, I am on my way late February to Oz and think I will re-visit the Naval museum.
Roy
-
Evening Roy...trust you will pack a pair of Speedos [swinging trunks] for your visit to OZ [just imagine you on the 10m tower %) at the Andrew (Boy) Charlton Pool immediately opposite Garden Island Dockyard
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f601cfdd56e6761fJmltdHM9MTY3Mjc5MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0xYTRmYWU1MS05Yzk0LTZiNDUtMjQyOS1iZmFjOWRhNjZhNmImaW5zaWQ9NTIxNQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1a4fae51-9c94-6b45-2429-bfac9da66a6b&psq=Andrew+(Boy)+Charlton+Poo&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2l0eW9mc3lkbmV5Lm5zdy5nb3YuYXUvcG9vbHMvYW5kcmV3LWJveS1jaGFybHRvbi1wb29s&ntb=1 (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f601cfdd56e6761fJmltdHM9MTY3Mjc5MDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0xYTRmYWU1MS05Yzk0LTZiNDUtMjQyOS1iZmFjOWRhNjZhNmImaW5zaWQ9NTIxNQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1a4fae51-9c94-6b45-2429-bfac9da66a6b&psq=Andrew+(Boy)+Charlton+Poo&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2l0eW9mc3lkbmV5Lm5zdy5nb3YuYXUvcG9vbHMvYW5kcmV3LWJveS1jaGFybHRvbi1wb29s&ntb=1)
The images are old, as the 250 tonne Hammerhead crane at GID is long gone, the diving boards at the Pools have also been removed, as we all know that Olympic sport of Diving is dangerous O0
I fully understand how WEB Group threads can drift away, or on top of the original subject, however this thread is so important both to understand what caused the fault, and the consequences of the fix......accountability is another word :P
Having worked for my country's Australian Department of Defence [Navy], I am not sure the final Report into the loss or proposition on the Prince of Wales will not be necessarily designed to be understood by the masses or General Public
I understand the daily news tells of as you say, high-speed dromes and a whole gambit of new attach or assault weapons, however these new developments really should be the subject under a new WEB thread
Derek
-
Hi Roy, Just re. Iran that I posted earlier https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/iran-boosts-ircg-navy-swarm-attack-capabilities/ (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/iran-boosts-ircg-navy-swarm-attack-capabilities/)
It's also worth considering that modelling potential future ships is likely to be rather boring since they'll either be subs or vessels without any of the "bits" stuck on all over :-))
-
Hi Derek, I am too old for Speedos! But have 3 pairs of ordinary ones.
But back to the thread Derek!!! :}2
I was checking up on the USA aircraft carriers as used in WW2 and they had no fewer than 151 during the war period. Many of the famous actions were focussed on the big ones especially the Enterprise. The large A/C had 70 odd aircraft and with several of them they could use the 'swarm' idea to overwhelm the enemy defence systems.
But the majority were escort carriers and probably the best accompanyment for convoys. Built in the famous Henry Kaiser yards at incredible speed with around 20 aircraft. The smaller ones in a convoy protection group were the observation and single attack on enemy submarines, so a different purpose.Maybe it is better to have a few more of the smaller ones as the aircraft now cost so much to build.
It has been highlighted recently that the modern container world distribution system is incredibly vulnerable.
One of the current overheads is the number of the crew and this has been a driving point for new builds. The big ones like the Nimitz from memory have 3000 personnel, I think I read we have 700 crew on the PoW but it goes up to 1600 with the possible 36 aircraft on board.
There is probably a happy number of crew v size v aircraft carried, I do not know what that is but maybe we are seeing this with the 2 Carriers we have?
It is noted that they are both driven with non-atomic propulsion. Is this part of the minimum crew numbers or politically so they can visit young Derek down under? O0
Regards
Roy
-
Evening TonyH.........as you well have shown.......there is a clear need for the opening of a new Thread here
This evening, I read that ski-doo jet ski's were the basis for new military naval drones which may have been involved with the sinking of Moskuvia
Would you be prepared to open this new thread & leave the PofW loss of proposition story to cleanly progress O0 ...if there was a design fault, naturally the RN would have checked the HMS Queen Elizabeth & the issue rectified........but this is talk under this original thread
Derek
-
Hi Derek,
I'll put a test thread on this section, simply because it's physically the closest. Comments as to the need would be appreciated and, of course, Martin may consider that it either falls into a different pot or it could also edge into the quicksand of politics and so be outside the ideals of Mayhem.
