UK Defence Forum

Beat me... Was just gonna post this.



Can't see why the Navy has to pay for it not being built correctly?

Macron/Sunak diplomacy at work?

Little J wrote: ↑18 Mar 2023, 15:30 Beat me... Was just gonna post this.



Can't see why the Navy has to pay for it not being built correctly?

Under English contract law if you know there is a problem with something but you accept it anyway you usually lose the right to seek compensation later. If you change your mind the longer you wait before claiming breach of contract the harder it gets.

POW was commissioned in December 2019 so waiting nearly 4 years before trying to get compensation is going to kill your chances of success.

If the RN knew there was a problem, given the profile of the ship, it is likely that the decision to accept the vessel would have been taken at the highest level. I don't suppose we will know for sure until the papers are released in 30+ years time.

Was there ever amy doubt....

Bring Deeps wrote: ↑18 Mar 2023, 16:43

Little J wrote: ↑18 Mar 2023, 15:30 Beat me... Was just gonna post this.



Can't see why the Navy has to pay for it not being built correctly?

Under English contract law if you know there is a problem with something but you accept it anyway you usually lose the right to seek compensation later. If you change your mind the longer you wait before claiming breach of contract the harder it gets.

POW was commissioned in December 2019 so waiting nearly 4 years before trying to get compensation is going to kill your chances of success.

If the RN knew there was a problem, given the profile of the ship, it is likely that the decision to accept the vessel would have been taken at the highest level. I don't suppose we will know for sure until the papers are released in 30+ years time.

I boils down to when the problem was know before or after accepting considering the sister ship does not have the problem

Just trying to rack the ole grey matter, didn't QE have some sort of seal problem in trials or was that POW?

The thrust block cracked on QE

Timmymagic wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:09

Ron5 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.

This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.

Do we know if FCASW might be capable of F35 integration? I’m anticipating a high level stand off anti shipping and land attack weapon - which it sounds like needs to be resolved with SRVL…

Dobbo wrote: ↑19 Mar 2023, 08:19

Timmymagic wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:09

Ron5 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.

This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.

Do we know if FCASW might be capable of F35 integration? I’m anticipating a high level stand off anti shipping and land attack weapon - which it sounds like needs to be resolved with SRVL…

That's the plan.

Ron5 wrote: ↑19 Mar 2023, 13:16

Dobbo wrote: ↑19 Mar 2023, 08:19

Timmymagic wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 14:09

Ron5 wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.

This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.

Do we know if FCASW might be capable of F35 integration? I’m anticipating a high level stand off anti shipping and land attack weapon - which it sounds like needs to be resolved with SRVL…

That's the plan.

Could the F35 carry an FCASW if it if such a size that the VLS model ends up filling a strike length MK41?

Appreciate the VLS model will be smaller, and that it won’t fit internally, but we are talking about what is likely to be a very large weapon…

Dobbo wrote: ↑19 Mar 2023, 21:11 Could the F35 carry an FCASW if it if such a size that the VLS model ends up filling a strike length MK41?
Appreciate the VLS model will be smaller, and that it won’t fit internally, but we are talking about what is likely to be a very large weapon…

It will be the same missile in VLS, Canister, air launched and sub launched. The only differences will be the addition of a rocket booster for zero speed launch. Tomahawk and Storm Shadow have exactly the same weight without boosters (2,900 lbs). Expect it to be between that size and JASSM-ER (not the XR/JASSM-ERB2).

Apparently a CSG could deploy to the IndoPacific region in 4 weeks. I wonder if that’s just stating the art of the possible or if it’s a planning requirement.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -27/hl6890

Repulse wrote: ↑15 Apr 2023, 08:07 Apparently a CSG could deploy to the IndoPacific region in 4 weeks. I wonder if that’s just stating the art of the possible or if it’s a planning requirement.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -27/hl6890

More likely the art of possible considering the need for escorts from indo pacific nations to help out.

I think it might be something more of a planned occurrence. The RN has to many commitments to sail alone without support from others in the IndoPacfic area let alone the SCS

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -yard.html

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.

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.

Is the mail going To go down the carriers are useless and a drip ,drip slow campaign to sell one ,as said by the labour oppsition leader about not sure tilt to Asia, could be lining up to sell one ,or giving anough bad press to pubic ,that no dissent when do ,that's my take on this ,but the navy and the pMOD eople in charge have definitely done nothing to help their course

Essential read about state of PoW and the truth vs media stories.
TL:DR
. Propeller loss happened. Oof. not necessarily uncommon.
. MoD merged this emergency repair docking and a scheduled refit together.
. PoW giving tiny amount of parts to QE so she can maintain readiness while new parts being manufactured.
. "ct. In the case of the RN, there were over 5 years about 3000 incidents of cannibalisation where parts were required urgently (70% of those parts cost under £5000) – at the same time roughly 300,000 parts were delivered through the supply chain on time or as required. In other words 98.6% of the time, the RN has got the parts it needed without cannibalising."https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... w=magazine

Repair her. That is RN's top top top priority.

No T32 needed, as it is the LOWEST priority. MRSS can be postponed for 10 years. Of course, sell Waves. Go away with Scott (= cancelling MROSS(2)). Even selling some of the T31s is OK.

"Two carrier fleet" is the heart of RN.
"19 escorts and more" is NOT.
Replacing Argus is NOT. Replacing LPDs and Bays NOW is NOT. Scott is NOT. Waves are already gone, just sell them.

Just do it.

Procuring of larger and complex items of kit without much or very overly optimistic assumptions about the cost to maintain and support them leads to these problems. Cannibalising equipment is a symptom of a much bigger problem and can have very unintended consequences.

The Thin pinstriped line continuous nothing to see here move along narrative is flawed and indicative of the problem.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 14:28 Repair her. That is RN's top top top priority.

No T32 needed, as it is the LOWEST priority. MRSS can be postponed for 10 years. Of course, sell Waves. Go away with Scott (= cancelling MROSS(2)). Even selling some of the T31s is OK.

"Two carrier fleet" is the heart of RN.
"19 escorts and more" is NOT.
Replacing Argus is NOT. Replacing LPDs and Bays NOW is NOT. Scott is NOT. Waves are already gone, just sell them.

Just do it.

Have you been on the sake today

There is a lot of truth in the article, certainly knew about the lift chains a while back. All phalanx gone, but then they would not be needed whilst in dry dock for a continued maintenance I guess. Not sure ship will be sailing soon for other issues with props and shafts, certainly nipper will be unlikely to sail with her before he leaves and goes to his next draft in August

Such a shame for Nipper (and everyone else on PoW)... Hope whatever he does in the future helps to make up for the massive disappointment.

Little J wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 21:30 Such a shame for Nipper (and everyone else on PoW)... Hope whatever he does in the future helps to make up for the massive disappointment.

His next draft is based at Semaphore Tower in HMNB Portsmouth...in his own words

Doing rounds of all the dead ships and helping out where needed in the Dockyard mate. All the jobs dockys don’t wanna do, it’s tabs out. You’ll occasionally get a boat out to the 23 in the graveyard and check it hasn’t sunk

As he has technically been at sea on a ship for 4 years he has to be shore based this draft.

PhillyJ wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 09:51

Little J wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 21:30 Such a shame for Nipper (and everyone else on PoW)... Hope whatever he does in the future helps to make up for the massive disappointment.

His next draft is based at Semaphore Tower in HMNB Portsmouth...in his own words

Doing rounds of all the dead ships and helping out where needed in the Dockyard mate. All the jobs dockys don’t wanna do, it’s tabs out. You’ll occasionally get a boat out to the 23 in the graveyard and check it hasn’t sunk

As he has technically been at sea on a ship for 4 years he has to be shore based this draft.

I think I would challenge that posting as he spent only a handful of days at sea

Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 10:37 I think I would challenge that posting as he spent only a handful of days at sea

Its a disaster for all involved. Imagine what RN could have done with that crew allocation in those four years.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 11:36

Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 10:37 I think I would challenge that posting as he spent only a handful of days at sea

Its a disaster for all involved. Imagine what RN could have done with that crew allocation in those four years.

The crew allocation to POW is not the problem nor in someways is the fact that she has had problems it is a problem that RN has taken a closed view to the next posting of said people. So in my view people like nipper should be given another sea tour or at least a 2 year tour on say the LPD or given his trade a RFA were by he can get his sea days

https://www.navylookout.com/repairs-to- ... is-summer/

HMS Prince of Wales will return to Portsmouth in the next few months for some final maintenance work and the RN is confident she will be ready to begin her programme in August.

Someones confident.