HMS Prince of Wales

[Condi]

Simpo Two said:

Hmm, so we have one of the biggest most expensive aircraft carriers in the world, and they land toy planes on it. You don't need an aircraft carrier for that. Enter a new class - the drone carrier? A titchy frigate could do it, just pop a flat bit on it.

As is being seen in Ukraine, "toy planes" are proving to be very much the future.

[eharding]

ecsrobin said:

Looks like drone was operating from Predannack, which brought back memories of my first solo...and then slightly shocked to realise it was 40 years ago..

Edited by eharding on Sunday 10th September 21:23

[hidetheelephants]

Project to fit the carriers for drones. The desire to have compatibility with F18s etc seems a "what a good idea" too far, the plans appear to make most of the deck park unusable, which will damage ability to generate sorties.

[Earthdweller]

I see one of the flat tops is back in, which one is it?

POW was training on the eastern US coast I believe and not got any idea where QE is/was

[normalbloke]

Earthdweller said:

I see one of the flat tops is back in, which one is it?

POW was training on the eastern US coast I believe and not got any idea where QE is/was

QE.

[Cold]

normalbloke said:

Earthdweller said:

I see one of the flat tops is back in, which one is it?

POW was training on the eastern US coast I believe and not got any idea where QE is/was

QE.

Yep, HMS QNLZ has recently been operating under NATO command for the first time for the Neptune Strike exercise in the North Sea. She returned home last week.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...

[Flying Phil]

Evanivitch said:

Prince of Wales has had a very eventful trip in the US with lots of testing and seems like a very successful trip. Shame it wasn't British F35 on board...

https://youtu.be/sv3BSn1QxXs?si=RO8BqsNbXwj6Pqgr

https://youtu.be/6d5oLUpQSqM?si=d-C7QO1WgY1_i76z

https://youtu.be/kpfPBW-z-Q8?si=u0hKSngRLNmeU_UY

It was interesting, looking at the ship to ship refuelling video, that the wake from PoW was much less than the wake from the smaller, lighter supply ship with both at the same speed. Would that indicate a much better (hydrodynamic) hull form for PoW?

[hidetheelephants]

Flying Phil said:

Evanivitch said:

Prince of Wales has had a very eventful trip in the US with lots of testing and seems like a very successful trip. Shame it wasn't British F35 on board...

https://youtu.be/sv3BSn1QxXs?si=RO8BqsNbXwj6Pqgr

https://youtu.be/6d5oLUpQSqM?si=d-C7QO1WgY1_i76z

https://youtu.be/kpfPBW-z-Q8?si=u0hKSngRLNmeU_UY

It was interesting, looking at the ship to ship refuelling video, that the wake from PoW was much less than the wake from the smaller, lighter supply ship with both at the same speed. Would that indicate a much better (hydrodynamic) hull form for PoW?

They have similar hull forms, the difference is primarily the tanker is 20% shorter so is doing a much larger percentage of its hull speed to match the carrier.

[Earthdweller]

Cold said:

normalbloke said:

Earthdweller said:

I see one of the flat tops is back in, which one is it?

POW was training on the eastern US coast I believe and not got any idea where QE is/was

QE.

Yep, HMS QNLZ has recently been operating under NATO command for the first time for the Neptune Strike exercise in the North Sea. She returned home last week.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...

Thanks

[aeropilot]

After all the problems with POW, she's now being rushed into readiness to replace Big Liz on the upcoming big NATO exercise, as pre-exercise checks have identified a problem with Big Liz's prop shafts, which is supposedly not the same as the problem that affected POW.......

https://www.navylookout.com/mechanical-issue-preve...

[hidetheelephants]

aeropilot said:

After all the problems with POW, she's now being rushed into readiness to replace Big Liz on the upcoming big NATO exercise, as pre-exercise checks have identified a problem with Big Liz's prop shafts, which is supposedly not the same as the problem that affected POW.......

https://www.navylookout.com/mechanical-issue-preve...

Different but the same? Perhaps they mean there's another muff coupling inboard of the stern seal, it's moved but not actually parted and now there will be further angry conferences with whoever made the shafts and couplings.

[S600BSB]

hidetheelephants said:

aeropilot said:

After all the problems with POW, she's now being rushed into readiness to replace Big Liz on the upcoming big NATO exercise, as pre-exercise checks have identified a problem with Big Liz's prop shafts, which is supposedly not the same as the problem that affected POW.......

https://www.navylookout.com/mechanical-issue-preve...

Different but the same? Perhaps they mean there's another muff coupling inboard of the stern seal, it's moved but not actually parted and now there will be further angry conferences with whoever made the shafts and couplings.

Couldn’t make this up!

[andyA700]

Oh well, someone, somewhere must think that £3 billion a ship ((and counting) IS A GOOD USE OF MONEY, FOR SOMETHING WHICH IS BASICALLY A VERY LARGE, SLOW MOVING TARGET.
Can't be ar**d to type it again.

[aeropilot]

andyA700 said:

Oh well, someone, somewhere must think that £3 billion a ship ((and counting) IS A GOOD USE OF MONEY, FOR SOMETHING WHICH IS BASICALLY A VERY LARGE, SLOW MOVING TARGET.

The cost of the ships isn't the issue, in itself, its the fact that they only built two of them, which is one too few, and since the decision to do build them was made, the Navy has been further reduced in size, and RFA cuts etc mean that you don't have enough of all the other stuff to even support a CBG, so they really are a white elephant (that is an unreliable white elephant at that)

You either commit the funds to do CBG properly (the preferred option) or spend it on something else, but UK plc wants to make it look like we can still play with the big boys, but on a little boys budget.....and half arsed is always a waste of money. So we now have a compromised Navy and a compromised RAF.

[Hammersia]

Condi said:

Hammersia said:

Sorry that's clearly wrong, as has been pointed out above - if the MoD have design authority / signed off the design, possibly including manufacturing methods, then the best workmanship (casting, forging, turning etc.) isn't going to prevent a problem caused by a design error.

And even if it was wholly a Babcock (BAe etc.) error, as for everything else defence related with zero competition, the taxpayer will pay for it on this contract, or the next one. Makes no odds.

Why is it clearly wrong? The sister ship, presumably of identical design in the prop shaft/propeller area didn't have the same issue so one would assume the design is fine, and the workmanship is at fault.

Looks like I was correct -

It wasn't credible that the workmanship / alignment on a gazillion pound propshaft wasn't toleranced to the umpteenth degree. This is a design / spec issue.

[hidetheelephants]

It is pretty shambolic, there are longer prop shafts out there in commercial shipping and ones carrying more power. There are people who know how to get such things to work but apparent that those people have not been hired to fix the issue.

[eldar]

Hammersia said:

Looks like I was correct -

It wasn't credible that the workmanship / alignment on a gazillion pound propshaft wasn't toleranced to the umpteenth degree. This is a design / spec issue.

What actually is the problem? I'd imagined things like propellor shafts are very well understood.

[aeropilot]

Hammersia said:

Condi said:

Hammersia said:

Sorry that's clearly wrong, as has been pointed out above - if the MoD have design authority / signed off the design, possibly including manufacturing methods, then the best workmanship (casting, forging, turning etc.) isn't going to prevent a problem caused by a design error.

And even if it was wholly a Babcock (BAe etc.) error, as for everything else defence related with zero competition, the taxpayer will pay for it on this contract, or the next one. Makes no odds.

Why is it clearly wrong? The sister ship, presumably of identical design in the prop shaft/propeller area didn't have the same issue so one would assume the design is fine, and the workmanship is at fault.

Looks like I was correct -

It wasn't credible that the workmanship / alignment on a gazillion pound propshaft wasn't toleranced to the umpteenth degree. This is a design / spec issue.

Which then begs the question is has it been able to be fixed, with a design change as well as works, so it doesn't happen again, or is the basic design compromised to an extent that, it will reoccur and has to be expensively bodged each time on a regular basis....?

That will be watch this space.

[Condi]

eldar said:

What actually is the problem?.

It's not been released, other than according to the RN it's not the same problem which affected the PoW 18 months ago.

There are a lot of armchair experts on PH who seem to know exactly what the cause is though. Maybe they should let the RN know.

[hidetheelephants]

Condi said:

eldar said:

What actually is the problem?.

It's not been released, other than according to the RN it's not the same problem which affected the PoW 18 months ago.

There are a lot of armchair experts on PH who seem to know exactly what the cause is though. Maybe they should let the RN know.

Propellor shafts work the same way whether on a warship or a civilian ship, or rather they don't and that's the problem.