is she smoking like a steam train ?
not one but two main aircraft carriers can not get out of port
- Thread starter devonbeef
- Start date
- Location
- Limousin
The question you should be asking is she vibrating like a dilldoe.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Had a chat with a former RN officer yesterday, mainly about other matters, but of course this was mentioned too... he isn't surprised at this and called it - with a straight face - teething troubles. I laughed at that, but he explained it and it is a reasonable claim.
When a new class of ship, or major change to an existing class is brought in there are nearly always problems of some sort. This is the same in all navies, the US, France and others all have the same thing happen. He reckons it takes up to a decade for anything major to be sorted out...
He went on to say that this is why more ships are needed, to allow for such problems and to allow for an experienced production line to exist. He claimed, and I don't know about the economics of this, that it is worth subsidising foreign sales of ships to overcome the problems stated.
When a new class of ship, or major change to an existing class is brought in there are nearly always problems of some sort. This is the same in all navies, the US, France and others all have the same thing happen. He reckons it takes up to a decade for anything major to be sorted out...
He went on to say that this is why more ships are needed, to allow for such problems and to allow for an experienced production line to exist. He claimed, and I don't know about the economics of this, that it is worth subsidising foreign sales of ships to overcome the problems stated.
when there is both is time to worryThe question you should be asking is she vibrating like a dilldoe.
- Location
- Limousin
I agree that these carriers are probably some of the most complex and sophisticated single items ever produced. But it is really unacceptable for them to be dogged with problems over something as basic bearing blocks and shaft couplings. After all ships have now had screw propulsion for over 150 years!Had a chat with a former RN officer yesterday, mainly about other matters, but of course this was mentioned too... he isn't surprised at this and called it - with a straight face - teething troubles. I laughed at that, but he explained it and it is a reasonable claim.
When a new class of ship, or major change to an existing class is brought in there are nearly always problems of some sort. This is the same in all navies, the US, France and others all have the same thing happen. He reckons it takes up to a decade for anything major to be sorted out...
He went on to say that this is why more ships are needed, to allow for such problems and to allow for an experienced production line to exist. He claimed, and I don't know about the economics of this, that it is worth subsidising foreign sales of ships to overcome the problems stated.
Pieces_of_Eight
Member
Each ship has its own crew,
The crew belong to to the ship but the aircraft don't.
QE will shortly be heading to dry-dock at Rosyth.
Carriers are staggeringly expensive, but this is why we have two. (French only have 1)
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
There's not much that's basic about the QE and PoW propulsion system. 150 years ago they weren't using gas turbines and large marine diesels to drive generators which in turn drive independent electric propulsion, and they certainly weren't putting anywhere near as much power through couplings.
Better sharpen my pitch fork
Seen it myself first hand on jobs, where the council, or government are paying for something and the chap representing them telling the contractor to charge anything they like and they will pay.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
You write a letter and tell them so, that'll learn 'em.
- Location
- Westish Suffolk
Thank you.
Got to wonder why we decided to have two if the Russians and French reckon they can get by with one.
Is it because we knew that at any one time one maybe out of service like as now?
Think some of the F35s onboard actually report to sleepy Joe?
I guess its more to do with our maritime history, and an aspiration to remain a global superpower.
Pieces_of_Eight
Member
Yes & yes.
2/3 of the 31 NATO partners are currently below the 2% GDP contribution, ours sits at 2.07%
There is a big difference in military terms between 'just getting by' and being able to project serious assets anywhere in the world within 21 days.
Many countries have little interest in getting their armed forces involved across multiple continents, but the UK has a significant permanent commitment across the Commonwealth and the BOTs.
IMHO the term 'Global Superpower' is highly subjective, i'd only include the US, China & NATO itself.
The total NATO defence budget of $2bn is a drop in the ocean compared to the US with their $800bn per year.
Just the USMC in isolation has more personnel/equipment/assets/firepower than most countries.
Yes, there is a long established cooperation (since WW2).
Our 617Sq have regularly trained over with the equivalent USMC and USAF squadrons, and the Prince of Wales only returned back from Virginia before Christmas.
- Location
- Limousin
I've already told them. One of my sons was a BAe engineer on the PoW construction. Reply was propulsion units were bugger all to do with him.You write a letter and tell them so, that'll learn 'em.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Tell him to seek promotion.I've already told them. One of my sons was a BAe engineer on the PoW construction. Reply was propulsion units were bugger all to do with him.
Assisted by a huge ocean-going tug apparently. Maybe the modern answer is more bases on foreign soil. Hey Mr Trump!Fair chance he might have 1 operational though.
Not a military type, but I've always thought carriers are rather a large sitting
Pieces_of_Eight
Member
HMS QE now in drydock at Rosyth for assessment.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Stupid build form the start, the US was willing to share the tech for its own system, could have licensed it and been in a much better position with a much better design.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
@Muck Spreader you laugh, but we have an expensive and not very good design; the only thing worse would be to have an expensive and not very good nuclear carrier - just ask the French.
- Location
- Limousin
The Gerald R Ford has been dogged with trouble since construction started. And the RN could neither remotely afford one let alone two or crew them without mothballing the rest of the navy..
- Location
- Limousin
@Muck Spreader you laugh, but we have an expensive and not very good design; the only thing worse would be to have an expensive and not very good nuclear carrier - just ask the French.
France’s Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier Is Simply a Naval Masterpiece
Although the Charles de Gaulle will remain in service for another seventeen years, France is already forging ahead with its next-generation carrier. The Porte-Avions Nouvelle Generation (PANG) is under development and is expected to begin construction by 2025.
nationalinterest.org