HMS Prince of Wales sailed from Portsmouth yesterday for a 4-month deployment to the United States but soon after departure experienced a significant technical fault.
She is currently at anchor south east of the Isle of Wight and divers have been inspecting the ship below the waterline. Unconfirmed reports say there is damage to the starboard propeller shaft but as is usual, official sources will not comment in detail on the material state of the ship. It may be unrelated but the wake visible in the photo above, taken as she sailed yesterday, appears to indicate only the port shaft turning.
An RN spokesperson said today “The ship is receiving external support for ongoing investigations”. For now at least, the official line is that the deployment is still on, they added: “Having successfully sailed from Portsmouth, HMS PRINCE OF WALES remains in the South Coast Exercise Area. We expect her to continue her WESTLANT 22 deployment as planned in the coming days.”
Should the issue prove to be serious it goes without saying that this is extremely unfortunate and not a good look for the RN. HMS Prince of Wales already experience a major internal flood in October 2020 which resulted in the postponement of the planned trip to the US in 2021. Breakdowns and unexpected defects do happen occasionally, even to relatively new vessels. (In April 1986 HMS Illustrious suffered a major gearbox fire as she set out for a 9-month Global 86 deployment. The damage took several months to repair but Illustrious was able to rejoin the tail end of the deployment.) This event should not be taken as a sign there is a fundamental flaw in the QEC propulsion and shaft arrangement, HMS Queen Elizabeth completed a 26,000 nm deployment last year without a problem and HMS Prince of Wales operated in the Arctic earlier this year.
Hopefully, the issue can be resolved quickly but should repair to a propeller shaft be needed, this would imply a requirement for dry docking. HMS Prince of Wales was due to go to Rosyth for a six-week dry-docking for her first Lloyds Naval Ship Rules inspection in 2023 – this could be brought forward and combined with the repair work. Inevitably this would disrupt or result in the cancellation of a long-planned deployment and an important flying trials programme.
More details on this story are likely to emerge in the coming days.
Main Photo: Ian Pears
Related articles
HMS Prince of Wales to be dry-docked while HMS Queen Elizabeth takes on some of her tasking
Babcock awarded 10-year contract for dry docking Royal Navy aircraft carriers at Rosyth
One of the reasons the Royal Navy needs two aircraft carriers – a setback for HMS Prince of Wales
F-35 jets to embark on HMS Prince of Wales for exercise Strike Warrior 2024
Not good. But things happen.
Still……….
What sort of ship is the photo of?
A dry docked one.
Very funny, not very helpful.
Didn’t have a clue, just thought I’d be a clever clogs ! Interesting to see the scale when you see the person standing next to the truck/buggy thing, It’s huge.
She is very impressive when she comes back alongside the wall. Just pirouettes into position.
I quite often visit Southampton and Calshot, Have some great pics of her and many others entering and leaving. It’s a truly impressive sight when you stand at the waters edge next to Calshot Castle. There is an interesting view to be had if you check out 24-7 Boardsports Web Cam, it’s good for ship watching.
Thank you.
Queen Mary 2
Shame the aft end isn’t shown in better detail. Note the false ‘cruiser stern’.
Wasnt the QE class carriers originally supposed to get propulsion system like that . I suppose the standard ‘shafts’ was seen as more reliable ?
The thruster style system doesn’t pass shock testing.
Someone forgot to tell the French ( the Mistral class amphib ) and the Spanish ( Don Juan class) and RAN ( the Canberra class LHD)
Were they shock tested?
Or were they built to the ‘peace dividend’ standard?
Or maybe littoral manoeuvrability trumped battle resistance?
‘Peace dividend’ was to not build at all. The QE design was cheapened at every stage, which is also why theres no closer in missile defence.
The US Navy has multiple layers from the Sea Sparrow type ( now like Sea Ceptor more range) to the Sea Ram and even an active anti torpedo defence for below the water
The RAN took a significant risk with the Juan Carlos class and have already had problems with at least on ship where one or both pods have been replaced.
