The scope of work on HMS Queen Elizabeth has changed and she will stay in dry dock longer than originally anticipated. In this short piece, we explain the justifiable reasons for the change of plan.
Each of the aircraft carriers’ two propeller shafts has three couplings joining sections together. These joints are needed as the shaft line is too long to be manufactured or installed in a single piece. The couplings have plastic covers that keep water out but during routine diving inspections, it was found that a cover on the starboard shaft had moved allowing seawater ingress and there was some corrosion. In early February, at the last minute, just before HMS Queen Elizabeth was due to deploy on NATO exercise Steadfast Defender, it was decided that the corrosion presented enough risk of shaft failure that the ship had to be withdrawn from operations.
After travelling to Scotland on a single shaft, and following a week of offloading munitions at Glen Mallan, QNLZ arrived on the Forth on 22nd March and went into dry dock in Rosyth a few days later. It was initially intended that docking would last just a few weeks and focus solely on rectifying the corrosion on the starboard shaft. However, the decision has been made to completely replace both shafts, replicating the work done on HMS Prince of Wales last year.
PWLS suffered a serious mechanical breakdown in August 2022 when a shaft coupling completely failed. Subsequent examination and technical analysis revealed that a revised lubrication system for the shaft bearings and couplings was required. Both PWLS shafts were eventually replaced with a new design during 9 months in dry dock (Nov 2022 – July 2023). It had been intended that QNLZ would have the shaft replacement work done during her planned refit in 2025 but this work has been brought forward, extending her current stay in the dockyard. Presumably, the manufacturer has been able to deliver the new components in time and the revised schedule makes sense as the ship is already in dry dock and work on the shafts was planned anyway.
Changing the shafts now should also further reduce the time spent in refit during 2025. Traditionally warship refits can last for several years but a new approach to maintenance is being applied whereby the carriers are more heavily maintained while alongside on an ongoing basis and time in dry dock is minimised. When she returns to Rosyth in QNLZ will need hull certification and will undergo work on the deck landing aids system but will not be out of action for years.
The RN would not comment on when QNLZ will leave Rosyth but it is expected to be August before she returns to Portsmouth to resume her flagship duties. For now, PWLS has taken on her mantle as the high readiness carrier, nominally at 72-hours notice to sail if required. It is expected PWLS will complete her maintenance period soon and be ready to continue her programme as planned.
Did she ever receive the full secure comms equipment for the F35’s?
Do you mean MADL? I’ve only heard comms mentioned as being via Link16, which is secure but won’t carry the data volume that a MADL connection could sustain. It’s debatable, even if we had the MADL data links, that we could handle the processing required to make further use out of it in any meaningful timescale.
The network on QEC needs to be upgraded – a lot if it was 10 Base T at the design phase.
Only the core network needs to be upgraded.
I first misread this as “a lot of it was 10 Base T at the design phase” and I nearly flipped! Just one letter makes all the difference.
I can’t believe in 2010 anybody would think a 1980’s economy-standard was a smart one to be installing 20 years after its sell-by date. No matter what was said in the design phase. It’s not just the network though: there’s storage and edge compute (or transmission back to the UK for the same) and don’t forget the difficulty in getting processing software written. (This is Lockheed Martin, you are being held in a queue and someone wil get back to you within the decade. We value your custom. Have a nice day.)
A new radar coming soon. Probably another tenfold increase in data quantities.
As reliable as an air fix model.
Things happen.
Why don’t they make the proposed flight deck alterations whilst she’s in dry dock, this would allow typhoons to operate from her.
No plan exists for Typhoons to operate from the aircraft carriers.
There are gradual plans to upgrade for more types of aircraft but the Typhoon is not part of that equation as the jet simply cannot be made carrier capable.
The only planes that can operate from carriers in 2024 are the F35 (B-C), F-18 Super Hornet (and derivatives), the Rafale M, Chinese J-15, the Russian MIG-29K, SU-33 and there are a few others like the Harrier and older Russian jets.
The Gripen has been advertised as being carrier capable but has no experience.
I reckon, with the thrust to weight ratio, that you might be able to launch Typhoon from a QE class. The recovery part is definitely the issue, unless you’re just trying for a Doolittle raid. Mind you, not a lot of need for that these days with the number of friendly airfields we have around the world.
In theory Typhoon with a sizeable payload has the reserve power margin to enable a ski jump take-off. Landing would be the issue.
The canard at high alpha will block the pilots view to the deck. So unless Typhoon was fitted with a similar EOTS as F35, that allows a pilot to look through the airframe. They will have to find another method for approach. Finally, although Typhoon does have an arrestor hook, this is only for land based arrestor systems. These may look similar, except the cable lengths are much longer and the retardation systems is softer. If a Typhoon used a Naval based system, the rear end of the aircraft would be ripped off.
Yes, it’d definitely be the landing that would cause the problems!
the take-off too because Typhoon ventral air inlet
Why is the ventral air inlet a problem?
Good question
Would the landing gear be strong enough, one of the key differences with carrier grade aircraft is a much stronger landing gear, as the landing is a lot rougher than on a land based runway.
For a catapult take-off? Probably not, no. And you’re right, landing would eb the issue. It might manage a few, but not for sustained ops. That’s assuming that the arrestor wire doesn’t pull the aircraft in half!
As far as I’m concerned, without major work, Typhoon is a one way platform for carrier ops- crane them on in port, launch them off once, let them recover to a land-based field. Not sure that it’s a very helpful use of them!
Not a fighter jet but the Hercules “I think it was a D model?” has made twenty two landings and take off’s from a US carrier and never used catapult or arrester gear. They were just trials to see if it was possible if the need ever arose
The Tejas has demonstrated a carrier take-off and landing on Vikrant. I wouldn’t expect the Kaan will be doing that this year, but I wonder if with a few minor mods it might be capable. Turkish timescales are agressive and the intent is definitely there.
Don’t they have to rebuild the undercarriage after half-a-dozen landings (I’ve heard even fewer on occasion)?
Are there plans to upgrade the deck config to allow F35C’s for instance to land and take off, would that not need a catapult and arrestor gear?
I’m all for it, as the F35B has a much shorter range than the C variant, also a lot more expensive. I had also read that one of the reason for going with the B, was we didnt have aircrews with cats and traps experience, and it would take a long time to get Naval Aviators trained up on old school carrier landings.
Probablyalot more work, involves cutting up the whole flight deck, and theres only so many shipyard staff. We’re already in June, no idea how long it would take but possibly not within 3 months.
Marinised Typhoon never happened, F35B, helis and drones will probably be all we ever fly from carriers
It is not only being marinized, the landing gear need to have strong shock capability for carrier operation, arrester hook etc. It is a significant engineering modification.
The RN has a fast jet carrier capable plane now- F-35B. Why involve a plane never designed for the role
It could have been a useful option!
https://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=302
Just another example, the QE deck is longer.
QE Length Overall: 964.5 feet. Width: 106 feet.
INS Vikramaditya (932 ft) (overall)
F/A-18 Super Hornet’s Goa Demo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wga-hHIYAa0
The Eurofighter consortium is offering India the opportunity to acquire a new version of its Typhoon for use from a future indigenous aircraft carrier, with the first firm details of the proposal having emerged at the show.
One of six contenders battling for the Indian Air Force’s 126-aircraft medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal, Eurofighter is here touting the potential of a navalised development which has already been studied in detail in the UK.
“If Typhoon wins MMRCA then India will have the indigenous skills to develop a navalised version,” says Paul Hopkins, BAE Systems’ vice-president business development (air) India. “This is a perfect opportunity for the nation to add aircraft with both land and sea capabilities.”
Being shown in model form for the first time this week, the European type would receive several new features to support its proposed life at sea. These include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and thrust-vectoring control nozzles for its two Eurojet EJ200 turbofan engines. The latter would enable the fighter to approach the vessel at a reduced speed without restricting pilot vision by requiring an increased angle of attack.
The computer lands CTOL aeroplanes today.
But the canards obscure the deck if you have to land yourself.
I wonder if this allows the pilot to see through the nose and canards?
