HMS Queen Elizabeth

[98elise]

mikal83 said:

98elise said:

mikal83 said:

98elise said:

mikal83 said:

Lurking Lawyer said:

I see Nick Cooke-Priest has resigned his commission.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/04/captai...

With a massive pension and will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

Why would his pension be in question? He's resigned from his job, and his pension will be whatever he's entitled to for his rank, and number of years service, and his age.

He's also entitled to work for whoever he wants to when he's left the service.

Who said his pension is in question?

If not to question, what was the point of your post? People resign from jobs every day and retain their pension. It's not something that's abnormal or even noteworthy?

His resignation can only reduce his pension entitlement , not enhance it.

When I resigned from the Navy my pension was massively reduced in value because I left prematurely.

If you cant work it out, I cant be bothered to explain. Captains of aircraft carriers dont get removed from their ship everyday do they and then resign before an enquiry starts eh.
Why did he resign.
He chose to resign, thereby reducing his pension. No one else, sympathy...zero.
So you chose to resign early and your pension was reduced?? And so what.

The inquiry is over, he was disciplined.

You started the posts about his pension. If it was just to state the fact he gets his pension and was on no way questioning it, then it makes even less sense. You might as well have stated he gets to keep his shoes.

[Talksteer]

AshVX220 said:

98elise said:

It wouldn't save 50bn. We would still need to spend that money on defence as a member of NATO. Personally I'm happy that we have an independent MAD capability, especially when countries like NK have nuclear weapons.

I would be even happier though if Nuclear weapons were banned by all countries.

Any sane person would and I can't understand why all nations aren't prepared to get together to achieve this, unfortunately once that particular pandora's box was opened it seems to difficult to close it.

Arguably nuclear weapons have basically made war between the industrialized nations impossible and as such are a brilliant investment and have saved millions of lives.

The UK has agreed to use its nuclear weapons on behalf of others which has meant that those countries haven't had to build their own (despite the fact that they easily could have done so) thus controlling the spread of these weapons.

If you take the long history view point (imagine yourself a historian in 2500) it is likely to be the case that 1945 is the beginning of the end for war. From that point onward total war has been impossible, in the 1990s with the advent of precision weapons conventional set piece battles have become unfeasible (see 1991 GW1). In the few near future small drones and automation are likely to make it impossible for insurgents or similar to control ground thus stamping out civil wars which are the only wars that happen today.

[Cold]

Meanwhile, away from this absolutely fascinating discussion about pensions, HMS QNLZ has been steaming around off the southwest coast conducting Flag Officer Sea Training, safety exercises (fire/damage control etc) and more latterly giving her newly fitted air defence systems a run through - which includes live firing of the Phalanx guns.

[RizzoTheRat]

What do they use for targets for phalanx? Towed target or some kind of drone?

[2fast748]

A couple of picks of Qn Lz and thunderbird 5 in Dartmouth a couple of weeks ago:

[AshVX220]

RizzoTheRat said:

What do they use for targets for phalanx? Towed target or some kind of drone?

98elise will probably have a more complete answer as a WE.

For me as a Ops branch person, Phalanx was my "off-watch" actions station as a loader. I only did one live firing in my time and it was just to make sure the mechanics worked I think. we weren't shooting at anything, just shooting, I guess they put a manual track into the system so it thought it was shooting at something.

For QNLZ I expect they have to have a target to fully test it, in which case I'd assume they use a drone of some sort.

[Gazzas86]

It will most certainly be a towed target, unless they are testing against surface engagements, in which they will use the inflatable target.
On a side note: When i was serving on the Cumberland (with Goalkeeper fitted), we were the test ship to fire against full size remote controlled boats, we had 2 to play with, with the operator driving them from the aft launcher deck on a computer. great great fun, and the damage caused to the boats were unreal, albeit goalkeeper is 30mm at 70 rounds/second i should imagine Phalanx could cause similar damage.

I left in 2015, so i'm not sure if these boats made it into full service when i left.

[Ayahuasca]

The machine gun chatter is all very well but I enjoying the discussion about pensions.

[98elise]

RizzoTheRat said:

What do they use for targets for phalanx? Towed target or some kind of drone?

You don't need a physical target to do a live firing. If you do need to fire at a physical target then it would normally be a towed.

[98elise]

AshVX220 said:

RizzoTheRat said:

What do they use for targets for phalanx? Towed target or some kind of drone?

98elise will probably have a more complete answer as a WE.

For me as a Ops branch person, Phalanx was my "off-watch" actions station as a loader. I only did one live firing in my time and it was just to make sure the mechanics worked I think. we weren't shooting at anything, just shooting, I guess they put a manual track into the system so it thought it was shooting at something.

For QNLZ I expect they have to have a target to fully test it, in which case I'd assume they use a drone of some sort.

For routine test firing it's a simulated target (ie electronicly simulated by the system) and the accuracy of the aim can be determined from that.

Before entering service it will also normally shoot down some physical towed targets.

It's actually problematic to shoot down physical targets as you have to satisfy the system that the target poses a theat.

[RizzoTheRat]

98elise said:

It's actually problematic to shoot down physical targets as you have to satisfy the system that the target poses a theat.

Never thought of that, does it ignore stuff that it thinks isn't going to hit the ship then?

[98elise]

RizzoTheRat said:

98elise said:

It's actually problematic to shoot down physical targets as you have to satisfy the system that the target poses a theat.

Never thought of that, does it ignore stuff that it thinks isn't going to hit the ship then?

Yes. It's an automated last chance defence for the ship it's installed on, so it won't shoot at something that's not a threat.