Best Wishes
Tony
-
Have came across info, that the other shaft in the P.o.W has a similar problem which needs now to be attended to.
-
Yes, I saw that too. They are saying that the QE is not affected though.
Colin
-
I bet the Chiefy on HMSQNLZ is spending a lot of time with his ear to the deck dreading strange noises
-
QE has done a lot of mileage without reported problems so perhaps the issue with PoW is that the problem was introduced in the construction process. The other posts and reports suggest that quality standards were not always what they should have been.
Colin
-
Perhaps they purchased 2 sets of shaft bearings off eBay.
-
Reminds me of the last Invincible, used to suffer vibration and got through two shaft gearbox's, when they decided enough is a enough and she operated on one shaft only for some years.
-
Reminds me of the last Invincible, used to suffer vibration and got through two shaft gearbox's, when they decided enough is a enough and she operated on one shaft only for some years.
That's interesting dodes, care to share your source? I have long-term plans to build Invincible in 1/72 so am always on the lookout for any verifiable info related to her. I also worked on her first major Refit at Devonport when I was a lad (Fitter & Turner), so have a decent understanding of her Marine Engineering Plant, including her Main Propulsion Gearboxes which were the largest Marine Boxes ever installed in any Ship when she was built. Pretty big job to change them out.
She certainly did suffer from vibration from one shaftline at certain power settings.
Nige
-
People I know who were in the MoD, when she was operational, and one of the reasons why the Aussies decided not to buy her when offered not long after the Falklands was the vibration issue(which was published in the press at the time, her second gearbox was fitted in Gibraltar.
-
People I know who were in the MoD, when she was operational, and one of the reasons why the Aussies decided not to buy her when offered not long after the Falklands was the vibration issue(which was published in the press at the time, her second gearbox was fitted in Gibraltar.
So to clarify dodes, you were told by your source that Invincible had an entire Main Propulsion Gearbox replaced at Gib. Not just consumables such as bearings, couplings or clutches. An entire main Gearbox?
Nige
-
It was in the Naval paper, made a great thing of how they replaced the gearbox etc at the time, as they said it was such a big and difficult job, even had photos of the new one being brought in board.
-
I knew that engine replacements had been done away from home port but not a gearbox.
Colin
-
Hi Colin, yes I remember seeing the picture on the front page and reading about it inside. It was in that paper that is produced for Naval serving and retired personnel, it's name has gone from me at the moment but we have all seen it in newsagents. As mentioned it was a beast of a thing in size, but with due diligence and planning they did it(I think they still had boy artificer trained engine room personnel then).
-
It was in that paper that is produced for Naval serving and retired personnel, it's name has gone from me at the moment but we have all seen it in newsagents.
Navy News :-))
Ray.
-
There are reports in the press today suggesting that both propshafts on PoW were incorrectly installed and are misaligned and that the ship may be out of service until the Autumn. The finger is being pointed at Thales who were apparently responsible.
Also stated that the construction consortium that built the ship is liable for the cost of repairs.
Colin
-
The finger is being pointed at Thales who were apparently responsible.
[/size][/font]
French --- Delayed Retribution ---Mers el Kabir
-
Apparently a Norwegian sub contractor actually did the work.....
Colin
-
The way everyone is clearing their yardarm, I expect they will blame the sandwich van for not putting enough butter in?
-
QE seems to be OK at the moment and if the components were the same then it sugests that it was the installation process that was at fault.
I suppose we shouldn't be too critical given the number of driveline problems that crop up on model boat forums!
Colin
-
Didn't realize that the Norwegians built Subs and probably used Hewcos {-)
Regards Ian.
-
and probably used Hucos
Yes, obviously nobody warned them off using the red ones....
Colin
-
laAnglo-French row erupts over breakdown of Britain’s £3bn aircraft carrier (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anglo-french-row-erupts-over-breakdown-of-britain-s-3bn-aircraft-carrier/ar-AA17ki3J?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8b2b881043a7412cae04e5ba1b0f9a25) The latest on Microsoft Edge.test on Microsoft Edge.
-
No mention of the Norwegian sub contractor in that report.
Colin
-
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/royal-navy-faces-multi-million-pound-bill-to-fix-carrier-which-broke-down-after-leaving-harbour/ar-AA18M5js?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=32aa2a6b884449e6b42976afb21878c7&ei=131
-
Don't you just love it when they say "Lessons must be learned"! Perhaps the Navy should have members who have already learned their lessons, much cheaper for us that way.
I give up on the political side as mentioned, but we have been there before and we do remember some of the previous lessons.
I sometimes feel that when I go to the pond to sail a model boat I am better prepared and have done the necessary checking to have a successful outing.
regards
Roy
-
An interesting review of the Prince of Wales and the RN.......a little one-sided, and not sure how objective ........ :P Derek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRl7rP_PGf0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRl7rP_PGf0)
-
Generally an accurate and fair minded account I think. Two important considerations missing though.
1. The RN was originally forced to choose between the carriers and more destroyers and frigates. The Admirals gambled that once the carriers were building, the Government would be forced to provide sufficient escorts for them to protect the assets. This hasn't happened.
2. The carriers, and indeed other RN vessels are intended, to work with other NATO allies to make up task forces and they provide many of the escort ships.
A seperate issue is incompetent and ignorant politicians with little understanding of defence issues. When justifying the RN cuts and retirement of the Invincible class carriers early, David Cameron said that there was no threat from Russia in the forseeable future and that we only needed to plan for 'brushfire' and terrorist related conflict so only smaller less capable vessels would be needed.
The video stated that Albion and Bulwark have been retired to save money but that proposal was not proceeded with and I understand that both ships are scheduuled to remain in the fleet until the early 2030s. I also read that one would be operational at any one time with the other in maintenanance or available for reactivation.
One other thing not mentioned is that the RN doesn't have enough crew to man the ships they have!
Colin
-
Hi Colin, reference the Albion and her sister ship, is since new only one has been operational and the other to provide spares to keep the other at sea.
-
Yes, they have been taking it in turns from what I have read but the one in reserve is officially in extended readiness. I can understand why it would be used to provide spares at short notice but presumbly those items are replaced at some point?
Interesting ships though, I visited one at Plymouth when we still had Navy Days.
Colin
-
More recent comment on repair costs............... :P
https://www.forces.net/technology/sea-vessels/repairs-fix-hms-prince-wales-could-cost-ps20-million#:~:text=Sea%20vessels-,Repairs%20to%20fix%20HMS%20Prince%20of,cost%20%C2%A320m%2C%20reports%20suggest&text=at%208%3A50am-,Repairs%20to%20HMS%20Prince%20of%20Wales%20will%20reportedly%20cost%20%C2%A3,%C2%A320m%2C%20according%20to%20reports.
Derek
-
After a similar failure has now also been identified in the Port prop shaft bearing .Quote !
"The Vice Admiral was "confident" propulsion faults on board HMS Prince of Wales do not signal a "class issue" which would also impede HMS Queen Elizabeth, following "appropriate checks
Reminds me of when the car dealership telling me " I can assure you sir that it is not a problem , They all tend to make that noise !" That was just before the crank rod exited through the crank case.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/stricken-3-2bn-royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-hms-prince-of-wales-reduced-to-acting-as-a-scrap-yard/ar-AA1acHyP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=05f87f60f96b453b9e6ab03a9e570b3d&ei=72
-
I don't think there is anything much new here at the moment. The report has some anomalies as one might expect, the Daily Mail is not noted for its accuracy. One prop was damaged when the shaft originally broke but is presumably being repaired. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with the other prop, it is the other shaft which has been identified has having misalignment issues like the first one.
It is not surprising that parts are being taken off and fitted to QE which is having to shoulder a higher than expected workload. One just hopes that replacements have been ordered but with the MOD one never knows.
I read that PoW had been scheduled for maintenance this year anyway and that it may be brought forward which will extend the current time out of service which would account for the reference to a year laid up. Obviously her planned schedule went out the window last August so everything will have to be rejigged and unfortunately that always seems to result in delays.
From what reasonably reliable information has emerged, I would agree that the PoW problems were down to poor assembly procedures which might have been due to rushing the job or because of the lack of qualified engineers (which may amount to the same thing!)
I noticed QE in Portsmouth on Thursday with a marquee erected on the flight deck so presumably some work being done there.
It does seem that the USA value our carriers more than we do!
Colin
-
Hi Colin, yes the marquees seemed to be erected every time these vessels are in so i have noticed, could be the down thrust jet burning of the paint? But I do know the P.o.W limped into Pompey from new with the inter shaft coupling on one shaft on the point of complete failure. Expect like most MoD vessels since the Leander's have been built with major problems of one thing or the other. But I know one thing they will never do shock trials on this class as the type 45's they do not have resilient mountings for their equipment.
-
£25 million repair bill after a few days operation hardly seems good value to the ratepayers. Sadly another exercise in the British shi_building industry. :((
Regards Ian.
-
Sadly another exercise in the British shi_building industry.
It was reported that the main contractor for the failed shaft units was French, the sub contractor that made them Norwegian!
Details here:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-firm-thales-is-focus-of-inquiry-into-faulty-aircraft-carrier-hms-prince-of-wales-jnws7c2lz
Colin
-
Part of the problem is overseeing contract branch and a lack of trained qualified overseer's plus the MoD keep altering the specs for the build as the vessels are being built. Like the type 45's it was agreed after build that the gas turbines for the generators were not suitable for hot areas, but the contractors got away with it because the MoD did not specify in the contract that the vessels would have to go into hot area's!
-
Perhaps in this instance the contract didn't specify that the propellers needed to revolve... :-)
Colin
-
I wonder if the new incumbent to the Princedom would wish a name change for the strife stricken bucket.? Suggestions ?? {:-{ HMS Haemorroid
-
Materials Investigations [into failed mechanical components] should be able to determine if the root cause of failure was a mechanical defect in manufacture, or a component failure due to environment [the physical installation]?
However the respective quality assurance documents for all of the as manufactured components for the vessel also should be able to represent and defend themselves individually as to the suitability of use for an as installed components
Unfortunately, the British News of the World suggests I subscribe and pay one British Pound just to read the News paper story <*<
Derek
-
The Times link CB has posted needs a log in too. After more than fifty year in manufacturing industries, Mods are the bane of production. In the UK we seem to be constantly trying to polish the same old t_ _ _, Classic example the Nimrods scrapped before they were finished. At least we're not unique, Microsloth work under the same blanket. Regards Ian.
-
Navy Lookout has just posted a more informative report which incorporates the material in th Times article.
https://www.navylookout.com/repairs-to-hms-prince-of-wales-will-not-prevent-return-to-operations-this-summer/
Colin
-
I do like the inclusion :- one of the aircraft lifts failed, probably due to exposure to the harsh marine environment (or not being adequately matelot proof!) Thats what comes of allowing sailors on board.
-
The Times link CB has posted needs a log in too. After more than fifty year in manufacturing industries, Mods are the bane of production. In the UK we seem to be constantly trying to polish the same old t_ _ _, Classic example the Nimrods scrapped before they were finished. At least we're not unique, Microsloth work under the same blanket. Regards Ian.
Scrapped because they had major issues with leaks, were over budget and had many other problems, so a good move
Bob
-
No, the unfinished airframes in the back yard. Can't have a refuelling leak unless the engines are fitted.
Regards Ian
-
Don't worry about newspaper subscriptions, simply open a paywall bypass https://12ft.io/ (https://12ft.io/) in a browser and add the URL you want to visit.
-
It was in the Naval paper, made a great thing of how they replaced the gearbox etc at the time, as they said it was such a big and difficult job, even had photos of the new one being brought in board.
Only just read this thread and I’m sorry but the comment above is absolute tosh. Invincible may have had a plummer block fitted, I really have no idea, but the only carrier to have a total gearbox rebuild was HMS Illustrious, after her fire which was caused by a gearbox malfunction and oil vapour explosion. It took 3 months to rebuild and was undertaken in Portsmouth dockyard in 1986.
[/size][size=78%]I know because I had just come off watch as the Engineer Officer of the watch.[/size]
-
Only just read this thread and I’m sorry but the comment above is absolute tosh. Invincible may have had a plummer block fitted, I really have no idea, but the only carrier to have a total gearbox rebuild was HMS Illustrious, after her fire which was caused by a gearbox malfunction and oil vapour explosion. It took 3 months to rebuild and was undertaken in Portsmouth dockyard in 1986.
[size=78%]I know because I had just come off watch as the Engineer Officer of the watch.[/size]
Thanks very much for your input PJM, I withdrew from this thread when I realised I was not going to get anywhere.
As stated before, (and you will of course be aware of this, I'm relating the following info for other Members) these David Brown Boxes were the biggest of their kind when installed in the Invincibles. Weighing in at approximately 170 tons, they each had a total of 19 Gears, 55 White-Metal Journal Bearings, four Hydraulic Couplings and two of the brilliant S.S.S Clutches.
To give some idea of their size see attached images. If I can figure out how to add them.
Nigel
-
The large gearbox images are here thankyou Nigel........
Is this one of two speed reducers for the drive lines on the Invincible Class?...or is this a combined speed reducer for both power lines?
In a previous life I supervised 'work' on 5" gun mounts and Missile Launchers for our RAN...so have an understanding of Naval life & protocol during Dockyard goings on ....
[image below] ....is this an Officer inspecting proceedings?
I remember RO6 [Illustrious] attending our RAN 75th Anniversary here in Sydney ...years ago
Derek
[apologies if I have drifted to far from the HMS Prince of Wales progress]
-
Hi Derek,
The Invincible Class had two shafts with fixed-pitch Propellors (incidentally, these were at the time, the largest ever made for the RN, only surpassed in size by those fitted to the QE Class now). Each independent shaft-line was driven by two Rolls Royce Olympus TM-3B Gas Turbines via one of these reversing gearboxes........so yes, two separate sets of gearing.
As to the person you have highlighted in Ark Royal image, it could be the Queen Mother for all I know :-) .
Nigel
-
I remember RO6 [Illustrious] attending our RAN 75th Anniversary here in Sydney ...years ago
Derek
[apologies if I have drifted to far from the HMS Prince of Wales progress]
I was on Illustrious when she visited Sydney in 1986 for the RAN birthday. What a show you guys organised.
I spent 3 years on her the first 18 months I was in charge of the flight deck section, aircraft lifts, hydraulics, stabilisers, hp air, flight deck and hangar power supplies, liquid oxygen plant and countless other items if kit. Then 18 months in charge of the propulsion systems, GT’s, gearboxes, shafts etc. An interesting time.
-
So PJM says......."What a show you guys organised"......
From where we stood underneath the Hammerhead Crane...the show was on the other foot on the day the BB63 berthed
Do you remember?.........Greenie Anti Neucs in a Rubber Duckie attempted to place themselves [side to side like a black Dolphin] at the bow of USS Missouri as she made her way to the berth
Illustrious was moored just down at Woolloomooloo, and promptly dispatched an embarked Chopper up toward the now 2 x Rubber Duckies..... the Chopper Pilot altered rotor blades somehow & blasted the Greenies up toward the Harbour Bridge .....to the great applause of many.
Well done Illustrious
-
Illustrious had some wind surfer dude hanging onto the bow as we came in. Loved seeing the Aussie harbour police beating his hands with a baton to make him let go.
There is a video on you tube for those interested [size=78%]https://youtu.be/hzB_oYQ1fb0 (https://youtu.be/hzB_oYQ1fb0)[/size]
-
Nice video link PJM, thanks for sharing.
Nige
-
An interesting speculative video about upgrading the QE class carriers. (you'll need to skip over the initial advert though)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM7xTL65quo
Further information on Navy Lookout togehter with an article on the poor condition of several Type 23 Frigates which might lead to early retirement.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navy-has-ambitious-plans-for-its-future-maritime-aviation-force/
Colin
-
Hi Colin, i think most people have been saying for some time now, that the carriers should have built with angle decks and catapults from new. Perhaps they may in time catch up with the old proper carriers.
-
Yes, but they weren't to save money. Could have been very expensive given the problems the USN have had with their electromagnetic catapults.
However I do recall reading that the two QE's were built with future upgrades in mind, These articles confirm that there is space under the flight deck for equipment to be fitted.
Colin
-
Yes, the QE carriers were built with space for upgrades to launch and recovery. But the ambitious list of capability upgrades given in the video (by 2030!) sounds to me like a wish list too far. :((
Greg
-
As mentioned on another thread, HMS Prince of Wales is now out of drydock and being readied for service.
https://www.navylookout.com/
Colin
-
Good news for the RN........
Watch the video %) https://www.navylookout.com/ (https://www.navylookout.com/) at 35 seconds you can see the clearance between Dock wall and the hull of the PofW :embarrassed:
Derek
-
Good news indeed Derek. Quite an amazing effort considering (according to the gutter press and armchair engineers who believe the trash they print to meet their words per day KPI) she had apparently been stripped of parts for spares to keep her sistership going.
Having said that, "Prepare to Repel Boarders".
Nige <*<
-
Snug fit. :}
-
If you think that is snug then read this:
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-queen-elizabeth-sails-for-the-first-time-today-heres-the-plan/
When passing out through the lock after leaving the drydock there is only one foot of clearance each side and not much more under her keel.
Colin
-
Good news indeed Derek. Quite an amazing effort considering (according to the gutter press and armchair engineers who believe the trash they print to meet their words per day KPI) she had apparently been stripped of parts for spares to keep her sistership going.
Having said that, "Prepare to Repel Boarders".
Nige <*<
It would be difficult to survive the amount of salt you need when reading press bilge.
A tip I learnt about media is: If the headline is a question then it has no new information and does not answer the question. It just rehashes old information and provides indistinct hints at unproven or derivative information.
-
My word, next thing we'll be believing what Politicians tell us. Strange how the BBC haven't (to my knowledge) broadcast anything about the large ULEZ protest outside their HQ at the weekend, are they trying to hide something we should all be aware of?
Keep smiling people,
Pete. :-)) :-)) :-))
-
Interesting and rather depressing report on Navy Lookout on the Government's just published Defence Command Paper. Simply papering over the cracks really. Defence, just like so many other vital issues is pigeonholed in the 'too difficult' box and the can kicked merrily down the road... <:(
https://www.navylookout.com/defence-command-paper-2023-implications-for-the-royal-navy/
Colin
-
PoW returned to Portsmouth yesterday 4th August.
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2023-08-03/hms-prince-of-wales-due-home-after-nine-months-of-repairs-says-navy-document
Livestream video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0-RZr3EzBw
Ingnorant comments with the video asking why no planes on deck....
Colin
-
I got some shots of her return to Portsmouth yesterday. Notice the lack of Phalanx guns. Probably being serviced in a nondescript shed somewhere between Portsmouth and Scotland. They are saying back in service in the Autumn, so some tinkering still to do. Mavic Mini 2 was the camera platform.
-
I didn't realise that the QE Class Carriers had a 3rd Phalanx CIWS installed.........[could never understand why 2 only were in the original plan >>:-( ]
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-gets-additional-phalanx-gun/ (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-gets-additional-phalanx-gun/)
These same CIWS were within the scope of my maintenance supervision with the Above Water Weapons Group for our RAN, their degree of reliability was extremely high with literally only sub-assemblies [electronic modules, hydraulic drive modules or a cannon barrel changeout] - certainly, no complete CIWS [6000kg] was ever lifted off any of our Adelaide Class FFG's during those years, even during a 1/2 life refits
If I understood my previous readings correctly, I believe we were told that the P of W draft was critical for her emergency Babcock Rosyth docking due to tides etc, so my only logical thought is that the 3 complete CIW Sytems modules [some 18000kg total] were lifted off the P of W as a weight saving prior to the docking?
The proof of the Pudding %) will be if they are installed promptly
Derek
-
Both alongside now so who is defending us?
-
I cannot distinguish between the two vessels %) , but if this is the Prince of Wales closest to the camera, they have already reinstalled at least one x Phalanx CIWS....and there appears to be a larger white tarpaulin just above & FWD the CIWS platform
Derek
-
Queen Elizabeth closest to the camera and Prince of Wales to the north of her.
-
Oh well...I am sure they will reinstall the 3 x CIWS in due course
It had me a little confused with the original as designed with 2 only CIWS, however even with 3 of the systems still allows for substantial blind spots [especially on her STDB quarter], and vessels of this size/tonnage cannot turn in time to align after an inbound sea skimming missile is intercepted
The arc of fire for each of the 3 CIWS as installed on the QE Class Carriers is shown in the following article
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-gets-additional-phalanx-gun/ (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-gets-additional-phalanx-gun/)
Derek
-
To counter these similar Carrier blind spots, the Americans are installing [in addition to 3 x CIWS], 2 x SeaRAM launchers........the following detail from the Wiki people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile)
The SeaRAM combines the radar and electro-optical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-optics) system of the Phalanx CIWS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS) Mk-15 Block 1B (CRDC) with an 11-cell RAM launcher to produce an autonomous system—one which does not need any external information to engage threats. Like the Phalanx, SeaRAM can be fitted to any class of ship. Due to the common mounting, SeaRAM inherits the relatively easy installation characteristics of its gun-based sibling, with Raytheon stating that SeaRAM "fits the exact shipboard installation footprint of the Phalanx, uses the same power and requires minimal shipboard modification"
A thought for the future of the QE Class carrier?
