HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Lurking Lawyer said:
Here's the link to the article to which I was referring:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16759/turkey-...
Cheers, astonishing price v's F35B.http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16759/turkey-...
yellowjack said:
Yertis said:
OK I know this is probably a stupid question but given that we sold them for sod-all (I've no evidence for this but expect it to be true) why didn't we just mothball them? The government (of whatever colour) always seems over-keen to just bin stuff instead of keeping it in case it comes in handy.
(Like I do, and is why I've got a garage full of junk.)
If you want your 'mothballed' equipment to work again if you decide to 'unmothball' it, then it'll still need regular inspections and servicing. And that all costs money. In truth, complex aircraft, like naval ships, cannot just be left to stand with no crew and no maintenance. So the attempt to "save money" by getting rid of the Harrier fleet wouldn't have saved as much as you might think.(Like I do, and is why I've got a garage full of junk.)
To truly save money, scrapping or selling stuff like Harrier is the only option. It saved a lot in associated costs too, especially within the Harrier Support units of the Royal Engineers. It may even have played a direct part in the decision to sell off Waterbeach Barracks for housing, as that's where our airfield support units were mainly based, with a nice old runway on which to practice crater repairs, and plenty of space to exercise the troops.
There are a lot of people involved in maintaining military ships and aircraft, and they still breakdown a lot. Take away the maintenance and let it stand, and they will decay very quickly.
Same happens if you don't use or maintain a car. Anything more than a couple of weeks/months and stuff starts to seize and fail.
98elise said:
yellowjack said:
Yertis said:
OK I know this is probably a stupid question but given that we sold them for sod-all (I've no evidence for this but expect it to be true) why didn't we just mothball them? The government (of whatever colour) always seems over-keen to just bin stuff instead of keeping it in case it comes in handy.
(Like I do, and is why I've got a garage full of junk.)
If you want your 'mothballed' equipment to work again if you decide to 'unmothball' it, then it'll still need regular inspections and servicing. And that all costs money. In truth, complex aircraft, like naval ships, cannot just be left to stand with no crew and no maintenance. So the attempt to "save money" by getting rid of the Harrier fleet wouldn't have saved as much as you might think.(Like I do, and is why I've got a garage full of junk.)
To truly save money, scrapping or selling stuff like Harrier is the only option. It saved a lot in associated costs too, especially within the Harrier Support units of the Royal Engineers. It may even have played a direct part in the decision to sell off Waterbeach Barracks for housing, as that's where our airfield support units were mainly based, with a nice old runway on which to practice crater repairs, and plenty of space to exercise the troops.
There are a lot of people involved in maintaining military ships and aircraft, and they still breakdown a lot. Take away the maintenance and let it stand, and they will decay very quickly.
Same happens if you don't use or maintain a car. Anything more than a couple of weeks/months and stuff starts to seize and fail.
Lurking Lawyer said:
donutsina911 said:
LL have you got a link for that? Would be interested to see what kind of value they're putting on the AV8Bs..
Here's the link to the article to which I was referring:http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16759/turkey-...
zetec said:
I think she looks amazing, how would she measure up to a Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier? Would she be dwarfed?
In terms of displacement the American ships are much bigger and carry nearly twice as many aircraft (even though it is only about 50 yards longer in simple terms of length and while clearly bigger, certainly won't dwarf the Royal Navy's new ships to look at). However, much as the BBC likes to bang on about the ~£3bn cost of the QE class: the Ford is so far at ~£10bn (at last check it was $12.9bn with something like ~$800m still to spend before completion) and calls for a huge crew (at almost 4300, approaching 2.7 times as much manpower as the QE, which means that if we had bought something like that then the RN probably wouldn't have the sailors to operate it). Also, its electromagnetic catapults and arrestor gear don't work properly yet and continue to be a significant risk of further delay and cost escalation (take a look here if you are interested in the story).DiscoColin said:
In terms of displacement the American ships are much bigger and carry nearly twice as many aircraft (even though it is only about 50 yards longer in simple terms of length and while clearly bigger, certainly won't dwarf the Royal Navy's new ships to look at). However, much as the BBC likes to bang on about the ~£3bn cost of the QE class: the Ford is so far at ~£10bn (at last check it was $12.9bn with something like ~$800m still to spend before completion) and calls for a huge crew (at almost 4300, approaching 2.7 times as much manpower as the QE, which means that if we had bought something like that then the RN probably wouldn't have the sailors to operate it). Also, its electromagnetic catapults and arrestor gear don't work properly yet and continue to be a significant risk of further delay and cost escalation (take a look here if you are interested in the story).
