HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Cold]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/navy-s-3bn-carr...

Report said:

The Ministry of Defence said last night, however, that it “did not recognise” a report from Forces Network, a British military news website, claiming that more than 200 tonnes of water had leaked into the ship, putting three crew members at risk of drowning.

[hidetheelephants]

Sounds like a fire main, although the amount of damage being described seems implausible from such a burst. Does the RN keep their fire mains pressurised?

[Gazzas86]

hidetheelephants said:

Sounds like a fire main, although the amount of damage being described seems implausible from such a burst. Does the RN keep their fire mains pressurised?

Yes, the HPSW Ringmain is kept between 6-8 Bar at all times,

[Gandahar]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48752226

He'd have quite a lot of money to spend on destroyers, frigates or amphibious assault etc if we had not bought 2 large aircraft carriers. One would have been enough.

[Seight_Returns]

Gandahar said:

One would have been enough.

2 is the absolute minimum to guarantee that 1 is available to deploy when needed.

[hidetheelephants]

Seight_Returns said:

Gandahar said:

One would have been enough.

2 is the absolute minimum to guarantee that 1 is available to deploy when needed.

Unless you know at least 12 months in advance when you'll actually need it 1 is a pointless, expensive and awkward ornament; see the Charles de Gaulle for details.

[Dr Jekyll]

hidetheelephants said:

Unless you know at least 12 months in advance when you'll actually need it 1 is a pointless, expensive and awkward ornament; see the Charles de Gaulle for details.

It's obviously far better to have 2. But Ark Royal came in pretty useful when Guatemala threatened Belize, and the sole Argentinian carrier gave the RN a few nervous moments in 1982.

[98elise]

Dr Jekyll said:

hidetheelephants said:

Unless you know at least 12 months in advance when you'll actually need it 1 is a pointless, expensive and awkward ornament; see the Charles de Gaulle for details.

It's obviously far better to have 2. But Ark Royal came in pretty useful when Guatemala threatened Belize, and the sole Argentinian carrier gave the RN a few nervous moments in 1982.

The Argentine fleet had the advantage of choosing when to invade. If your enemy only has one of a particularly useful asset, you can wait until it's in for maintenance/crew leave/upgrades/refit before attacking.

That's why we don't have only one nuclear sub. You need three just to keep one permanently deployed.

One is still a useful asset, but its not something you can depend on.

[Steve vRS]

Dr Jekyll said:

It's obviously far better to have 2. But Ark Royal came in pretty useful when Guatemala threatened Belize, and the sole Argentinian carrier gave the RN a few nervous moments in 1982.

Wasn’t HMS Eagle still in service or had she just been decommissioned?

And didn’t the Argentine carrier stay close to home after the Belgrano was sunk as the Argentinian Navy were a bit nervous with a nuclear submarine lurking.

Once both carriers are fully commissioned, If the brown stuff hit the fan, would the RN be able to pull strings and get both carriers to sea at once? I suppose it would depend on how many bits the one it dock was in!

[shed driver]

Steve vRS said:

Wasn’t HMS Eagle still in service or had she just been decommissioned?

Yes, I think it was.

Steve vRS said:

Once both carriers are fully commissioned, If the brown stuff hit the fan, would the RN be able to pull strings and get both carriers to sea at once? I suppose it would depend on how many bits the one it dock was in!

It's likely to be more difficult to fully crew both at the same time.

SD.

[FourWheelDrift]

shed driver said:

Steve vRS said:

Wasn’t HMS Eagle still in service or had she just been decommissioned?

Yes, I think it was.

Eagle was paid off on 26th January 1972, the Belize threat started on January 28th when Ark Royal already in the Atlantic launched a pair of heavily armed peace keeping Buccaneers, flying low level over Belize City.

[shed driver]

FourWheelDrift said:

Eagle was paid off on 26th January 1972, the Belize threat started on January 28th when Ark Royal already in the Atlantic launched a pair of heavily armed peace keeping Buccaneers, flying low level over Belize City.

In theory she could have been made ready if the need was there. Eagle was my father's first ship.

SD.

[mikal83]

shed driver said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Eagle was paid off on 26th January 1972, the Belize threat started on January 28th when Ark Royal already in the Atlantic launched a pair of heavily armed peace keeping Buccaneers, flying low level over Belize City.

In theory she could have been made ready if the need was there. Eagle was my father's first ship.

SD.

In your dreams. Eagle was a bag of rust from the mid 70's

[hidetheelephants]

Dr Jekyll said:

hidetheelephants said:

Unless you know at least 12 months in advance when you'll actually need it 1 is a pointless, expensive and awkward ornament; see the Charles de Gaulle for details.

It's obviously far better to have 2. But Ark Royal came in pretty useful when Guatemala threatened Belize, and the sole Argentinian carrier gave the RN a few nervous moments in 1982.

I shall qualify then; having one carrier is fine if you're only interested in your own littoral or if you get lucky and crises only happen when your only carrier is not in drydock; the UK has global defence obligations so the first doesn't apply and the second is simply no basis for defence policy.

[98elise]

Steve vRS said:

Dr Jekyll said:

It's obviously far better to have 2. But Ark Royal came in pretty useful when Guatemala threatened Belize, and the sole Argentinian carrier gave the RN a few nervous moments in 1982.

Wasn’t HMS Eagle still in service or had she just been decommissioned?

And didn’t the Argentine carrier stay close to home after the Belgrano was sunk as the Argentinian Navy were a bit nervous with a nuclear submarine lurking.

Once both carriers are fully commissioned, If the brown stuff hit the fan, would the RN be able to pull strings and get both carriers to sea at once? I suppose it would depend on how many bits the one it dock was in!

I why wouldn't they, they don't spend 50% of their time in bits.

When I was on Ark Royal the other 2 carriers were operational as well. On at least one occasion we all sailed together.

https://images.app.goo.gl/23BzaXyVyfGhSypL7

There are various points in the year when one may be in for an extended maintenance period, or for a leave period, but the majority of the time they are operational.

Edited by 98elise on Sunday 14th July 17:08

[hidetheelephants]

In terms of steam propulsion you were doing well to have the ship fully functioning >50% the time, and even that was burning the candle at both ends in the long term as maintenance tasks that really need to be done alongside accumulate(boiler cleaning etc); the RN's carriers were flogged mercilessly in the 60s/70s and the engine room staff bore the brunt of that. IIRC the old Ark Royal deployed at least once with a non-functioning shaft(when you have 4 I guess you don't miss one too badly).

[Europa1]

mikal83 said:

shed driver said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Eagle was paid off on 26th January 1972, the Belize threat started on January 28th when Ark Royal already in the Atlantic launched a pair of heavily armed peace keeping Buccaneers, flying low level over Belize City.

In theory she could have been made ready if the need was there. Eagle was my father's first ship.

SD.

In your dreams. Eagle was a bag of rust from the mid 70's

So no problem then, as the Belize threat was before the mid 1970s.

Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I have no idea as to the terms of forces' pension schemes form that era, either.

[Ayahuasca]

Europa1 said:

mikal83 said:

shed driver said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Eagle was paid off on 26th January 1972, the Belize threat started on January 28th when Ark Royal already in the Atlantic launched a pair of heavily armed peace keeping Buccaneers, flying low level over Belize City.

In theory she could have been made ready if the need was there. Eagle was my father's first ship.

SD.

In your dreams. Eagle was a bag of rust from the mid 70's

So no problem then, as the Belize threat was before the mid 1970s.

Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I have no idea as to the terms of forces' pension schemes form that era, either.

The Belize threat continued into the mid 70s - I know as I was there as a kid and got to play around the Harrier GR1s that deployed there. Not sure what pension arrangements the Guatemalans would have introduced.

[Dr Jekyll]

FourWheelDrift said:

Eagle was paid off on 26th January 1972, the Belize threat started on January 28th when Ark Royal already in the Atlantic launched a pair of heavily armed peace keeping Buccaneers, flying low level over Belize City.

An interesting question as to whether Eagle's Sea Vixens would have coped with the Guatemalan air force as well as the Ark's Phantoms would.

Given what the Guatemalans had, I suspect they might.

[Cold]

A report from the local paper states that QNLZ suffered major problems with her propulsion system shortly before the recent flood which left her without drive for 24 hours and is why she was at anchor just off Plymouth for an extended period.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/serious-...

Some of the news report said:

Questioned by The News on June 28 – days before the flood forced the carrier to make an unscheduled return to Portsmouth last week – the navy said it ‘would not discuss the materiel state’ of its vessels nor ‘details of their programmes’.

However, in an admission to The News today, a Royal Navy spokesman confirmed there had been problems.

‘HMS Queen Elizabeth did experience some propulsion issues during her sea training period but rectified them before continuing with her programme at that time,’ the official insisted.

However, Admiral Lord Alan West, a former head of the navy, said he was not worried about the issues.

‘These are just the niggles of a new warship,’ he said. ‘These things happen. It’s all part of the shakedown process.

‘She has not even done a full work up yet. So no, I’m not concerned about this at all.’

The report also makes note of the lack of chefs on board and difficulty recruiting them which has obviously caused issues at mealtimes.