-
I think we are putting faith in offboard defence. The Type 45 is getting 'up gunned' with an addition of a Sea Ceptor VLS bank in front of the existing Sea Viper system, covering closer threats. With a similar fit rolling out through the fleet, hopefully we wont need to sprout any more Phalanx and related toys out of the deck!
-
Nowt wrong with chucking a load of Lead at the oncoming threat. Pity the reload rates are not a fast as the discharge rate.
Regards Ian.
-
It had me a little confused with the original as designed with 2 only CIWS, however even with 3 of the systems still allows for substantial blind spots [especially on her STDB quarter], and vessels of this size/tonnage cannot turn in time to align after an inbound sea skimming missile is intercepted
The arc of fire for each of the 3 CIWS as installed on the QE Class Carriers is shown in the following article
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-gets-additional-phalanx-gun/ (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-gets-additional-phalanx-gun/)
Derek, I suggest your concern over blind arcs is unwarranted, as the three CIWS installations appear to cover a full 360 dgerees. The blind arc to the starboard quarter extends out to about one ship's length, and beyond that there is coverage. If you haven't dealt with the threat by the time it gets to within a ship's length of you, it's too late to do anything but grit your teeth. {:-{
Greg
-
Thankyou Greg.....
In a previous life, to complete my RAN Certification to train others in the maintenance of the US Phalanx Close in Weapons Systems, included war game scenarios with vessels of differing numbers of as mounted CIWS platforms, and naturally differing arcs of fire etc
My worst experience [on one occasion] was assisting in the un-jamming of the CIWS bullet belt hydraulic drive >>:-( with live bullets
I clearly understand your words... however why did the UK revise the original QE Class Carriers from 2 x CIWS to 3 x CIWS?
In these matters, time is of the essence......& this is why the US are protecting their Carriers without blind spots
Derek
-
POW seems to be setting off to TLOTF. Also a story about our 'Boats' not being protected. Picture shown says Royal Navy but haven't seen any of ours with wings on the fin and a garage on the back.
Regards Ian.
-
Ian...what is TLOTF?........................
I checked Google, but the only reference is the Lord of the Flies %)
Derek
-
Hi there Derek, how about 'The Land Of The Free' %)
Aye,
Ray.
-
Sorry Ray, it went right over the top :embarrassed: ....the PoW was originally planned to receive her JSF - F35B VETOL fighters in the US
But surely this would be a deployment?.....many months of planning? O0 & would She not would be accompanied by a Fleet of escorts?........
Derek
-
They'd be better off sending her on some form of work up - shake out any further problems before attempting anything else :-X
-
It will give her a good work up journeying to the USofA . Plenty of time to practice their drills
-
[size=0px] Plenty of time to practice their drills or was that REPAIRS !!!!![/size]
-
At least should give the bilge pumps a good workout. O0
Regards Ian.
-
Not so much about breakdowns but some good pictures of what HMS Queen Elizabeth has been up to.
https://www.navylookout.com/photo-essay-uk-carrier-strike-group-completes-first-phase-of-deployment/
Colin
-
Another excellent link and well worth looking in - if only we could be back in the service <:( .
Thanks for the link Colin :-))
Ray.
-
Well illustrated article on Navy Lookout of PoW conducting aircraft trials with the US Navy. Inckudes some very impressive photos.
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince-of-wales-crosses-the-atlantic-and-begins-developmental-flying-trials/
Colin
-
Great video of HMS QE sailing from Portsmouth after a brief stop. She has a number of F35s on the flight deck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tSEE3lek3E
Colin
-
"She has a number of F35s on the flight deck."
Not made of rubber???
Regards Ian.
-
Well, they didn't look like Airfix brand plastic kits to me >>:-( ........so well done RO8 :-)) ................
Derek
-
No but eighty years ago we had Squadrons of inflatable aircraft strung around the country, which the American A/F seem to have 'reinvented' %)
Regards Ian.