The £250,000 Striker II boasts in-built digital night vision and, for the first time, identifies enemy targets by red and yellow colour codes. It will allow British Typhoon war jet pilots to tell friend and foe apart in an instant.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/typhoon-helmet
Which colour will the French be?
White.
Maybe, but I’m not sure we were ever going to get a 2nd tier aircraft type for the carriers even if they had cats. Same with the RAF and only having Typhoons
I thought Germany might purchase some F-35Bs to fly from NATO carriers, but it appears they’ve opted for additional Typhoons instead.
BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany will buy 20 additional Eurofighter jets from Airbus, Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Wednesday, as the NATO member spends more on defence in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Scholz, speaking at the opening of the ILA air show just outside Berlin, said he was strongly committed to maintaining and expanding arms production capacity.
“That is why we will order 20 more Eurofighters before the end of this legislative session — in addition to the 38 aircraft currently in the pipeline,” he said, adding that the order would give certainty to Airbus and its suppliers.
Germany’s air force wants to replace its aging Tornado jets with the Eurofighter, known as Typhoon in Britain. It currently operates 138 Eurofighters, according to its website.
I thought Germany might purchase some F-35Bs to fly from NATO carriers — fantasy
Yes. The German navy – Bundesmarine-once had its own jet attack aircraft but only land based. At end of the cold war the wing of Tornados was transferred to Luftwaffe
Why?
Just when are thoughtless people going to forget the QE2/Typhoon connection? The F35b is, and always was, the only plane for the job.
Makes sense to replace the shafts now rather than fix then only to do a planned replacement next-year.
Would be interesting to know if these couplings are novel/ new-design? Given the size of the QE class relative to the rest of the RN, presumably these are the only RN vessels with these?
Good to see QNLZ getting the Bedford Array, clearly the tests with the one on PWLS proved successful.
I’d be interested to know if this is how other large vessels have their shafts constructed. Like other carriers or bulk vessels.
But certainly for the RN these are the first on this scale.
Most large Commercial vessels are single shaft powered by a slow speed marine Diesel. The prop is attached with no shaft protrusion into the sea.
Other commercial vessels use Azi pods which are props driven by electric motors in a pod in the water. No rudders required you rotate the pod for steerage. This is what the RFA Bays have.
I have done shafting changes on USN vessels. Yes, they were way smaller than a carrier but they also had issues with couplings becoming corroded or loose. Its not a uniquely RN issue.
Interesting, thanks.
Is the Bedford Array a guidance system designed to allow our Aircraft Carriers safer access to Rosyth’s dry dock?
It’s to allow the rolling landing with the F35B, Pwls did trials with it last year. She had them installed from the get go.
What is a “get-go”?
Well it was included in Pwls build so from commissioning it had them, unlike Qnlz.
He actually asked what a “Get Go” was, I’m guessing he was just highlighting your use of a rather un English phrase that seems to be used by more and more English people…. just like the words “lock Down”, “thinking outside the box” and “Hi”.
Indeed, if it’s available, why open up those spaces twice- now to repair and in 12 months to replace?
Yes, she was scheduled to get the Bedford array in the 2025 refit, right? Nice to be able to respond to this in an agile fashion and squeeze some more silver lining out of the cloud (apologies for the mixed metaphor). I’ll be interested to know how broad a range of conditions this allows the rolling landing to happen in, and so bring back more stores. I’d hope quite a significant amount of envelope- although if I was a pilot trying to land my fully loaded aircraft in bad weather, I’d really appreciate the security of an arrestor wire!
Hopefully in future the SRVL will be so well understood that the pilot can just hit a button and the F35B will do it automatically regardless of the weather – I believe they have that already for vertical landings.
Until then, the Bedford Array to aid a manual landing will have to do.
The Bedford array might be integrated into the flight rules via EO?
It gives a secondary and more accurate series of reference points?
Just a though….
Unfortunately the problem is with the design. Outer shafts are always one piece, there are no couplings outside the hull only that which connects the shaft to the prop. This is why large commercial ships have a short shaft line with the engine stepped as far aft as possible. You may not believe this but we don’t have a lathe big enough in this country to produce a shaft long enough for these carriers.
Add the problem with electric drives and thrust blocks; electric motors are full on from the off; instant torque. Think engineering: We need get up to speed with old school shit and not buy from abroad, after all ; we taught them.
With due respect not only the UK but also the USA all thanks to Reagan/ Thatcher neo Liberal Economics now having been at work for over 40 years
In the utterly false belief of
‘ Let the Market decide everything ‘ not only in Shipbuilding but also all manufacturing has been hollowed out to such a extent that no longer is there a critical
Support infrastructure, far less the requisite skill base , educational / training resource
And of what little capability is left utterly impossible to create
A modern efficient integrated supply chain
Other Nations and mainly China have moved on not only fast but in Quantum leaps that they generations in front and making it totally impossible to even consider playing catch up
How can this be well a few simple cold hard facts
In 1959 UK launched 59 % of Global shipping
Today yes now only 0.004 %
In 1965 USA launched 65 %
Today 0.44 %
China in 2023 launched 69 % of global shipping and % still growing and so technically far ahead that even Japanese and Sth.Korean super yards throwing in the towel
And here just to confirm just how bloody stupid Reagan/ Thatcher economics has turned out
And to prove such I refer you to
Adam Smith the famous Scotsman recognised as The Father of Modern economics
By way of his publication
The Wealth of Nations
Whereby he explains that history clearly demonstrates that those Nations establish a efficient ship build industry along with port facilities then go to create trade routes which
Then require Naval protection from imposters and competitors
And because of this that it’s of the highest importance is the one Industry that Must never be denied State support and Temporary subsidies in order not only maintain it’s lead and advantages but more importantly ensure it’s Shipbuilding and all that goes with it stays at the forefront of
Technological changes in order to maintain what has already been achieved
At such juncture I call upon the service’s of the Undertakers to
Cart away and bury the Neo Liberal economics that the UK & USA remain firmly in the grip off but as it is now far too late
The Undertaker is required in order to prevent the rotten corpse from becoming highly dangerous to what remains
Utter rubbish! Industrial production rose strongly under Margaret Thatcher. It fell under Wilson/Callaghan and Blair/Brown. Check fullfact.org
No way to know that is really so just by flaunting Google funded ‘fullfact’
The long decline started after joining the EU and continued under Thatcher and Blair
Trust the flat-earther to diss ‘FullFact’…
Thats what the fact checkers said about Fullfart
viz
“Andy leads the Full Fact automated fact checking team and is focused on ensuring automated fact checking technology is developing in line with the needs of fact checkers around the world.”
Who knew Google had its fingers even in the factcheck pie. yes its the biggest funder by far of F_F
Just waving a hand in the direction of some AI fact check God and saying …..
Andy is probably an bot – with all the geek attributes
Its like GDP growth … lovely stuff but population growth by migration is masking falls in GDP per capita for some countries . Canada and germany , Hello
You’re quoting a book from 1776 to justify your political dogma?!?! Your approach to the ability to transport goods is based upon a time when they were done under sail…
The U.K. is the 11th largest exporter by value, not as for the ‘little island’ so many are quick to deride. We do professional high-value services and highly specialist manufacturing – rather than high-volume low-value work that has gone to economies with lower pay. We could still manufacture them here, but it will either require scrapping the minimum wage or increasing prices so that inflation is at Argentinian levels.
‘Outer’ shafts are most certainly not always one piece Mike.
If we consider just the RN in isolation, although this will apply to many others Navies, a coupling Aft of the Shaft Seal of some description has been a feature for many years. In more ‘recent’ times, Carriers (Invincible Class), Destroyers (County Class, Type 82, Type 42 & Type 45), Frigates (Type 21, Type 22 & Type 23) all had/have external couplings. Either flanged or of the ‘Hydraulic Muff’ type used on the two QE Class Carriers. This is not a new practice either. HMS Hood, for example, had an ‘external’ flange coupling on each of her four shafts.
The ‘Hydraulic Muff’ couplings have been used without issue on the Invincibles and Types 21, 22, 23, 42 & 45. They are an amazing bit of kit, made by the normally very reliable SKF.
The stand-out differences regarding the external couplings (‘Hydraulic Muff’ type) used on the two QE Class are the size of them (amplified by the high torque forces required for a Warship shaftline) and the change in Brand. They are not SKF.
Shafts on large vessels, regardless of which country they are designed/built in, are regularly made up of multiple sections. This is a result of several factors which include maximum manufactured length of the unmachined hollow ‘blank’, maximum lathe length capacity, design/arrangement of various shaftline components and the practicalities of the installation/removal process. As an example, the Type 82 Destroyer, HMS Bristol, has six separate sections of shaft between propeller and Gearbox output flange. So lathe availabilty/capacity plays a part in the designed arrangement, but is not the sole factor.
Incidentally, the Electric Propulsion Motors are of the VSD (Variable Speed Drive) type, not “full on from the off” as you have stated.
“This is why large commercial ships have a short shaft line with the engine stepped as far aft as possible”
This is because they are cargo ships and full depth cargo hold over as much length as possible.
Maybe the easiest and cheapest way of resolving the issue with these shaft couplings is to turn the clock back a hundred years and pack a specially formulated and resilient cover with tons of good old black grease ! ! !.. . .Have a few score tons of the stuff kept available on board, of course !. . . . . . . . . . . . .Who knows, perhaps this is the very ‘NEW’ lubrication and maintenance system the scientists have come up with ! ? !
Embarrassing how our navel ships are always broke and then plastered in media to say we have nothing to defend us absolute joke
Bet the French new carrier won’t have problems. For some reason these things only happen to the UK?
Are you forgetting about the significant problems the current French carrier had when it’s was new? Or are you forgetting about all the problems the US had in getting the Ford into service?
Check out where/who the base design line was purchased from – you may be surprised.
Clue: Think two bridges rather than the one shown on the ‘French’ carrier design.
Its not embarassing its reality, if you kept up with Naval news youd see that warships run into constant issues because theyre complicated pieces of machinery. And its not even an issue, weve got Pwls if we need to deploy a carrier.
And the USS Ford had no issues…?
If you knew your history you’d know a certain HMS Victory went through even more corrective action during her early years. Or how about HMS Rodney, with a huge raft of issues, but she came good going toe-to-toe with Bismark.
Toe to toe with a ship with a jammed rudder? Also Rodney’s 16″ guns were junk and she had the top speed of a tortoise. All in all she and Nelson were all show.
A jammed rudder didn’t prevent her from firing her the guns. Bismark didn’t give up, and attempted to steer using differential power across her 3 screws, however with the prevailing force 8 she was forced to sail at the battleships. Like a wounded animal she intended to fight to the last.
Those “junk guns” shredded Bismarck’s superstructure and knocked out all of Bismark’s main gun turrets. While Bismark failed to land a single hit on what you call a “tortoise”.
(There were issues with the guns in the early years, these were eventually resolved before WW2. She was a Treaty ship, so had various compromises to conform to it, including only having 2 screws rather than 4. Yet despite being en route to the USA for an engine refit/overhaul she was able to turn and chase Bismark at a speed greater than her theoretical maximum.)
This shows the benefit to the RN and to the UK of having two carriers, allowing maintenance to be optimised on one while the other vessel is held at a state of readiness.
More realistically we’ve two carriers because our designs are so poor one is always breaking down. Whatever guarantees the MoD negotiated weren’t worth anything. You get better durability on a Hyundai with its 7 year guarantee.
A Hyundai car is somewhat less complicated that a colossal aircraft carrier, what’s your next comparison, to your Miele Fridge?
S**t happens, at least theyre working to solve it in the long run. Still better to have 2, with 1 carrier available no carriers available.
US defence Report on their Gerald Ford carrier highlights a huge amount of breakdown issues, over the six years since the ship was delivered, and the latest review found that the vessel still has a ways to go in many of the same problem areas. Are their designs ‘so poor’ also? Don’t mention the Russian carrier and the French one had loads of issues also. The QE class is just 2 ships, so to think something that new, that big, that novel, that complex, would not be beset by some issues , shows a lack of understanding of engineering. Or maybe too much faith in things to always work. Had several cars over the years that had unexpected issues that should not have happened, including an Alfa Romeo that broke down on me 12 times, and that’s just a car, of which there are millions.
