HMS Queen Elizabeth

[ninja-lewis]

doogz said:

AshVX220 said:

Hi doogz,
I'll be in Rosyth the 2nd week of July, hoping the Aft Island will be in place then, though may be wishful thinking. Do you know when the modular Flyco will be getting attached? Or indeed where it's being built?

Apparently the barge is leaving here on Sunday, not the 20th. Not sure when they're planning on lifting it into place. The guy that worked up the lifting arrangement for it would know, but he's just left for the day.

I have no idea about the Flyco, I'm sure someone told me where it was being made, but I can't remember, and I had a tiny bit of input on the drawings for some of the interface structure a while back. Sorry.

Tex Special Projects in Ipswich?

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/suffolk_firm_cli...

(unsure as the contract value quoted seems a bit low)

[donutsina911]

wildcat45 said:

The capability of the T45 is without doubt.

[hidetheelephants]

donutsina911 said:

wildcat45 said:

The capability of the T45 is without doubt.

In what way is the T45's ability in doubt? It was late, overbudget, there aren't enough of them and and a land attack/long range maritime strike missile option will be a long wait if it ever gets funded, but I've never read anything to suggest the Samson/Aster combination was anything other than world-beating.

[donutsina911]

hidetheelephants said:

In what way is the T45's ability in doubt? It was late, overbudget, there aren't enough of them and and a land attack/long range maritime strike missile option will be a long wait if it ever gets funded, but I've never read anything to suggest the Samson/Aster combination was anything other than world-beating.

Sampson / SV is theoretically excellent, albeit unproven. World beating is perhaps a little optimistic!

Anyway, I'll kick off with the fact that T45's have been prone to shut down in rough weather (in fact, the entire ME fit isn't too clever)...

and that Sampson is as useful as tits on a fish in the LZ...

and that she's light on numbers (in more ways than one)...

and the class is fitted for but not with absolutely everything (other than great accommodation).

[anonymous-user]

I seem to remember that before the Falklands we thought out shipbourne air defence was top notch.

[donutsina911]

doogz said:

donutsina911 said:

Sampson / SV is theoretically excellent, albeit unproven. World beating is perhaps a little optimistic!

Anyway, I'll kick off with the fact that T45's have been prone to shut down in rough weather (in fact, the entire ME fit isn't too clever)...

and that Sampson is as useful as tits on a fish in the LZ...

and that she's light on numbers (in more ways than one)...

and the class is fitted for but not with absolutely everything (other than great accommodation).

Could you elaborate?

Also on the 'light on numbers'

Thanks

Sure. Fitted for and not with Harpoon, fitted for and not with a STWS, fitted for and not with Tomahawk and fitted for and not with PRISM. Not sure about all 45s having Phalanx 1B yet and they decided not to bother with CEC at all.

Numbers refers to both ship's company (and the impact a lean manned ship has on her ability to float and fight when things warm up) and her 'inventory.'

IMHO, the 45's are one trick ponies. Great at AD (although in 2013, I'm not convinced this is what UK plc really needs), I'm sure they'll evolve into excellent platforms over time. If we still had a decent number of multi role hulls (ie the fit for purpose B3 T22's in Pompey harbour) we could afford the luxury of half a dozen single role DDs, but I'm just not sure this is the case.

[Gazzas86]

donutsina911 said:

doogz said:

donutsina911 said:

Sampson / SV is theoretically excellent, albeit unproven. World beating is perhaps a little optimistic!

Anyway, I'll kick off with the fact that T45's have been prone to shut down in rough weather (in fact, the entire ME fit isn't too clever)...

and that Sampson is as useful as tits on a fish in the LZ...

and that she's light on numbers (in more ways than one)...

and the class is fitted for but not with absolutely everything (other than great accommodation).

Could you elaborate?

Also on the 'light on numbers'

Thanks

Sure. Fitted for and not with Harpoon, fitted for and not with a STWS, fitted for and not with Tomahawk and fitted for and not with PRISM. Not sure about all 45s having Phalanx 1B yet and they decided not to bother with CEC at all.

Numbers refers to both ship's company (and the impact a lean manned ship has on her ability to float and fight when things warm up) and her 'inventory.'

