Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,550
Likes: 7,281
From: Peripatetic
https://cepa.org/article/the-fourth-...c-is-underway/
The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic Is Underway
"This is not a kinetic fight, It's a struggle between Russian forces that probe for weakness and NATO anti-submarine warfare forces that protect and deter."
The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic Is Underway
"This is not a kinetic fight, It's a struggle between Russian forces that probe for weakness and NATO anti-submarine warfare forces that protect and deter."
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
Not that I'm defending the paltry 12 on T31 btw - but that's what happens in a cost-capped procurement.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,223
Likes: 1,649
From: Ferrara
Times editorial today and article on underfunding - not very happy at all
UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
NAB - I agree about the effects of the procurement system
UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
NAB - I agree about the effects of the procurement system
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,909
Likes: 129
From: Here
Local scuttlebut around Rosyth has that being very closely looked at..
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,550
Likes: 7,281
From: Peripatetic
Destined for conversion to a mothership for Royal Navy mine-warfare drones the MV Island Crown is seen here inbound to @HMNBDevonport late this afternoon.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,550
Likes: 7,281
From: Peripatetic
HMS Somerset, a Type 23 Frigate, is the first British warship to receive a replacement for the ageing Harpoon missile - the anti-ship and land-attack 'Naval Strike Missile'.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 903
Likes: 148
From: Scotland
For those who have a life and were therefore unable to catch the defence select committee quizzing a couple of admirals this afternoon the carrier news was:
PoW - both shafts need repair. Fixed by “Spring” followed by “pre planned maintenance “. Rejoining the fleet “Autumn” . What caused the damage? “ Inquiry under way”
QE -Inspected, Does not have the same issue.
Some forceful questions along the lines of “ How many escorts are at sea or available today?” Were met with equally forceful refusal to answer.
Stay tuned for CAS tomorrow.
PoW - both shafts need repair. Fixed by “Spring” followed by “pre planned maintenance “. Rejoining the fleet “Autumn” . What caused the damage? “ Inquiry under way”
QE -Inspected, Does not have the same issue.
Some forceful questions along the lines of “ How many escorts are at sea or available today?” Were met with equally forceful refusal to answer.
Stay tuned for CAS tomorrow.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Twas it not Autumn when the propulsion casualty occurred?
As to the scheduled maintenance....could not most if not all of it be done during the current dry docking?
Or is multi-tasking not in vogue these days?
As to the scheduled maintenance....could not most if not all of it be done during the current dry docking?
Or is multi-tasking not in vogue these days?
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,617
Likes: 205
From: aus
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
For those who have a life and were therefore unable to catch the defence select committee quizzing a couple of admirals this afternoon the carrier news was:
PoW - both shafts need repair. Fixed by “Spring” followed by “pre planned maintenance “. Rejoining the fleet “Autumn” . What caused the damage? “ Inquiry under way”
QE -Inspected, Does not have the same issue.
Some forceful questions along the lines of “ How many escorts are at sea or available today?” Were met with equally forceful refusal to answer.
Stay tuned for CAS tomorrow.
PoW - both shafts need repair. Fixed by “Spring” followed by “pre planned maintenance “. Rejoining the fleet “Autumn” . What caused the damage? “ Inquiry under way”
QE -Inspected, Does not have the same issue.
Some forceful questions along the lines of “ How many escorts are at sea or available today?” Were met with equally forceful refusal to answer.
Stay tuned for CAS tomorrow.
You have Nice but Tobias - who doesn't seem to remember basic facts for more than one week at a time. Tubster Francois who just enjoys grandstanding. Spellar trying to pretend he understands anything about ships - as opposed to what his union paymasters tell him. At least Emma is nice to look at.
Anyone who thinks the HCDC is in intelligent committee needs to give their head a wobble.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,311
Likes: 365
From: uk
"The bolt heads originally came off due to over-tightening."
Not that MoD is in any position to make adverse comment....
RIP Flt Lt Sean Cunningham.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,617
Likes: 205
From: aus
MOD absolutely has the right to be pissed about this
Last edited by rattman; 1st February 2023 at 21:01.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 1st February 2023 at 21:24.
Joined: Jul 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,979
Likes: 175
From: Australia OZ
UK Royal Navy ‘confident’ a starboard propeller problem on aircraft carrier not a class-wide issue 01 Feb 2023 Tim Martin
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/...ss-wide-issue/
"Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, a UK defense committee heard.... Based on “appropriate checks” on starboard and port shafts from sister ship, the Queen Elizabeth, “we’re confident that there is not a class issue with the carriers,” said Rear Admiral Paul Marshall,... The Prince of Wales port shaft is also undergoing repair, in conjunction with the carrier’s starboard fault, said Marshall, during a Jan. 31 UK defense committee hearing. Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, he said...."
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/...ss-wide-issue/
"Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, a UK defense committee heard.... Based on “appropriate checks” on starboard and port shafts from sister ship, the Queen Elizabeth, “we’re confident that there is not a class issue with the carriers,” said Rear Admiral Paul Marshall,... The Prince of Wales port shaft is also undergoing repair, in conjunction with the carrier’s starboard fault, said Marshall, during a Jan. 31 UK defense committee hearing. Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, he said...."
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,311
Likes: 365
From: uk
You misconstrue.
Yes, it is right that MoD be annoyed over the bolt being overtightened, the head snapped off, and glued back on.
My point, that you missed, was that MoD directed, permitted and defended far worse in the Cunningham case.
The technicians who worked on his ejection seat were not trained to the necessary standards. They were given an illegal instruction to (a) ignore mandated air publications, (b) ignore Martin-Baker instructions, and (c) invalidate previous certification and then falsely declare its renewal. Having been provided with the correct tools by Martin-Baker, they chose not to use them, and this was permitted. Using the wrong tools, incorrectly, rendered both nut and bolt scrap, but they did not declare this.
The Health and Safety Executive declared all this ‘irrelevant’ to the Judge. MoD did not demur.
MoD is calling for a full investigation in the submarine case. Quite right, but this also exposes double standards. At the moment, there is one obvious difference between the cases. Both involved intent, but at the operator level on the sub, and at a very senior level in the RAF/MoD. Both involved safety critical systems. One resulted in a death, and a root cause of the accident had happened before when killing another Red Arrows pilot. Oddly, there has been no call by MoD for a full investigation in the Cunningham case.
Thank you NAB.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Someone help me out here.....since when does gluing a Bolt Head to a sheared bolt shank constitute an acceptable engineering practice in the UK....in ANY APPLICATION?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
Someone help me out here.....since when does gluing a Bolt Head to a sheared bolt shank constitute an acceptable engineering practice in the UK....in ANY APPLICATION?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
From what I've seen - while not condoning what had been done - this is a tertiary element of the system, not subject to pressure, so not a direct safety risk. I'd bet it was executed by a sub-contractor firm to Babcock who probably won't be on the approved supplier list much longer......