[normalbloke]

98elise said:

RizzoTheRat said:

98elise said:

It's actually problematic to shoot down physical targets as you have to satisfy the system that the target poses a theat.

Never thought of that, does it ignore stuff that it thinks isn't going to hit the ship then?

Yes. It's an automated last chance defence for the ship it's installed on, so it won't shoot at something that's not a threat.

Doesn’t the latest system have an optical targeting system too, for ad hoc pirate shredding capabilities? Or did I read that in Viz?

[98elise]

normalbloke said:

98elise said:

RizzoTheRat said:

98elise said:

It's actually problematic to shoot down physical targets as you have to satisfy the system that the target poses a theat.

Never thought of that, does it ignore stuff that it thinks isn't going to hit the ship then?

Yes. It's an automated last chance defence for the ship it's installed on, so it won't shoot at something that's not a threat.

Doesn’t the latest system have an optical targeting system too, for ad hoc pirate shredding capabilities? Or did I read that in Viz?

That's correct, buts it's simply allowing inputs from a manual sight for surface targets. Manual guns were replaced with automated guns, so it give back the option to manually fire at a small boat. It's massive overkill though, these days ships also have mini guns for surface targets.

[normalbloke]

98elise said:

normalbloke said:

98elise said:

RizzoTheRat said:

98elise said:

It's actually problematic to shoot down physical targets as you have to satisfy the system that the target poses a theat.

Never thought of that, does it ignore stuff that it thinks isn't going to hit the ship then?

Yes. It's an automated last chance defence for the ship it's installed on, so it won't shoot at something that's not a threat.

Doesn’t the latest system have an optical targeting system too, for ad hoc pirate shredding capabilities? Or did I read that in Viz?

That's correct, buts it's simply allowing inputs from a manual sight for surface targets. Manual guns were replaced with automated guns, so it give back the option to manually fire at a small boat. It's massive overkill though, these days ships also have mini guns for surface targets.

But would Samuel L Jackson choose a mini gun or a Phalanx?

[AshVX220]

Gazzas86 said:

It will most certainly be a towed target, unless they are testing against surface engagements, in which they will use the inflatable target.
On a side note: When i was serving on the Cumberland (with Goalkeeper fitted), we were the test ship to fire against full size remote controlled boats, we had 2 to play with, with the operator driving them from the aft launcher deck on a computer. great great fun, and the damage caused to the boats were unreal, albeit goalkeeper is 30mm at 70 rounds/second i should imagine Phalanx could cause similar damage.

I left in 2015, so i'm not sure if these boats made it into full service when i left.

I doubt they're in service now if you guys ripped them to shreds!

[Phud]

I wonder if they still pipe for splash target coxswain?

Oh the fun of deployments

[Cold]

Early return to port (Portsmouth) last night due to an internal leak needing to be investigated. Confirmed no hull breach but an amount of water required pumping out.

RN spokesperson said:

“Following a minor issue with an internal system, the ship’s company were required to remove a small volume of water from the ship. An investigation into the cause is underway.

HMS Queen Elizabeth has had a minor issue relating to water from an internal system. At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. The ship, which was due to return to Portsmouth for a planned maintenance period later in the week, is now returning earlier than planned. This is a precautionary measure and the cause of the issue is now under investigation.”

Expect hysterical over reaction from numerous media quarters.

[normalbloke]

Cold said:

Early return to port (Portsmouth) last night due to an internal leak needing to be investigated. Confirmed no hull breach but an amount of water required pumping out.

RN spokesperson said:

“Following a minor issue with an internal system, the ship’s company were required to remove a small volume of water from the ship. An investigation into the cause is underway.

HMS Queen Elizabeth has had a minor issue relating to water from an internal system. At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. The ship, which was due to return to Portsmouth for a planned maintenance period later in the week, is now returning earlier than planned. This is a precautionary measure and the cause of the issue is now under investigation.”

Expect hysterical over reaction from numerous media quarters.

Also expect much ‘it’s a non event’ statements generally playing it down and sweeping it under the carpet. I suspect the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Bizarrely, my wife and I watched it pull up across from our house last night, and the first think I said was, either Trump has cancelled the war games in a strop, or it’s sinking.

[98elise]

normalbloke said:

Cold said:

Early return to port (Portsmouth) last night due to an internal leak needing to be investigated. Confirmed no hull breach but an amount of water required pumping out.

RN spokesperson said:

“Following a minor issue with an internal system, the ship’s company were required to remove a small volume of water from the ship. An investigation into the cause is underway.

HMS Queen Elizabeth has had a minor issue relating to water from an internal system. At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. The ship, which was due to return to Portsmouth for a planned maintenance period later in the week, is now returning earlier than planned. This is a precautionary measure and the cause of the issue is now under investigation.”

Expect hysterical over reaction from numerous media quarters.

Also expect much ‘it’s a non event’ statements generally playing it down and sweeping it under the carpet. I suspect the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Bizarrely, my wife and I watched it pull up across from our house last night, and the first think I said was, either Trump has cancelled the war games in a strop, or it’s sinking.

Why so you think anything is being swept under the carpet? It's pretty normal for all sorts of mechanical failures to occur. It will happen day in day out during the life of the ship. It's why a large proportion of the ships company are engineers.

I've seen full engine changes done, aircraft damaged, hull cracks, weapons systems damaged, magazines flooded etc. I've even witnessed an aircraft clip a ship. None of this is swept under the carpet.

Edited to add... I've also seen the aftermath of another air accident (no fatalities) and we were not stopped from taking photographs on personal cameras. This was back in the days of film, so would be processed in Boots!

Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 10th July 12:14