IMHO, the 45's are one trick ponies. Great at AD (although in 2013, I'm not convinced this is what UK plc really needs), I'm sure they'll evolve into excellent platforms over time. If we still had a decent number of multi role hulls (ie the fit for purpose B3 T22's in Pompey harbour) we could afford the luxury of half a dozen single role DDs, but I'm just not sure this is the case.

I agree with everything you say Donut regarding the 45's, i'm sat in my office looking at the 22's tied up in the graveyard, in my eyes they we're the best in the fleet ((lots of others say the same) (i served on the fighting sausage and decomissioned it when she went). the 45's have issues, alot of issues, partly due to it being a new design, partly due to BAE. one 45 is in dry dock because someone left a spanner inside one of the shafts and you can hear it rattling around when the shaft turns... little things like that etc. and as donut mentioned the ship dies in the water (TLF) when you go full ahead etc etc the list goes on. Its always a risk when producing new class of ships, and i can see the same happening for the QE class when they come out.

[donutsina911]

Gazzas86 said:

I agree with everything you say Donut regarding the 45's, i'm sat in my office looking at the 22's tied up in the graveyard, in my eyes they we're the best in the fleet ((lots of others say the same) (i served on the fighting sausage and decomissioned it when she went). the 45's have issues, alot of issues, partly due to it being a new design, partly due to BAE. one 45 is in dry dock because someone left a spanner inside one of the shafts and you can hear it rattling around when the shaft turns... little things like that etc. and as donut mentioned the ship dies in the water (TLF) when you go full ahead etc etc the list goes on. Its always a risk when producing new class of ships, and i can see the same happening for the QE class when they come out.

Totally agree although I'm biased too (Cumberland and Cornwall).

Where the RN is adding huge value around the world right now in protecting trade / counter piracy / narcotics / humanitarian work, the need is for multi-role hulls that can do a bit of everything. The 22s may be analog in a digital world, but they could turn their hands to pretty much everything.

[donutsina911]

doogz said:

Ok.

Well, it was never fitted for Harpoon, that's been a recent addition. And I believe as they strip Harpoon from old T23s, it will be fitted to 45. It's going on Ship 1 soon AFAIK.

I have no idea what STWS is? CIWS? I agree that seems to be a bit of a clanger.

It was never fitted for Tomahawk, the decision was made very early on in the design not to use Tomahawk, to use Aster instead.

It was designed from day 1 as an AAW Destroyer. That's what the MOD wanted. That's what they got.

Given that they're now being equipped with a towed array and anti-ship missiles as well, so I don't quite see how it's a one trick pony.

Well we can agree to disagree then can't we? After all, that's what makes life interesting

With an ever diminishing fleet and only 6 T45s being delivered, multi-role ability is crucial. The T45 just doesn't have this out of the box, whichever way you cut it. (As an aside, are you sure about towed array and SSM being fitted across the class? STWS = anti submarine torpedoes which you'd expect to go hand in hand with a 2087 sonar fit). Incidentally, Aster was never chosen as an alternative to Tomahawk as you suggest - they're entirely different families of weapon.

Budget constraints have meant that compromises have had to be made with the class. I believe this has led to a ship that is not fit for today's RN needs, given the paucity of other units at the RN's disposal. Interestingly/regrettably, of the 9 Key User Requirements, it has so far failed (either deliberately or not) to meet 3 of them. That's "not what the MOD wanted, but it's what they got."

Anyway, the original comment I responded to was around 'capability.' Given the T45 has some serious issues with maintaining power and propulsion and Sampson is allegedly under performing in current operational theaters, I stand by my . If a ship can't move or maintain power, it sure as hell can't fight.

[donutsina911]

doogz said:

We can disagree about opinion, but not really about fact.

There is one silo position on a T45. Fwd of the bridge/foremast, aft of the main gun. Aster was chosen over Tomahawk, year and years ago. They may not be directly comparable, but Aster was chosen over Tomahawk for a few reasons, none of which I'll go into here. Given how much you seem to know, you're probably aware of them.

Anti submarine warfare is supposedly taken care of by the helicopter. Doesn't sound like the greatest solution, but it tends to work rather well.

As for the towed array, yes, I'm quite sure. Can't really go into details, but yes, quite sure.

The power/propulsion issue, I've not heard of this. Do we know any more about where the problem is? GT/alternator/motor?

Doogz, I don't want to get into a pissing competition with you, nor derail thread about QE any further, but when talking about whether a ship is capable or good or fit for purpose, much of this isn't fact, it's just the opinion of two blokes on the internet. One who (I'm guessing) is involved in the build of ships and one who's been involved in operating them.

But...if you really want to talk about facts, let me just re-iterate one and provide another.

Fact 1.
Right now, 3 of the Key User Requirements have not been met. It really couldn't be clearer than that when talking about capability.

Fact 2
None of the T45s have covered themselves in glory when operationally pushed. At FOST, it is documented that they have been underwhelming to say the least.

Anecdotally, those serving say much the same - in time, they'll be great at keeping QE safe and sound, but in the meantime, they have some fundamental issues and as I've mentioned, a few too many items on the options list left un ticked.

The TLAM issue was singularly about budget. Everyone in a blue suit, from 1SL down wanted and wants TLAM on surface assets - it's a game changer and has proved it's worth on the SSNs. With budget, issues around compatibility, silos etc could (and still can) be overcome. ASW in the form of a helicopter alone - great in theory, not so great if she's U/S, not embarked, busy doing other st that aviators get up to or the weather is a bit iffy.

[donutsina911]

doogz said:

Nor do I, I have no issues with your opinion on the matter, nor do I on the KURs.

I was only commenting on the facts with which I am familiar. Such as the 'options list' you mention, and the choice of hardware WRT PAAMS and Tomahawk.

Which of the 9 KURs haven't been met?

And do you know any more about the propulsion issues?

Propulsion problems were touched on by an earlier poster although these and the other issues aren't really suitable for public forums. Anyone with their ear to the ground, particularly in Pompey will be able to fill you in or I'm sure there'll be bhing on RR...

[dnb]

If only the MOD would ask for what they want, life would be easier...

[rhinochopig]

donutsina911 said:

doogz said:

We can disagree about opinion, but not really about fact.

There is one silo position on a T45. Fwd of the bridge/foremast, aft of the main gun. Aster was chosen over Tomahawk, year and years ago. They may not be directly comparable, but Aster was chosen over Tomahawk for a few reasons, none of which I'll go into here. Given how much you seem to know, you're probably aware of them.

Anti submarine warfare is supposedly taken care of by the helicopter. Doesn't sound like the greatest solution, but it tends to work rather well.

As for the towed array, yes, I'm quite sure. Can't really go into details, but yes, quite sure.

The power/propulsion issue, I've not heard of this. Do we know any more about where the problem is? GT/alternator/motor?

Doogz, I don't want to get into a pissing competition with you, nor derail thread about QE any further, but when talking about whether a ship is capable or good or fit for purpose, much of this isn't fact, it's just the opinion of two blokes on the internet. One who (I'm guessing) is involved in the build of ships and one who's been involved in operating them.

But...if you really want to talk about facts, let me just re-iterate one and provide another.

Fact 1.
Right now, 3 of the Key User Requirements have not been met. It really couldn't be clearer than that when talking about capability.

Fact 2
None of the T45s have covered themselves in glory when operationally pushed. At FOST, it is documented that they have been underwhelming to say the least.

Anecdotally, those serving say much the same - in time, they'll be great at keeping QE safe and sound, but in the meantime, they have some fundamental issues and as I've mentioned, a few too many items on the options list left un ticked.

The TLAM issue was singularly about budget. Everyone in a blue suit, from 1SL down wanted and wants TLAM on surface assets - it's a game changer and has proved it's worth on the SSNs. With budget, issues around compatibility, silos etc could (and still can) be overcome. ASW in the form of a helicopter alone - great in theory, not so great if she's U/S, not embarked, busy doing other st that aviators get up to or the weather is a bit iffy.

I do wonder how much of an internal political thing the TLAM decision was. Pure speculation on my part but I suspect that there were similar internal stand up meetings without coffee as there were when the RAF lost the nuclear deterrent. FOSM's Ferraris would be most reluctant to lose their TLAM exclusivity.

[hidetheelephants]

To summarise; the neddies wanted Tomahawk, magazine-launched torpedos and a towed array, but the beancounters said no. Harpoon is being fitted because there are surplus ones available from decommissioned T23s and there's no budget for putting Stormshadow in a Sylver box or buying SCALP any time soon. Is that right?

That there are propulsion problems isn't a surprise given this is the first all-electric vessel the RN have bought, but why is the ship taking the flak rather than Converteam, given it's their propulsion system?

I'm curious why anyone would want either a tail or torpedos on a area defence picket; ASW and AAW have very different requirements, if you're engaged in one your ability to do the other is compromised. I can see a certain amount of logic in having them 'fitted for but not with' but in the field of ASW the necessary skills atrophy very quickly if not practiced regularly(although these days simulator training can fill some gaps), and nipping back to blighty to have a tail and torpedos fitted once the balloon's gone up isn't very practical. While the T22s(particularly the batch 3s) were versatile units, they were getting old and creaky and were expensive to crew and maintain.

[donutsina911]

hidetheelephants said:

To summarise; the neddies wanted Tomahawk, magazine-launched torpedos and a towed array, but the beancounters said no. Harpoon is being fitted because there are surplus ones available from decommissioned T23s and there's no budget for putting Stormshadow in a Sylver box or buying SCALP any time soon. Is that right?

That there are propulsion problems isn't a surprise given this is the first all-electric vessel the RN have bought, but why is the ship taking the flak rather than Converteam, given it's their propulsion system?

I'm curious why anyone would want either a tail or torpedos on a area defence picket; ASW and AAW have very different requirements, if you're engaged in one your ability to do the other is compromised. I can see a certain amount of logic in having them 'fitted for but not with' but in the field of ASW the necessary skills atrophy very quickly if not practiced regularly(although these days simulator training can fill some gaps), and nipping back to blighty to have a tail and torpedos fitted once the balloon's gone up isn't very practical. While the T22s(particularly the batch 3s) were versatile units, they were getting old and creaky and were expensive to crew and maintain.

Another 80 or so crew over younger models, but there really was nothing old and creaky about B3 22's...proper ships, built with the exuberance of a post Falklands victory and they had another decade at least.

And you'd want some form of ASW capability on an DD because life isn't always as you'd expect it to be. Threats don't appear in a nice neat sequence and the ability to defend oneself from a threat under and above the water at the same time is quite handy, particularly when your raison d'etre is to protect several billion pounds worth of carrier!

[Ian Lancs]

dnb said:

If only the MOD would ask for what they want, life would be easier...

That should really be - if only the MoD would ask for what they want, and realise that asking for more after the contract is signed will in 99.99999% of cases cost more, life would be much easier...

[onyx39]

Ian Lancs said:

dnb said:

If only the MOD would ask for what they want, life would be easier...

That should really be - if only the MoD would ask for what they want, and realise that asking for more after the contract is signed will in 99.99999% of cases cost more, life would be much easier...

Isn't it a case of people moving roles, new person taking over as wanting it done "their way"?

[Ian Lancs]

onyx39 said:

Ian Lancs said:

dnb said:

If only the MOD would ask for what they want, life would be easier...

That should really be - if only the MoD would ask for what they want, and realise that asking for more after the contract is signed will in 99.99999% of cases cost more, life would be much easier...

Isn't it a case of people moving roles, new person taking over as wanting it done "their way"?

Thats the catch 22 - we work with requirements managers etc and build up a relationship. By the time useful work is being done, they're due a posting. Most of the time the good people are put into those roles before getting a promotion posting so you start again. In the last 5 years I've worked with 6 dofferent requirements guys and who knows how many other MoD customers - the first thing each of them usually does is ask for a big change to an area they have a major gripe with, but the previous customer didn't 0. Nugatory work rules!

[dnb]

I'll go along with that as fairly accurate.

[arguti]

Ian Lancs said:

Thats the catch 22 - we work with requirements managers etc and build up a relationship. By the time useful work is being done, they're due a posting. Most of the time the good people are put into those roles before getting a promotion posting so you start again. In the last 5 years I've worked with 6 dofferent requirements guys and who knows how many other MoD customers - the first thing each of them usually does is ask for a big change to an area they have a major gripe with, but the previous customer didn't 0. Nugatory work rules!

This is exactly how it is with procurement of services in healthcare and I am sure across many industries - people move on and corporate/organisational memory is lost - new faces want to put their mark on the project and nobody listens to the people who survived the last crisis/war and so it goes on.