plus cost of decommissioning of the US nuclear fleet will be a considerable extra. DiscoColin said:
In terms of displacement the American ships are much bigger and carry nearly twice as many aircraft (even though it is only about 50 yards longer in simple terms of length and while clearly bigger, certainly won't dwarf the Royal Navy's new ships to look at). However, much as the BBC likes to bang on about the ~£3bn cost of the QE class: the Ford is so far at ~£10bn (at last check it was $12.9bn with something like ~$800m still to spend before completion) and calls for a huge crew (at almost 4300, approaching 2.7 times as much manpower as the QE, which means that if we had bought something like that then the RN probably wouldn't have the sailors to operate it). Also, its electromagnetic catapults and arrestor gear don't work properly yet and continue to be a significant risk of further delay and cost escalation (take a look here if you are interested in the story).
"Testing with the arresting gears have proven thus far that there are only 25 landings between operational mission failures. The Navy’s requirement is 16,500. The new arresting gears have also surged in price, with the original 2005 estimate of $172 million now swelled to $1.3 billion. And like the EMALS system, the arresting gear cannot undergo maintenance without temporarily terminating flight operations."I never knew that, I thought it was just EMALS. That's not good at all.
She's sprung a leak. But nothing too serious and such things are all part of the ongoing sea trials. Propeller shaft seal needs a dob of mastic
Cold said:
She's sprung a leak. But nothing too serious and such things are all part of the ongoing sea trials. Propeller shaft seal needs a dob of mastic
Probably why it made that stop in Scotland during the trials. They said they had a prop issue. I remember visiting a company who made propellor shaft seals. They consisted of a large naval bronze ring up to 24" (610mm) outside diameter. The inside of the ring contained rows of dozens of adjacent Omega shape Monel K500 nickel alloy strip springs, which were bonded with fabric and plastic compound to create a spring seal, through which the propellor shaft passed.
I have no idea if the QE carriers are the same, but I doubt that replacing one whilst afloat is a simple operation. The trouble is I guess you can never be 100% certain they are watertight until the vessel is under sea trials.
I have no idea if the QE carriers are the same, but I doubt that replacing one whilst afloat is a simple operation. The trouble is I guess you can never be 100% certain they are watertight until the vessel is under sea trials.
Cold said:
She's sprung a leak. But nothing too serious and such things are all part of the ongoing sea trials. Propeller shaft seal needs a dob of mastic
Its will be one of many defects that need to be fixed, but it won't end there. Through its entire life the engineering departments (Marine/Weapons/Air) will be fixing broken stuff. I would be highly surprised if any RN ship at any time has everything working. LotusOmega375D said:
I remember visiting a company who made propellor shaft seals. They consisted of a large naval bronze ring up to 24" (610mm) outside diameter. The inside of the ring contained rows of dozens of adjacent Omega shape Monel K500 nickel alloy strip springs, which were bonded with fabric and plastic compound to create a spring seal, through which the propellor shaft passed.
I have no idea if the QE carriers are the same, but I doubt that replacing one whilst afloat is a simple operation. The trouble is I guess you can never be 100% certain they are watertight until the vessel is under sea trials.
I think its a Wartsila stern tube seal on these. You can fix them in the water - But even in dry dock I doubt if its more than a weeks work these days I have no idea if the QE carriers are the same, but I doubt that replacing one whilst afloat is a simple operation. The trouble is I guess you can never be 100% certain they are watertight until the vessel is under sea trials.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff