HMS Prince of Wales
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
There are commercial shipbuilding consultants who know how to design & build a ship with a shaft line that can carry ~60MW, there are no excuses for getting basic shipbuilding this wrong. The knowledge and experience is literally for hire.
I was explaining the general challenge of warship design not defending the shaft line. BTW I've worked with some of those consultants, and surprise surprise, they get it wrong too occasionally.
The RCNC types in the ship design dept in Bath hated the idea of building a carrier with fewer than 4 shafts, one of the reasons many were glad when CVA1 was binned off, the arbitrary political tonnage restriction was compelling them to specify 3 shafts in order to save displacement. All that corporate knowledge was cast to the four winds in the 80s and 90s.
Don’t really know enough about it, but was the construction of these carriers really the best use of scare resources for our RN? Could the money have been put to better use giving the destroyers an offensive capability (lots about that in the media), ordering more of the planned new frigates etc etc. I get that the carriers also have an important ‘soft power’ role for the UK but, from a lay perspective, they do seem to place a burden on the rest of the fleet.
S600BSB said:
Don’t really know enough about it, but was the construction of these carriers really the best use of scare resources for our RN? Could the money have been put to better use giving the destroyers an offensive capability (lots about that in the media), ordering more of the planned new frigates etc etc. I get that the carriers also have an important ‘soft power’ role for the UK but, from a lay perspective, they do seem to place a burden on the rest of the fleet.
IIRC It was a compromise between the government and shipyards. Government wanted to downsize the number of RN shipbuilders and projects to cut overall costs. Industry was obviously unhappy about that and it threatened a loss of much expertise and livelihoods, so the govt offered a bulletproof contract for two fat carriers to be built in various remaining ports in exchange for the consolidation of the industry. The Cameron government looked into scrapping them before they were built (amidst cuts to other military programmes) but the contracts were such that it would barely have saved any money and we'd have no carriers.TGCOTF-dewey said:
What most people don't realise is that a proportion of the design team will have never designed a naval vessel before, never mind an aircraft carrier.
Delivery to time, cost, and quality only comes with serial production and we can't afford to do that. So you have accept issues in design and build. Which them come out in sea trials and early operationsl years.
When we were designing Astute, I don't think there was a single Traf of Vanguard class designer left. They'd long retired.
MoD don't help though with changing specifications through the design period.
I've sat in meeting where it feels like a small child is describing their fantasy robot... Can it have bombs, and guns, and missiles... Oh yeah and Lasers... It must have lasers... Yes lasers for eyes.
I have a simple proposal to slash MOD procurement spending, if anyone in the MOD not working on early concept design ever utters the phrase “wouldn’t it be nice if…” they instantly get sacked. A few rounds of this and those remaining would have to have a very good reason for changing specifications.Delivery to time, cost, and quality only comes with serial production and we can't afford to do that. So you have accept issues in design and build. Which them come out in sea trials and early operationsl years.
When we were designing Astute, I don't think there was a single Traf of Vanguard class designer left. They'd long retired.
MoD don't help though with changing specifications through the design period.
I've sat in meeting where it feels like a small child is describing their fantasy robot... Can it have bombs, and guns, and missiles... Oh yeah and Lasers... It must have lasers... Yes lasers for eyes.
There is also a lack of joined up thinking on cost, the “not my budget” problem. For instance the carriers don’t have bow thrusters, at MoD instance to save say £250k. Because of that they have had to procure a new tug, that tug cost £6 million, but it’s under a different line in the budget so doesn’t count.
MBBlat said:
I have a simple proposal to slash MOD procurement spending, if anyone in the MOD not working on early concept design ever utters the phrase “wouldn’t it be nice if…” they instantly get sacked. A few rounds of this and those remaining would have to have a very good reason for changing specifications.
There is also a lack of joined up thinking on cost, the “not my budget” problem. For instance the carriers don’t have bow thrusters, at MoD instance to save say £250k. Because of that they have had to procure a new tug, that tug cost £6 million, but it’s under a different line in the budget so doesn’t count.
Good point... Totally agree.There is also a lack of joined up thinking on cost, the “not my budget” problem. For instance the carriers don’t have bow thrusters, at MoD instance to save say £250k. Because of that they have had to procure a new tug, that tug cost £6 million, but it’s under a different line in the budget so doesn’t count.
The other problem is the period of billet rotation in MoD. It's rarely the person who made the decision who then has to manage the consequences. So if you've an eye on promotion, and you can save a few quid, it looks great at your next boarding.
I was once in a meeting that cost more than the insisted upon cost cutting to a budget line.
Bid costs were fully recoverable and the MoD PM was fully aware of this fact.
Some of the decision making that plays out is bonkers - glad I don't work in defence any more.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
I was once in a meeting that cost more than the insisted upon cost cutting to a budget line.
This is the problem when you let accountants run massive engineering projects.Many times I've seen accountants spending thousands to justify saving a fiver on their balance sheets.
And usually that fiver saved will cost many times that further down the road (but that won't be their problem)
Cold said:
normalbloke said:
I hear there’s another carrier coming into the harbour today…
The Italian ship Giuseppe Garibaldi. At 180 metres she's a bit of a tiddler.Or is this a farewell cruise for the old girl?
The Garibaldi has to be the worst ship I ever had the misfortune to spend time on. I'm amazed she's still afloat. Back in 1990 when she was still newish a group of us from 800 Squadron from HMS Invincible crossdecked with Garibaldi, taking several Sea Harriers with us. This was to test her decks for use with the Harriers the Italians were thinking of buying. Safe to say they needed new deck paint after the two days trials as our aircraft had ripped a lot of it up. Staying on the ship was an experience, the food was amazing, the wine cellar very well stocked and the crew, very hospitable. The big but came in the form of watertightness. In the mess we were allocated there was a normal wooden door, on opening it we could look down at the prop shafts, nothing to stop water entering the ship if the stern glands failed. In fact, there didn't appear to be any watertight doors on any deck below flightdeck level where there was a large watertight hatch into the island. Walking around the ship on what I think was 4 deck, hanger deck level, there weren't even dwarf bulkheads, and normal wodden doors allowed entry into the offices and hanger. On entering the hanger we were confronted by two technicians working on a Sea King, nothing wrong with that, except both were smoking, in the hanger, next to the helicopter. We were so glad to get back to the relative safety of Invincible the next day..
S600BSB said:
Don’t really know enough about it, but was the construction of these carriers really the best use of scare resources for our RN? Could the money have been put to better use giving the destroyers an offensive capability (lots about that in the media), ordering more of the planned new frigates etc etc. I get that the carriers also have an important ‘soft power’ role for the UK but, from a lay perspective, they do seem to place a burden on the rest of the fleet.
There are 3 types of naval warfare/threats. Air, surface and sub surface. Without carriers you've restricted your air/sub surface warfare capability, much like having no subs would also restrict your sub surface capability.Without carriers you can't operate a carrier battle group. The Falklands for example was reliant on a carrier battle group and our ships would have been sitting ducks without Harriers. It's mitigated these days by better anti missile systems and CIWS but an aircraft carrier gives you much bigger reach. Its puts your outer defence layer much further out.
You also lose the ability to fly combat air patrols (over land or sea) just about anywhere in the world. If you don't have a friendly country nearby then you may have little or no air cover for any conflict you are in.
IMO we cannot rely on other NATO countries to provide this capability. It's the same with our Nuclear deterrent. People questioned if we still needed it....right up until Russia started it's weekly armageddon threats shortly after Ukraine was invaded.
We certainly can't rely on America. Later this year Trump could be back in the Whitehouse and he's told us this week that he wouldn't help any NATO nation he thinks isn't paying their way, and would actively encourage an attack on them.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 14th February 12:01
Shar2 said:
The Garibaldi has to be the worst ship I ever had the misfortune to spend time on. I'm amazed she's still afloat. Back in 1990 when she was still newish a group of us from 800 Squadron from HMS Invincible crossdecked with Garibaldi, taking several Sea Harriers with us. This was to test her decks for use with the Harriers the Italians were thinking of buying. Safe to say they needed new deck paint after the two days trials as our aircraft had ripped a lot of it up. Staying on the ship was an experience, the food was amazing, the wine cellar very well stocked and the crew, very hospitable. The big but came in the form of watertightness. In the mess we were allocated there was a normal wooden door, on opening it we could look down at the prop shafts, nothing to stop water entering the ship if the stern glands failed. In fact, there didn't appear to be any watertight doors on any deck below flightdeck level where there was a large watertight hatch into the island. Walking around the ship on what I think was 4 deck, hanger deck level, there weren't even dwarf bulkheads, and normal wodden doors allowed entry into the offices and hanger. On entering the hanger we were confronted by two technicians working on a Sea King, nothing wrong with that, except both were smoking, in the hanger, next to the helicopter. We were so glad to get back to the relative safety of Invincible the next day..
Think it was The Foch we popped over for an afternoon during the Bosnian war, from The Invincible...also quite an eyeopener! aeropilot said:
Cold said:
normalbloke said:
I hear there’s another carrier coming into the harbour today…
The Italian ship Giuseppe Garibaldi. At 180 metres she's a bit of a tiddler.Or is this a farewell cruise for the old girl?
LotusOmega375D said:
Does anyone have any opinion on the apparent success of Ukrainian attacks on Russian warships? The Russians must have plenty of defence systems
Why do you say they 'must have'....?I would say, clearly they don't, or at least ones not capable of detecting small vessels, and/or their defence drills are pretty poor, which is equally likely given the poor performance of most of the Russian armed forces in this conflict.
LotusOmega375D said:
Does anyone have any opinion on the apparent success of Ukrainian attacks on Russian warships? The Russians must have plenty of defence systems, but Ukraine often gets through. Are our carriers equally vulnerable?
I would say their defences are pretty crap. Moskva was taken out with a subsonic cruise missile. It had a decent (on paper) air defences (including CIWS) yet when it sunk the weapons radars were in the stowed position.Against a surface drone or small boat we would use mini guns and phalanx. I can't see a slow drone getting through a hail of armour piercing rounds.
That said we wouldn't have our carriers in drone range anyway. You keep them well away from the action and have other ships protecting them. We would also be in defence watches with everything on, and manned, ready to go.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 14th February 14:58
Russian weapon technology looks to be right up there with their ability to build luxury cars.
Does much if any of their major tech actually work? Or is it stuck in a time warp of 1980s level tech?
Their tanks are death traps. Their ships seem to have no self defence capability. Their missiles can hit hospitals and shopping centres but can they hit actual military targets? Their artillery needs hundreds of rounds to do damage and they have no precision guided rounds. Their MLRS seems to be an area weapon not a precision weapon, more like WW2 levels of rocket warfare than prescient like HIMARs.
Their cruise missiles seem to bump into high rise buildings on their way to their destination.
Their airforce remains largely absent, they don’t even have air superiority over their own ground. When one of their fighters targeted a NATO plane with missiles, fortunately they malfunctioned and fell into the sea (thank god).
It’s clear there are shipping in drones from other countries. They apparently lack night vision tech and are buying it in. They don’t have the equivalent of Javalin and NLAW and still seem to be using mostly un guided shoulder launched RPG type weapons against armour.
Their army is now dominated by non professional soldiers. Drunks and criminals.
They are a joke and are being humiliated, but they have far more resources than Ukraine. More lives to waste.
Does much if any of their major tech actually work? Or is it stuck in a time warp of 1980s level tech?
Their tanks are death traps. Their ships seem to have no self defence capability. Their missiles can hit hospitals and shopping centres but can they hit actual military targets? Their artillery needs hundreds of rounds to do damage and they have no precision guided rounds. Their MLRS seems to be an area weapon not a precision weapon, more like WW2 levels of rocket warfare than prescient like HIMARs.
Their cruise missiles seem to bump into high rise buildings on their way to their destination.
Their airforce remains largely absent, they don’t even have air superiority over their own ground. When one of their fighters targeted a NATO plane with missiles, fortunately they malfunctioned and fell into the sea (thank god).
It’s clear there are shipping in drones from other countries. They apparently lack night vision tech and are buying it in. They don’t have the equivalent of Javalin and NLAW and still seem to be using mostly un guided shoulder launched RPG type weapons against armour.
Their army is now dominated by non professional soldiers. Drunks and criminals.
They are a joke and are being humiliated, but they have far more resources than Ukraine. More lives to waste.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff