Ya think they're gonna drydock one shaft and not the other
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Well of course both shafts will in up the drydock as they're attached to the same ship. The question is why waste time and money working on the other shaft if the fault is a simple one only on one shaft. There is prudent 'while we're in there' but also unjustified 'firing the parts canon at it'.Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 20:15Ya think they're gonna drydock one shaft and not the other
How complex is the issue? One line spun was there was nothing physically wrong with the coupling and she could sail but the risk assessment judged otherwise.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Probably the kind of questions that would require the services of Naval Architects to answer. Duh.tomuk wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 23:38Well of course both shafts will in up the drydock as they're attached to the same ship. The question is why waste time and money working on the other shaft if the fault is a simple one only on one shaft. There is prudent 'while we're in there' but also unjustified 'firing the parts canon at it'.Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 20:15Ya think they're gonna drydock one shaft and not the other
How complex is the issue? One line spun was there was nothing physically wrong with the coupling and she could sail but the risk assessment judged otherwise.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
One would hope that after the lengthy diving inspections and then onshore assessments that finally came down against QNLZ sailing that a plan of action would already be in place. Rather than a back of the fag packet 'lets stick her into Roysth and take a look at her '.Ron5 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2024, 15:28Probably the kind of questions that would require the services of Naval Architects to answer. Duh.tomuk wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 23:38Well of course both shafts will in up the drydock as they're attached to the same ship. The question is why waste time and money working on the other shaft if the fault is a simple one only on one shaft. There is prudent 'while we're in there' but also unjustified 'firing the parts canon at it'.Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2024, 20:15Ya think they're gonna drydock one shaft and not the other
How complex is the issue? One line spun was there was nothing physically wrong with the coupling and she could sail but the risk assessment judged otherwise.
What is missing, which is a problem throughout UK defence establishment, is a lack of transparency. Everything is hidden behind all too convenient a veil of operational or worse commercial sensitivity. US senators and reps would be banging on the doors of the Pentagon\White House if a similar lack of transparency was tried in the US.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What on earth makes you think there isn't?tomuk wrote: ↑08 Mar 2024, 22:42 One would hope that after the lengthy diving inspections and then onshore assessments that finally came down against QNLZ sailing that a plan of action would already be in place. Rather than a back of the fag packet 'lets stick her into Roysth and take a look at her '.
I totally agree but in this case, I'm not sure the RN has much to say other than what has been said i.e. She's going into dry dock to check out the couplings and determine the best course of action based on those results.tomuk wrote: ↑08 Mar 2024, 22:42 What is missing, which is a problem throughout UK defence establishment, is a lack of transparency. Everything is hidden behind all too convenient a veil of operational or worse commercial sensitivity. US senators and reps would be banging on the doors of the Pentagon\White House if a similar lack of transparency was tried in the US.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
It would be nice to know but the Navy might think its giving ammunition to the press to use against them.tomuk wrote: ↑08 Mar 2024, 22:42 What is missing, which is a problem throughout UK defence establishment, is a lack of transparency. Everything is hidden behind all too convenient a veil of operational or worse commercial sensitivity. US senators and reps would be banging on the doors of the Pentagon\White House if a similar lack of transparency was tried in the US.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
enough is already givenJdam wrote: ↑09 Mar 2024, 16:30It would be nice to know but the Navy might think its giving ammunition to the press to use against them.tomuk wrote: ↑08 Mar 2024, 22:42 What is missing, which is a problem throughout UK defence establishment, is a lack of transparency. Everything is hidden behind all too convenient a veil of operational or worse commercial sensitivity. US senators and reps would be banging on the doors of the Pentagon\White House if a similar lack of transparency was tried in the US.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Just read the same in the Daily Fail...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -fire.html
More red faces for the top brass...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -fire.html
More red faces for the top brass...
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Reportedly a fat fire in the mess galley.bobp wrote: ↑09 Mar 2024, 21:08 Just read the same in the Daily Fail...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -fire.html
More red faces for the top brass...
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
They don't need to give anything more, everything is very visible, if you want to see.Jdam wrote: ↑09 Mar 2024, 16:30It would be nice to know but the Navy might think its giving ammunition to the press to use against them.tomuk wrote: ↑08 Mar 2024, 22:42 What is missing, which is a problem throughout UK defence establishment, is a lack of transparency. Everything is hidden behind all too convenient a veil of operational or worse commercial sensitivity. US senators and reps would be banging on the doors of the Pentagon\White House if a similar lack of transparency was tried in the US.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Looking great.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- serge750
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Because of the press coverage of recent failures/accidents.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Why do you think that press coverage of recent accidents, particularly the fire on board HMS QE, should cause red faces amongst the "Top Brass"
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Been away for a few days so just seen this but this is what POWs CSG should look like just with a few more USMC F-35's
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
- Ron5 • serge750
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Impressive
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- serge750
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Two things here for me first as said this is how we should use POW for the most part as a NATO flag ship with Allied escorts
Next the Amphib group looks more like what we should be aiming for
ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi , HNLMS Karel Doorman , RFA Mounts Bay
Next the Amphib group looks more like what we should be aiming for
ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi , HNLMS Karel Doorman , RFA Mounts Bay
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Does USS Paul Ignatius need an overhaul, seems a bit smoky.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Where is the open and transparent press release from MOD to cut this off at the pass?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26728397/ ... e-sailors/TEN sailors needed medical treatment after a blaze on the Royal Navy’s “cursed carrier” HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Medics treated the injured after fire ripped through mess decks and crew sleeping areas — destroying 100 beds.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Fucking Sun what cu@t let this twat write anything " cursed carrier " pratt needs to go away and have a cold shower after getting so worked up
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- PhillyJ
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I guess QE will be out of action for a while, wonder who leaked this to the Sun.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Probably bounced around whatsapp groups.
Someone leave their ipod on charge?
Someone leave their ipod on charge?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
That was last weekend when it used sympathetic social media accounts to push a narrative of nothing to see here all normal move on as they have done on previous incidents with these ships.tomuk wrote: ↑16 Mar 2024, 02:32Where is the open and transparent press release from MOD to cut this off at the pass?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26728397/ ... e-sailors/TEN sailors needed medical treatment after a blaze on the Royal Navy’s “cursed carrier” HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Medics treated the injured after fire ripped through mess decks and crew sleeping areas — destroying 100 beds.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Apparently the 100 beds destroyed is from the automatic fire suppression system, a.k.a fire sprinklers a.k.a water damage.