Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 08:32
  #6801 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 557
Received 28 Likes on 12 Posts
Well it would appear that things are going well south if this report by the Mail on Sunday is accurate.

POW for Scrap?

Britain's £3.2 billion aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales has been reduced to acting as a scrap-yard. Essential pieces of equipment are being ripped out of the stricken warship, a move that raises questions over its long-term future. The UK's second carrier has been in dry dock since breaking down off Portsmouth in August 2022.

Now Navy top brass have begun stripping the carrier – a process known as 'cannibalisation' – which will render HMS Prince of Wales inoperable for much longer. Lift chains, which allow fighter jets to be raised from below deck, electrical systems and sections of the ship's gas turbines have been taken out.

These parts, without which it cannot function fully, are being fitted to her sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, as replacements for parts that have aged or malfunctioned. HMS Prince of Wales broke down due to issues with her starboard propeller, which is being replaced as part of a £25million refit – the cost has risen by £5million in the past month.

The Mail on Sunday can report for the first time today that the warship's port propeller also needs to be replaced as it is suffering from the same issues. HMS Prince of Wales – launched in 2017 – is expected to spend at least a year in dock due to the additional workload.

According to insiders, the Navy is also spending millions on replacement fuel pumps for both carriers.

Last night, a Navy source said: 'It is one disaster after another. To lose both propellers so soon into her lifespan is ridiculous. As she's out of action, inevitably her good parts are being stripped off to support HMS Queen Elizabeth.

'Whatever the bosses need to keep the first carrier afloat and operational, they take from the second. HMS Prince of Wales is being mothballed, unofficially at least.'

Both ships cost £6 billion – before a single fighter jet was purchased. The decision to build two carriers is being questioned inside the cash-strapped Ministry of Defence.

An inquiry into issues suffered by HMS Prince of Wales has uncovered evidence the second carrier was rushed into service, seemingly to serve a political agenda.

Last night, the Royal Navy said: 'We remain committed to ensuring HMS Prince of Wales commences her operational programme, as planned, in August 2023.

'It is not unusual for equipment to be transferred between ships to ensure operational availability and to avoid delays.'
Imagegear is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 10:23
  #6802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,466
Received 364 Likes on 213 Posts
Reminds me of the "Bristol"
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 10:44
  #6803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,287
Received 133 Likes on 87 Posts
If I were to hazard a wild guess:
  • negative briefing by someone pushing their own agenda
  • need to keep HMSQNLZ available so taking steps to enable, should they become necessary, a delay in the timing of the planned switch to HMSPOW as the Very High Readiness Strike Carrier in 2024 and pushing back the scheduled refit of HMSQNLZ

Further proof that, IMO, we only have 2/3 of a carrier capability.
SLXOwft is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 11:04
  #6804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,926
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
If I were to hazard a wild guess:
  • negative briefing by someone pushing their own agenda
  • need to keep HMSQNLZ available so taking steps to enable, should they become necessary, a delay in the timing of the planned switch to HMSPOW as the Very High Readiness Strike Carrier in 2024 and pushing back the scheduled refit of HMSQNLZ

Further proof that, IMO, we only have 2/3 of a carrier capability.
Seems appropriate seeing as we currently have less than 2/3 of an air group!
pr00ne is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 12:46
  #6805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 530
Received 174 Likes on 93 Posts
It's the Mail FFS.

They also seem to be using the gobby steward from Chris Terrill's series as their "naval source". "Both propellers" indeed.....

Definitely someone has an agenda. A more accurate view can be found in MinDPs letter to the HCDC on their website....
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 13:34
  #6806 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,466
Received 364 Likes on 213 Posts
hmm - now there's a tough choice

who is more likely to tell the truth - the Mail or the MoD?

I'll tick "none of the above" I think - lets see how it pans out in August.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 13:59
  #6807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 530
Received 174 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
hmm - now there's a tough choice

who is more likely to tell the truth - the Mail or the MoD?

I'll tick "none of the above" I think - lets see how it pans out in August.
Perhaps you should try reading the letter. Surprisingly informative. If you understand the subject.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 23rd Apr 2023, 14:38
  #6808 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,287
Received 133 Likes on 87 Posts
To aid further understanding here are some extracts from and a link to the minister's letter.

The causal factor identified in this instance was that PWLS starboard shaft was misaligned from build, and that the incorrect installation of key components resulted in the defect suffered.

Several contributory factors lead to the misalignment and the subsequent incorrect assessment that the starboard shaft and couplings would perform as required. Following reviews of the impact of the shaft misalignment, a decision was made that PWLS should proceed to sea for trials and that further monitoring would be conducted.

During PWLS’ sea trials, both shafts were extensively tested over several weeks and thousands of nautical miles in the Northern North Sea and UK South Coast Exercise Areas. Vibration readings remained within limits at all times. Accordingly, no issues, conditions of class or actionable items were transferred into service from the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in 2019 at Vessel Acceptance.
(...)
Thereafter, during PWLS’ subsequent operational time at sea, which included exercising and NATO tasking in the Mediterranean in June 2022, no abnormalities associated with either shaft were reported.

Following the coupling failure in August 2022, an alignment issue was also identified with her port shaft. Rectification work was initiated and is expected to be completed in time for PWLS to commence her operational programme, as planned, this autumn.

PWLS was always scheduled to be alongside and undergo upgrade work for the majority of 2023 in preparation for taking over as the UK Very High Readiness Strike Carrier in 2024. Such work includes updates to the flight deck to expand F35 operations upgrades to communications and information systems and upgrades to combat management systems architectures. Consequently, over this period capability upgrades have been conducted in parallel to the shaft repairs to ensure efficiency and value for money.
(...)
The financial cost is estimated to be approximately £25 million. Responsibility for payment has not yet been established therefore it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.
Letter dated 3rd April from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to Chair regarding HMS Prince of Wales' Defect Investigation Outcome

Last edited by SLXOwft; 24th Apr 2023 at 14:29. Reason: typos
SLXOwft is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 24th Apr 2023, 14:17
  #6809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,466
Received 364 Likes on 213 Posts
"The causal factor identified in this instance was that PWLS starboard shaft was misaligned from build,"

well it only seem s to affect the one vessel.................................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2023, 14:23
  #6810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 557
Received 28 Likes on 12 Posts
Following the coupling failure in August 2022, an alignment issue was also identified with her port shaft. Rectification work was initiated and is expected to be completed in time for PWLS to commence her operational programme, as planned, this autumn.
Both shafts out then...

So the causal factor was in both shafts.

​​​​​​​IG
Imagegear is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2023, 14:27
  #6811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,287
Received 133 Likes on 87 Posts
The paragraph following '...value for money.' is:

I can confirm that the defects with PWLS shafts are not a Class issue and HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH (QNLZ) installation alignment readings have been checked and no abnormalities have been detected.

Causal factor of the coupling failure I assume.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2023, 15:58
  #6812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,909
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
The paragraph following '...value for money.' is:




Causal factor of the coupling failure I assume.
How could it happen in the first place ? If not "by design" then is is a fairly major execution issue ?
atakacs is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2023, 19:44
  #6813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,287
Received 718 Likes on 252 Posts
Originally Posted by atakacs
How could it happen in the first place ? If not "by design" then is is a fairly major execution issue ?
Yes, fairly, as in we only have one seaworthy ship for the price of two.
langleybaston is online now  
Old 24th Apr 2023, 19:46
  #6814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 530
Received 174 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by atakacs
How could it happen in the first place ? If not "by design" then is is a fairly major execution issue ?
This will be a proper "Swiss cheese" event. Lots of different things contributing to a very - and it is very - rare event. I'd put decent money someone got a datum wrong during the installation, which led to a coupling being installed that was potentially outside its tolerance, which subsequently exacerbated a defect in the coupling itself.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2023, 07:03
  #6815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,466
Received 364 Likes on 213 Posts
and there were insufficient checks as the pressure was in the get it all finished
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2023, 08:20
  #6816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 530
Received 174 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
and there were insufficient checks as the pressure was in the get it all finished
I'd be very surprised if that was the case. Got any evidence?

The facts are that the shaft misalignment was identified prior to vessel acceptance and a fair bit of work done to determine what the impact might be - including monitoring during acceptance sea trials - none of which identified any significant effects. What caused the coupling failure is going to be down to a number of.things that were not foreseen. I'd be very interested in the actual material failure mode of the coupling for example....
Not_a_boffin is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 25th Apr 2023, 19:01
  #6817 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,466
Received 364 Likes on 213 Posts
I have been in a similar position - the thing is ready to go and then - oh oh. You do a study that says you're probably going to be OK and able to carry on - but it's a serious worry. If there were any safety/environmental problems likely to result I'd say it was a no-no. Otherwise it's a judgement call - in this case the problem manifested itself sooner rather than later
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2023, 20:22
  #6818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 530
Received 174 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
I have been in a similar position - the thing is ready to go and then - oh oh. You do a study that says you're probably going to be OK and able to carry on - but it's a serious worry. If there were any safety/environmental problems likely to result I'd say it was a no-no. Otherwise it's a judgement call - in this case the problem manifested itself sooner rather than later
So, no evidence for your earlier claim then?
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2023, 18:40
  #6819 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,440
Received 1,601 Likes on 734 Posts
Mojave UCAV, Predator based STOL version.

Should make a nice little air wing….

https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mojave

​​​​​​​


ORAC is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2023, 22:30
  #6820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 0
Received 111 Likes on 69 Posts
UK Govt order 7 F-35b's from lot 17. Believe these will be for around 2026 delivery
rattman is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.