Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[new guy]

You just hit one hell of a jackpot

[new guy]

Interesting presentation (found on Google) talking about the future maritime aviation force in a bit more detail than usual:

https://www.navyleaders.com/presentatio ... -advantage

Looks like the aim for Proteus is still dual rotor in the long term with a more near term single rotor demonstrator coming first:

Requoting so it can bee seen on new page

[tomuk]

Well said.

HMS Prince of Wales beat her 30-day notice to sail by 22 days. This is not a failure
US carrier Eisenhower was a day later than expected, too. Everyone just calm down

Two things

1) Big Elephant in the room. The crash deployment of POW wouldn't have been needed or at least would have been less of a crash if the maintenance\inspection regime on QNLZ had been handled properly. Also although getting her out in record time is an achievement the whole programme of the QECs is now out of whack.

2) Smaller oddity. The RN only has enough Phalanx for one carrier? I think that is nonsense. How many vessels currently deployed with Phalanx? Diamond, Argus and a Bay?

[PhillyJ]

The phalanx haven't been on PWLS for quite a while now. As far as I remember, they were removed when she was in Rosyth, as she would be in dock for an extended period of time that made sense, but not refitted.

Nipper was most experienced gunner on these when he left, possibly one of the last to actually live fire them on board before her prop issues in 2022.

[Ian Hall]

[new guy]

[Jackstar]

Great crowd to see off HMS Prince of Wales at Portsmouth.

[PhillyJ]

Also needed is a berth for a 3rd Carrier!

So the French can visit?

[Ron5]

Doesn't seem that huge a project in the scheme of things

As a German Admiral once said "In Germany we build docks to fit our ships. In England, they do it backwards".

Or something like that. In German.

[new guy]

Doesn't seem that huge a project in the scheme of things

As a German Admiral once said "In Germany we build docks to fit our ships. In England, they do it backwards".

Or something like that. In German.

It cost as some say here would apparently be £300m, and Rosyth is only 1 days sail away.

[Ron5]

Doesn't seem that huge a project in the scheme of things

As a German Admiral once said "In Germany we build docks to fit our ships. In England, they do it backwards".

Or something like that. In German.

It cost as some say here would apparently be £300m, and Rosyth is only 1 days sail away.

Cheap at twice the price. And what if Rosyth is in use or the ship cannot sail or ......

[Jdam]

The issue of Rosyth is not really its location, its that the dock might actually be used to build something.

Right now its a good dock with a high capacity crane above it, lets just say you got your 3rd carrier, where would QE and POW goes for maintenance whiles its being assembled? That dock has to be getting looked at with a keen for the Albion and Bulwark replacements, not to mention future carrier upgrades.

But we do have options thankfully.

https://www.navylookout.com/dry-docking ... e-options/

[Bongodog]

Well said.

HMS Prince of Wales beat her 30-day notice to sail by 22 days. This is not a failure
US carrier Eisenhower was a day later than expected, too. Everyone just calm down

Two things

1) Big Elephant in the room. The crash deployment of POW wouldn't have been needed or at least would have been less of a crash if the maintenance\inspection regime on QNLZ had been handled properly. Also although getting her out in record time is an achievement the whole programme of the QECs is now out of whack.

2) Smaller oddity. The RN only has enough Phalanx for one carrier? I think that is nonsense. How many vessels currently deployed with Phalanx? Diamond, Argus and a Bay?

We must have plenty of phalanx systems sitting in a warehouse somewhere, each type 42 had 2 so thats 24, plus 2 from Fort George when she was scrapped and 3 that where on Ark Royal. All they have been replaced with is 6 x T45 and QEC 15 mounts.
Navy Lookout had an article on phalanx a few years ago where they calculated there were at least 41 in the inventory.

https://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch- ... -in-focus/

Probably the usual situation where someone asks the storeman for an item to be told "I haven't got any"

[new guy]

Well said.

HMS Prince of Wales beat her 30-day notice to sail by 22 days. This is not a failure
US carrier Eisenhower was a day later than expected, too. Everyone just calm down

Two things

1) Big Elephant in the room. The crash deployment of POW wouldn't have been needed or at least would have been less of a crash if the maintenance\inspection regime on QNLZ had been handled properly. Also although getting her out in record time is an achievement the whole programme of the QECs is now out of whack.

2) Smaller oddity. The RN only has enough Phalanx for one carrier? I think that is nonsense. How many vessels currently deployed with Phalanx? Diamond, Argus and a Bay?

We must have plenty of phalanx systems sitting in a warehouse somewhere, each type 42 had 2 so thats 24, plus 2 from Fort George when she was scrapped and 3 that where on Ark Royal. All they have been replaced with is 6 x T45 and QEC 15 mounts.
Navy Lookout had an article on phalanx a few years ago where they calculated there were at least 41 in the inventory.

https://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch- ... -in-focus/

Probably the usual situation where someone asks the storeman for an item to be told "I haven't got any"

1) Far more than 15 mounts in the existing fleet. Argus has 1, whichever Albion has 2, bays have 6, Carriers have 6, T45's have 12,
Fort victoria (If she ever sails again) has 2, Tides have 8.
Combined, 37.

2) In reply to Tomuk, The inspections that located the problems with QE were done weeks ion advance; The captain declared his ship not fit for sail the day before they were set to go. Inspection regime was handled appropriately

3) In reply to Tomuk, Phalanx were removed when PWLS was in Rosyth. They weren't put on when she went to westland because there was no threat and not a lot of time. Now, with great opportunity with here 30-day readiness, installation was about to happen, then presto, she has been emergency deployed.

[Ron5]

3) In reply to Tomuk, Phalanx were removed when PWLS was in Rosyth. They weren't put on when she went to westland because there was no threat and not a lot of time. Now, with great opportunity with here 30-day readiness, installation was about to happen, then presto, she has been emergency deployed.

Shows the idiocy of the scheme to only fit some kit when the ship goes on a planned deployment. Does any other navy do this nonsense?

[new guy]

3) In reply to Tomuk, Phalanx were removed when PWLS was in Rosyth. They weren't put on when she went to westland because there was no threat and not a lot of time. Now, with great opportunity with here 30-day readiness, installation was about to happen, then presto, she has been emergency deployed.

Shows the idiocy of the scheme to only fit some kit when the ship goes on a planned deployment. Does any other navy do this nonsense?

It made sense to remove them in Rosyth, when it would be impossible for the ship to be recalled and the guns could be put in proper sheds with maintainers instead of sitting around in the open. Now, not fitting them before going on westland23 because of 'no perceived threat' could be called far to peace dividend-ish. Again, she was going to get them back on soon, then an emergency deployment happened.

[tomuk]

Well said.

HMS Prince of Wales beat her 30-day notice to sail by 22 days. This is not a failure
US carrier Eisenhower was a day later than expected, too. Everyone just calm down

Two things

1) Big Elephant in the room. The crash deployment of POW wouldn't have been needed or at least would have been less of a crash if the maintenance\inspection regime on QNLZ had been handled properly. Also although getting her out in record time is an achievement the whole programme of the QECs is now out of whack.

2) Smaller oddity. The RN only has enough Phalanx for one carrier? I think that is nonsense. How many vessels currently deployed with Phalanx? Diamond, Argus and a Bay?

We must have plenty of phalanx systems sitting in a warehouse somewhere, each type 42 had 2 so thats 24, plus 2 from Fort George when she was scrapped and 3 that where on Ark Royal. All they have been replaced with is 6 x T45 and QEC 15 mounts.
Navy Lookout had an article on phalanx a few years ago where they calculated there were at least 41 in the inventory.

https://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch- ... -in-focus/

Probably the usual situation where someone asks the storeman for an item to be told "I haven't got any"

1) Far more than 15 mounts in the existing fleet. Argus has 1, whichever Albion has 2, bays have 6, Carriers have 6, T45's have 12,
Fort victoria (If she ever sails again) has 2, Tides have 8.
Combined, 37.

2) In reply to Tomuk, The inspections that located the problems with QE were done weeks ion advance; The captain declared his ship not fit for sail the day before they were set to go. Inspection regime was handled appropriately

But that isn't appropriate is it. Inspections carried out weeks ago that find ship isn't fit to sail. Work up carries on regardless until eve of deployment when ship declared unfit. Can't you see that is a problem.

If she wasn't fit she wasn't fit. Either the approval\decision process shouldn't take weeks or if it does need that time, lab tests ?, then the inspections are needed sooner.

3) In reply to Tomuk, Phalanx were removed when PWLS was in Rosyth. They weren't put on when she went to westland because there was no threat and not a lot of time. Now, with great opportunity with here 30-day readiness, installation was about to happen, then presto, she has been emergency deployed.

I know that. And one can take a view on the need to remove and the time needed to fit and the need for them on the current exercise.

But in the linked article the former RN officer was claiming that the reason PWLS wasn't fitted with Phalanx is that there aren't enough mounts to go round which would appear to be BS.

[Turnturtle]

I find the absence of Phalanx on PWLS to be humiliating. The sight of such a large, magnificent and expensive ship proudly sailing out of Portsmouth virtually defenceless at a time of rising world tension and risk of conflict is deeply concerning. There is the fact that our carriers are virtually unique in not being fitted with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that every other navy does not?); there is the fact that no 30mm are fitted despite the baseplates for 4 mounts being there since build; and now there is no Phalanx! This is absurd and deeply worrying. With what is going on around the world it would be foolish to assume that the ship might not be subject to attack, or might not be redeployed to a trouble spot. Just look at what has been achieved recently by aerial and fast boat drones. The threats are out there and our ships must be equipped to deal with them. It's not good enough to try to rely on our dwindling escort fleet or to borrow escorts from other countries. US carrier BGs deploy with a much stronger escort force than ours.....and their carriers are armed to the teeth as well! There are hundreds and hundreds of our service men and women on board PWLS. Should - God forbid - she be attacked and suffer casualties, one can imagine family lawyers queing up to sue MoD for sending their loved ones into harm's way without the means to adequately defend themselves.

[SW1]

Well said.

HMS Prince of Wales beat her 30-day notice to sail by 22 days. This is not a failure
US carrier Eisenhower was a day later than expected, too. Everyone just calm down

Two things

1) Big Elephant in the room. The crash deployment of POW wouldn't have been needed or at least would have been less of a crash if the maintenance\inspection regime on QNLZ had been handled properly. Also although getting her out in record time is an achievement the whole programme of the QECs is now out of whack.

2) Smaller oddity. The RN only has enough Phalanx for one carrier? I think that is nonsense. How many vessels currently deployed with Phalanx? Diamond, Argus and a Bay?

We must have plenty of phalanx systems sitting in a warehouse somewhere, each type 42 had 2 so thats 24, plus 2 from Fort George when she was scrapped and 3 that where on Ark Royal. All they have been replaced with is 6 x T45 and QEC 15 mounts.
Navy Lookout had an article on phalanx a few years ago where they calculated there were at least 41 in the inventory.

https://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch- ... -in-focus/

Probably the usual situation where someone asks the storeman for an item to be told "I haven't got any"

1) Far more than 15 mounts in the existing fleet. Argus has 1, whichever Albion has 2, bays have 6, Carriers have 6, T45's have 12,
Fort victoria (If she ever sails again) has 2, Tides have 8.
Combined, 37.

2) In reply to Tomuk, The inspections that located the problems with QE were done weeks ion advance; The captain declared his ship not fit for sail the day before they were set to go. Inspection regime was handled appropriately

But that isn't appropriate is it. Inspections carried out weeks ago that find ship isn't fit to sail. Work up carries on regardless until eve of deployment when ship declared unfit. Can't you see that is a problem.

If she wasn't fit she wasn't fit. Either the approval\decision process shouldn't take weeks or if it does need that time, lab tests ?, then the inspections are needed sooner.

3) In reply to Tomuk, Phalanx were removed when PWLS was in Rosyth. They weren't put on when she went to westland because there was no threat and not a lot of time. Now, with great opportunity with here 30-day readiness, installation was about to happen, then presto, she has been emergency deployed.

I know that. And one can take a view on the need to remove and the time needed to fit and the need for them on the current exercise.

But in the linked article the former RN officer was claiming that the reason PWLS wasn't fitted with Phalanx is that there aren't enough mounts to go round which would appear to be BS.

Have any of the phalanx mounts gone to Ukraine as cram ?

[SW1]

I find the absence of Phalanx on PWLS to be humiliating. The sight of such a large, magnificent and expensive ship proudly sailing out of Portsmouth virtually defenceless at a time of rising world tension and risk of conflict is deeply concerning. There is the fact that our carriers are virtually unique in not being fitted with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that every other navy does not?); there is the fact that no 30mm are fitted despite the baseplates for 4 mounts being there since build; and now there is no Phalanx! This is absurd and deeply worrying. With what is going on around the world it would be foolish to assume that the ship might not be subject to attack, or might not be redeployed to a trouble spot. Just look at what has been achieved recently by aerial and fast boat drones. The threats are out there and our ships must be equipped to deal with them. It's not good enough to try to rely on our dwindling escort fleet or to borrow escorts from other countries. US carrier BGs deploy with a much stronger escort force than ours.....and their carriers are armed to the teeth as well! There are hundreds and hundreds of our service men and women on board PWLS. Should - God forbid - she be attacked and suffer casualties, one can imagine family lawyers queing up to sue MoD for sending their loved ones into harm's way without the means to adequately defend themselves.

This goes to heart of the whole issue with the aircraft carriers that were built. They were built without any thought to how they would be supported and maintained in service it’s been evident over the past 5 years. The RN doesn’t have the budget to do it. Richard beedall wrote a great article on this topic many years ago arguing this exact issue he has been proven right.

[new guy]

I find the absence of Phalanx on PWLS to be humiliating. The sight of such a large, magnificent and expensive ship proudly sailing out of Portsmouth virtually defenceless at a time of rising world tension and risk of conflict is deeply concerning. There is the fact that our carriers are virtually unique in not being fitted with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that every other navy does not?); there is the fact that no 30mm are fitted despite the baseplates for 4 mounts being there since build; and now there is no Phalanx! This is absurd and deeply worrying. With what is going on around the world it would be foolish to assume that the ship might not be subject to attack, or might not be redeployed to a trouble spot. Just look at what has been achieved recently by aerial and fast boat drones. The threats are out there and our ships must be equipped to deal with them. It's not good enough to try to rely on our dwindling escort fleet or to borrow escorts from other countries. US carrier BGs deploy with a much stronger escort force than ours.....and their carriers are armed to the teeth as well! There are hundreds and hundreds of our service men and women on board PWLS. Should - God forbid - she be attacked and suffer casualties, one can imagine family lawyers queing up to sue MoD for sending their loved ones into harm's way without the means to adequately defend themselves.

This goes to heart of the whole issue with the aircraft carriers that were built. They were built without any thought to how they would be supported and maintained in service it’s been evident over the past 5 years. The RN doesn’t have the budget to do it. Richard beedall wrote a great article on this topic many years ago arguing this exact issue he has been proven right.

here goes SW1.

[Scimitar54]

The Cameron government’s manpower (and capability) reductions are continuing to adversely and severely affect the RN, just as they are the other two armed services. Ironic that the QEC carriers had already been committed to and that the cuts that his government made went way too deep.
Now he bestrides the world as Foreign Secretary wearing our “emperors new clothes” that were the result of that legacy.

[abc123]

I find the absence of Phalanx on PWLS to be humiliating. The sight of such a large, magnificent and expensive ship proudly sailing out of Portsmouth virtually defenceless at a time of rising world tension and risk of conflict is deeply concerning. There is the fact that our carriers are virtually unique in not being fitted with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that every other navy does not?); there is the fact that no 30mm are fitted despite the baseplates for 4 mounts being there since build; and now there is no Phalanx! This is absurd and deeply worrying. With what is going on around the world it would be foolish to assume that the ship might not be subject to attack, or might not be redeployed to a trouble spot. Just look at what has been achieved recently by aerial and fast boat drones. The threats are out there and our ships must be equipped to deal with them. It's not good enough to try to rely on our dwindling escort fleet or to borrow escorts from other countries. US carrier BGs deploy with a much stronger escort force than ours.....and their carriers are armed to the teeth as well! There are hundreds and hundreds of our service men and women on board PWLS. Should - God forbid - she be attacked and suffer casualties, one can imagine family lawyers queing up to sue MoD for sending their loved ones into harm's way without the means to adequately defend themselves.

But, why would anyone really attack an aircraft carrier that has 8, instead of 30+ fighters, that has AEW system that doesn't work well, and has maybe 1 AAW destroyer to protect it? Except to additionally humiliate the UK, if that's even possible after all that?

[H_K]

Any info on how many F-35s are aboard PoW?

Hopefully this year’s work ups and next year’s CSG25 will help turn things around and put an end to all this bad press. A few solid deployments can do wonders - see Ford and Charles de Gaulle, which also faced PR nightmares in their early years.

Leaving you with a few pics of CdG working up in the Med and waiting for the UK strike group to come back to life (carrier, fighters, stores replenishment ship and all)

[Ron5]

But that isn't appropriate is it. Inspections carried out weeks ago that find ship isn't fit to sail. Work up carries on regardless until eve of deployment when ship declared unfit. Can't you see that is a problem.

If she wasn't fit she wasn't fit. Either the approval\decision process shouldn't take weeks or if it does need that time, lab tests ?, then the inspections are needed sooner.

That's not what was reported.

What was reported was that the defect was found and repaired according to standard practice. A risk review just prior to sailing, determined that the small amount of risk with the standard procedure (undetectable subsurface corrosion causing bacteria) was not justified and the ship was "grounded".

It happens all the time, I've just had a new house built. Passed all inspections until the last one before handing over to me. So closing was delayed by a few weeks to fix the couple of problems the earlier inspections thought were OK.