Single propeller pods are very common on cruise ships but double haven’t taken off commercially. The pods on the Juan Carlos are big mothers with 2 of everything to go wrong:
Different requirements also. LHD need to venture into shallower waters , ports usually and the greater manoeuvrability from the pods for a high sided vessel into ports often without tug assistance
Not just shock testing but they were supposedly noisier than conventional propellers (something the French are quite accustomed to).
Everyone now berates the RN for going with the “risky” power plant option for the Type 45s against BAE’s advice and now having to have £1bn worth of fixes done.
The ‘integrated’ inter-cooler recuperator section was a flop ( the RR gas turbine was the same as subsequent ships)
These propulsion pods are widespread not new like the WR21 system was
There isn’t a thruster system in the world that has “passed” shock testing. Not least because the only way to actually test them is once they’re built and in the water under the ship.
Which is why they were among the first things to get binned from the design. Too many unknowns – not least how a relatively concentrated heavy mass at the extremity of the ship might respond under whipping loading of the hull girder.
We know how shafts, rudders etc respond through decades of full-scale trials and war experience. That doesn’t exist for these pods.
Precisely.
Have you seen the propulsion systems for almost all modern ice breakers.This ARC7 double acting LNG carrier use azipods. When they encounter thick ice they go into reverse and use the podded props to chew through it. They should be able to survive shock testing.
Alpha had pods.
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b4630eb7f5ee263a5d22a3b7c92ee57b-pjlq
Alpha would have had 4 GT’s wow, bet that would hurt at the pumps.
It’s the bow thrusters that should have been retained.
Well i was thinking that too after seeing your post.
You only have to watch QM2 coming alongside and the QE’s doing the same……..
Thanks
It’s a cruise ship.
Wonder how quickly they could get HMS QE out if HMS PoW does need a lengthy stay in Rosyth?
As the high readiness carrier QE is always supposed to be less than a week from deploying. She is also due to go on her own deployment shortly.
Choosing which set of objectives are more important is probably keeping the lights on at the MoD and Foreign Office this weekend.
Neither can go far as RFA Fort Victoria is in refit!
With a bit of ingenuity they can go anywhere. With what the carrier has on board she could get 15,000 Nm with tanker support before needing to stop at a friendly port.
Both carriers where/are planned for simultaneous deployments over the next few weeks potentially without Fort Vic.
I would also point out that ships like Fort Vic are relatively uncommon. Most navies now use AOR’s instead of dedicated tankers & solid support ships (basically a hybrid). Most navies don’t have high speed aircraft carriers to worry about. Most of the AOR’s max out around 20 knots, but that isn’t a problem if you are traveling below that figure, or are meeting up at designated locations. Allies like Canada, Germany, Spain, Australia & even New Zealand operate modern AOR’s.
Fort Vic is an AOR.
This is rather embarrassing. So it isn’t just the Russians whose ships breakdown. We need to ensure that RN ships have full technical support, are fully crewed and fully armed before anyone talks about extra hulls.
Our gas and electricity bills are going through the roof, an average of £400 per household and will go higher. We need help against the energy fat cats. Military expenditure is a good candidate to cut, especially as it’s not adding value eg. carriers without planes and embarrassing design flaws and breakdowns.
Don’t knock the military too hard! We may yet need them out again this winter doing things like vaccinations and driving tankers – which has become harder with a lot deployed in Eastern Europe.
Snow clearance, global warming and all that.
He appears from nowhere stating Russian talking points. Energy prices (Ukraine war) RN incompetence. fatcats etc and calling for defence cuts. When you put the clues together what does it tell you ?
He is allowed his point of view. Too much group think here. Well too much group compliance not enough think.
Exactly, Free Speech and the right to say things was hard fought for with much blood spilled along the way, having a point of view should be respected and not censored.
Sadly not often here.
Shame the government doesn’t see it that way when “liking” a post on Facebook of the LGBT flag rearranged into a swastika gets you a visit from the Gestapo without a hint of irony from Plod. “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” as they like to say or in other words you can say what you like unless we don’t like what you have to say AKA they don’t actually believe in free speech.
Free speech doesnt exist in private circumstances such as social media including companies for their staff.
It only applies to government or its agencies shutting you down. Even then theres still film and literature censorship in UK , recently banned Gestapo’s Last Orgy ( no need to ask why)
You will find every social media outlet , including newspapers comments sections, will have various ‘standards’ that users have to comply. An appropriate method in my view.
I read his (?) posts along with many others on the UKDJ site, seems to attract a lot of attention from the regulars, I guess he just doesn’t fit in with the clique that seem to own that place. Nothing he typed here is actually wrong is it ? maybe a bit exaggerated but not actually wrong.
I’ve never seen a post using his name on UKDJ. Plus duck test !
Have you not ?
Defence is not a good candidate to cut. Far from it. The military’s role is to deter, degrade and destroy the enemy’s will to fight. We failed to deter precisely because of defence cuts, and the high energy bills are a direct consequence.
Obviously it wasn’t just our cuts that allowed Putin to think he could get away with military expansion, but we contributed heavily, continuing to cut after Georgia, after Crimea and after Salisbury, and when it comes to army numbers we are still cutting. So yes. Further cuts in defence spending are absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
Exactly, Decades of defence cuts have practically left the UK ineffectual on the world stage, Well in the case of Russia and China that is but personally, I’ve been campaigning and complaining for years, unfortunately it’s all been in vain though. I think he was merely pointing out this fact and to be honest, there is meat to his argument when you actually think about it. 2% of GDP buys us nothing like the same as other Countries when you actually look into it. So much waste and cost overruns, just look at Ajax, QE Class and T45’s, see how much they actually cost.
You wouldn’t run a business like that if you didn’t have Tax payers money.
I don’t think we are totally ineffectual just yet and there’s some promise of reversal. Increasing spending on defence might take twenty years to get us anywhere major, but if I thought it was a lost cause, I wouldn’t be here. I suspect that would be true of most of us.
Me neither, I was just being cynical, but you have to look at the past 70 years to see the rapid decline that will take some reversing.
It was the UK trying to be the US ‘partner’ which led to the billions wasted on 2 land wars in Middle East.
Trying to be an actor on the world stage is a colossal mistake, which you seem to want more of . Hint fighting wars is far more costly that having the right equipment for more immediate threats- China isnt one of them. Have you seen how little Taiwan spends on Defence compared to say Singapore, if they arent that concerned why should a country in Europe.
Oh, ok erm, I’m noticing a pattern now in your replies.
Rapid decline in last 70 years was because defence spending was around 10% of GDP in late 50s- the cold war and all that. The 1957 defence cuts were about reducing that.
Even by the Falkland time it was between 4-5% of GDP ( NHS was just over 6% back then , its 11% now)
You dont seem to understand the strategic changes since the 50s and 60s and the cost at the time .
For heavens sake ‘ world stage’ is for super powers and no amount of reminiscing from people who were young around that time is going to change it.
I was looking at the composition of the Naval Board or what ever its name is that runs the navy and the guy who controls the spending is a former Treasury official, who unsurprisingly has no previous financial work in military but worked on social services spending inside for Treasury !
If theres a pattern to my comments its i would push back on the usual keyboard warriors like yourself.
Sorry but all I’ve read of your replies to pretty much everyone on here has been either condescending, dismissive, mis quoted or at best just downright rude. here you are typing such comments like “you don’t seem to understand” and then this last paragraph in which you label me a “Keyboard Warrior”.
That is exactly the pattern that I have noticed, it’s the classic behaviour of a narcissist. go look it up you’ll find it all fits well with your online persona.
You dont understand ( and I gave reasons why )
Keyboard warriors always hate it when someone else doesnt share their view on rushing to to nearest bugle sound , but from behind a computer.
Ive never heard of someone ‘analysing all other comments’ to make judgement on someone.
If you dont like your views being challenged and perhaps are used to deference from others, this isnt the place for you
You have just described yourself perfectly “Narcissist”, one who seeks attention whilst believing they are superior, one who looks down on others, one who believes he is the victim, one with extremely low self esteem yet a feeling of superiority, one who avoids answering a direct question, preferring to deflect in the belief that they are superior. Yup, bang on.
Hear, hear.
I still say the UK could get most of what it needs for its military with a half a percent bump in spending. 2.5 percent of GDP would put the RN, RAF, Army, Royal Marines, and special forces on a much better footing. 2.75 or 3.0 would be ideal, but I think you could get by with 2.5.
Won’t happen, though.
I’m not as sanguine as you as to whether 2.5% is enough. A significant amount of the money always goes to non-headline purchases, such as ammunition/missile stocks. Nuclear soaks up a phenomenal amount. Thowing money into the black holes that have been created through past bad decisions also soaks up a lot more, and there are a lot of those black holes still there, still needing to be paid for.
About eighteen months ago the government added £27.7bn to this decade’s procurement budget, none of which went into ships, tanks or planes. It mostly went to fill black hole costs of badly funded current programmes, like AWE, Type 26, Ajax, F-35, etc. Let me try to give a flavour of outstanding black hole problems.
On surface ships this decade, we can expect a £6.5bn bill for T26-B2, about £2.5 bn on T31/32, and £1.7bn on FSSS. A total of £10.7bn, with £9.6bn in the kitty. Just three programmes, ignoring the remains of the spend on T6- B1, and that before the end of the decade we’ll need to pay for much of MRSS (unless Argus is to last into the 2030s), and we’ll want to start putting in advanced orders for T83 (or Lifex for the Type 45s). When you factor in inflation (and the procurement total is “outturn”, so it doesn’t) there’s a black hole in the surface fleet procurement alone of at least £3bn this decade. [I expect this to be “handled” by delaying procurement into next decade, making a larger black hole.]
£3bn is hardly insurmountable if we increase the budget to 2.5%. But that’s on one budget line of £9.6bn. How many other black holes still lurk?
What? You wanted to increase the size of the fleet on 2.5% GDP. You’re having a laugh.
Jon, that’s a seriously dire description. Assuming what you wrote is accurate—and I have no reason to doubt you—it would seem that an increase to 3% would indeed be necessary in order to stop up all of the MOD black holes. Or at least most of them.
Methinks there is probably a good deal of corruption in the procurement process, especially where BAE is concerned. Perhaps a combination of funding increase and procurement reform would cure the ills.
>larf<
He is an old hand at trolling a few sites, quite a while ago though, but stand by for more and more extreme anti mil posts!
No worries he’s far too thick to worry about.
Wrong again, long time no see! Shall we expect more nuggets of wisdom soon Iqi?
The wake suggests that only one shaft was turning. It would confirm that the problem is with the Stbd shaft.
Could be anything from hitting something to a bearing dying.
The ship is electric drive with conventional shafts and fixed pitch propellers. There are no gear boxes on the shafts to stuff up. Short of something simple with a bearing it is probably a dry dock job.
They fixed the props on QE whilst she was in the water. The commercial world has pushed underwater maintenance forward a long way over the past few years.
But until it’s clear what’s broken any fix thoughts are just speculation.
Looking at the photo you can see she is only running on port shaft. Something went wrong maybe just as she left Portsmouth. Not good.
So HMS POW has prop shaft issue?
De ja vue here with HMS POW having a shaft problem back in December 41 off the coast of Malaya, with a very sad ending….
Oh absolutely, exactly the same in every detail, deary me.
The ‘shaft problem’ was after a hit from an aerial torpedo. Not what you could say was deja vue.
Is this an example of my ‘narcissism ” LOL
Well Yes, This post (question) that you have now typed is a perfect example. And you seem to be Typing to yourself as well, seems like you might have more personality issues than first feared.
If it does come down to drydocking to fix it, is there any alternative to Rosyth as you detailed here:
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-awarded-10-year-contract-for-dry-docking-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-at-rosyth/
Seems pretty inconvenient with the location and tide/weather restrictions.
In the UK or in Europe?
The UK is in Europe. Do you mean the political entity called the EU?
Sorry is wasn’t clear. U.K. or mainland Europe. (The EU isn’t relevant to this discussion).
Navy Lookout: been there, wrote that.
Yes, It’s only a few miles back in Portsmouth. Often overlooked in favour of the Scottish place but Portsmouth is more than able to help out, in fact, it is still more than capable of building gurt oooge ships given government support
Terrible idea. The existing yard closed ( ex Vosper Thorneycroft, ex BAE) and its better to support existing real shipyards rather than try to create new shipbuilding in Portsmouth
Appledore springs to mind !
How does that help a QEC?
You’d never get it close to the yard!
Ha,I was referencing Duker’s comment about yards being closed and just mentioned Appledore to highlight the fact it has now re-opened and working. The Torridge is a tad shallow at times and the sandbar has claimed a few over the years, good for flat fish and the odd Bass, not to mention the grey mullet but `they do taste like mud, thats if you can even catch one !
As a country we lack shipbuilding and repair facilities.
The world is becoming more dangerous and there’s going to be more demand on our ships and those of our allies.
IMHO the great danger is the possibility of actual hostile action. Warfare (especially vs. the PRC) would pitilessly expose both operational and design flaws. Respectfully, a long stint in drydock would seem to be the conservative decision.
Well good point, seems like sailing an aircraft carrier with no aircraft is asking for trouble anyhow, just a juicy target if any serious hostilities happened.
Across the Atlantic?
The only real risk to her is from below which is best dealt with by a…..drumroll……T23 which is the premier ASW asset in NATO…..
Happily she will go with T23 and maybe an Astute or US SSN in attendance.
What be they then ?
Totally out of the question. Look at Ukraine , the US intel services knew months previously an invasion was being planned and later the exact days. Zelensky ( and me and European leaders apart from UK)) didnt believe them.
I can assure you ‘any prep’ for opening hostilities against nato countries itself would be known about some time in advance. Then there is the political likelihood which is even lower than out of the question.
If she’s daffy ducked for a while, there’s a chance of turning this into a PR win if QE were to be sent instead – value of having 2 carriers etc. PoW would follow in good time and it wouldn’t be newsworthy.
It appears dry docking is required to rectify the issue and its been muted she’ll proceed to and be dry docked in Amsterdam? Not sure how that works with the contract signed with Babcock at Rosyth unless Babcock own the said facility? Apparently Amsterdam is nearer and more easily accessed, but I would have thought security is a major issue here….
Security isn’t really an issue (beyond the norm).
Perhaps not, but the fact that she’s carrying ammunition might be don’t you think?
Magazines are safe-ish.
They are, but we are talking a UK warship with lots of ammunition in a foreign dockyard for who knows how long? Might be a interesting safety case once a it’s been risk assessed.
We could tow up to Scotland, take the ammunition off, and then tow it back down to the Netherlands……..
Of course we could…….
🙂
On the contrary,putting a new 3 Billion carrier into a commercial shipyard in a foreign country is a major headache for someone….
Navies put ships into commercial yards all the time if there is a need.
On the contrary I don’t think quite know what you are on about…….
Article mentions airship and Isle of Wright so I wouldn’t put too much faith in this report!
Why would you dry dock in AMS when HMG is paying to have Rosyth on standby?
Dry docking in Amsterdam is not very likely. If they decide to go for the nearest port, they will probably take it to Rotterdam. Damen Verolme (Rotterdam) can accommodate vessels with a maximum length of 405 metres, Damen Shiprepair Rotterdam has a dock for vessels up to 308 metres, and Damen Shiprepair & Conversion in Schiedam accommodates vessels up to 305 metres. The country’s fourth dock is in Amsterdam (250 meters), but this dock is not only too short, but also too narrow.
See Reply to me above – HMS QE has her own deployment so it’s not straightforward.
Tom Bradby, chief bellend for ITN news has just broadcast on NatT that we apparently have an aircraft carrier named HMS Prince Charles.
To his researchers who are trawling this site, which of you are going to own up to piss poor work which adds to his reputation as a colossal bell?
You bunch of f**king chimps.
Its the dumbing down of TV news , they totally would have known the name was HMS Prince of Wales but a 10 yr old it would be an alien concept and they needed a simpler version , so Prince Charles it was. Unfortunately everything in a mass market media is done like this all the time for most serious topics, celebrities and sports excluded .
I quite often see stuff like that, the one that always makes me cry is “Battleship” when referring to the Rivers. If you want a real laugh, just visit the FB sites for this place and the UKDJ, there is a whole World of Stupid on those.
On 30 August at 1735hrs the ‘BBC’ (there’s a misnomer for a start) in the person of Clive Myrie aired a report on this issue which began with his reference to ‘the HMS Prince of Wales’. Now since this means ‘the Her Majesty’s Ship Prince of Wales’, then either Clive doesn’t understand what HMS is an abbreviation for, or he doesn’t ken that the definite article should not be placed before a personal pronoun. Or, more likely, sloppy BBC journalism. To make it worse his interviewee was a former UK ambassador to NATO whose take on the affair was to the effect ‘this shows we shouldn’t get too big for our boots’ and we were perhaps being too ambitious for a middling power. What do they say: ‘with friends like that…?’.
I also have to note that two of the Daily Telegraph’s articles on this subject were not subject to the usual paywall. Not important enough an issue, you see.
And by the way, did I spot a post on this thread by Richard Beedall here a couple of nights back or am I hallucinating?
Blimey NAB……. was that a late night Rum ration comment again ? you got to give it up now mate………..
Latest news is that she hit the floor or an object, it begs the question where ? as we can clearly see only the one wake as she comes out.
Daily Mail says, “not enough grease on the shaft”, oh the comical value to be had here !
Seeing as the Admiralty is still a world leader in hyrdrogaphy it would be slightly embarrassing if that happened just outside the RN’s major base. (Not that there is any real danger.)
Do you recall what happened with HMS Astute ?
Besides, it took over 400 years to find the Mary Rose, she was hardly mid Atlantic !!!!
Yes! 🙂
Well in ten years time the UK will probably be buying in hydrogaphic services so somebody else will be able to be blamed.
Didnt take 400 years . Until more recently werent really looking plus the area is littered with shipwrecks. That it was reasonably intact was the real ‘find’
Same issue with ‘finding’ wreck of James Cooks former Endeavour in Newport RI area. Which one is that ship.
See, Here’s another example, CPW was clearly being humorous in a slightly sarky way (made me smile when I read it) You just ignored the actual subject matter (banter) and displayed the Superiority trait.
No, I was deadly serious old boy….. !!!!
well well, we are being told what to think now and previous comments are trawled through so denunciations can made.
Yes, We’ve noticed your trolling habits.
Im unable to provide the personal support support you need when you relate to others online when cant process anything that isnt affirmations. But I wish you all the best.
Blimey. that made a lot of sense! support support eh?
Children, children
Most of us on here are well past kindergarten. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but this type of conversation makes the comments section rather long without anyone actually saying anything worth reading. If your respective kindergarten teachers were here, a few people would be standing in corners right now.
They’ve been quick to dismiss the idea of a prop-strike, a bit too quick, especially as the ‘official’ statement seems to indicate a shaft to prop coupling/bearing failure. Given the narrow deep area for turning her it would take much over swing to hit something. Either way it’s crazy they don’t turn them on arrival so the risk of damage on departure is reduced, and should the worst happen and they’re likely to be attacked in harbour it’s easier and faster to put to sea, though I suspect the design makes loading stores etc impossible if tied up Port to quay.
That is the reason. The opening for the side aircraft elevators is used as a main loadin point.
Obviously, this is purely idle speculation, but is there any chance PWLS deployed knowing one shaft was u/s?
Nah! The RN is daft but not that daft……..but……..
Morning, Anyone know any more about the issue ? Just seems to be opinions and guesses at the moment. Can’t find anything official other than the usual fluff.
Any more details?
Latest theory is she hit the same lump of Seabed that HMS Nelson did…….
A bit more dredging needed it would seem.
As they knew there was potentially an issue before they left the wall that theory doesn’t stand up.