I saw you driving that Alfa, just once. Now I know why it was just once, it was always breaking down. I’m not laughing. I’m not.
You should have driven a Toyota or Volkswagen
Toyota or Honda, not Volkswagen.
The way these large contracts are drawn up the tax payers bear the cost not matter how the problem occurred. Once they are commissioned they are the tax payers responsibility to pay to rectify…
That you compare two a two ship class, essentially both prototypes, with cars mass produced in their tens of thousands shows you know nothing about engineering.
The problem with this argument is that having what is in effect a ‘spare’ aircraft carrier crewed and available most of the time is that such a policy is an extremely expensive option for a under resourced navy such as ours – this not just in financial terms but also crewing requirements at a time when trained personnel are in critically short supply. Would it not make more sense to keep one QEC carrier in “care and maintenance’ and the other fully crewed and operational? I can’t think of another navy has operates more carriers than it has aircraft or aircrew for – not since the IJN in 1945 anyway.
Personnel and financial resources thus freed-up might be better employed in addressing the other (numerous) problems the RN has to currently contend with.
That results in 1 carrier being over worked and increased maintainance and refit times for both, as well as periods of no carrier if managed badly with the potential for one to be scrapped entirely. Just look at the Albions.
Most of the crew is interchangeable. The air group definitely is.
That means when I carrier is suddenly unavailable, the ‘ready’ crew can rapidly transfer to the backup carrier which is only lightly crewed.
So your idea is how it works in practice. Of course most of the year , neither ship is at sea either, but short cruises, 2-3 weeks, are regular
All
Shipyard (Bad) Practice
Let’s not beat about the bush here = the dockyard in this photo is a S***HOLE.
Frankly I have seen better organised (and much tidier!) council run recycling centres….
Whosoever at Bacbcock /Rosyth is responsible for this omni-shambles – especially storing flammable propane and oxygen/acetylene bottles like this – really ought to be keel-hauled.
Has the RN not been told that the US Navy’s biggest-ever single loss of a commissined USN warship since VJ day, back in summer 1945, was:
The USS Bonholme Richard – a 40,000T WASP class carrier – totally destroyed during the four-day-long “Battle of San Diego Dockyard (July 2020)”
Carrier Arrestor Gear for tail-hook equipped RAF Typhoons
I personally believe that the very popular and often repeated (including above!) urban myth – the one about how land-based fast jets cannot ever fly from aircraft carriers – was probably first started by a few RN flying officers whom wanted to be “big fish in a small pond”
For those of you who (very naively) think that that fitting arrestor gear and tail hooks to RAF Typhoon’s would take a billion pound project by the buffoons at Quinetiq = think again!
Video of Eurofighter Typhoon emergency landing and using the tail hook system (fighterjetsworld.com)
RAF Marham arrestor gear – Marshall Group
Please note: this “bolt down” arrestor gear is already in UK service = in the RAF !
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Still doesn’t change they’re not going to bother with Carrier born typhoons. The Canards are another notable issue for carrier ops.
I thought they added canards to the SU-33 just for carriers?
Perhaps but in the Typhoons case its rather obstructive when landing at a high angle of attack, which isn’t an issue on large airbase but is for carrier decks.
If you look at the Rafale in comparison the Caynard is behind the cockpit as it’d a carrier capable aircraft
Oh, that makes sense
On the SU-33 the canards are low on the fuselage below the cockpit so there would be no problems. I thought Typhoons land with the canards on lift dump mode so for the final few seconds the effect would be reduced?
Maybe they do, haven’t heard of that before, intresting.
I think if at some point we’d wanted a naval typhoon perhaps we couldn’t. But a big reason for France leaving the program was because they wanted a navalised version. So I can see why after that point it wouldn’t have been considered.
Got nothing to do with having a tailhook. It is down to the landing gear being robust enough for repeated beatings and then the actual airframe being suitable for the at sea climate.
The hooks fitted to the Typhoon (and most land service western fighters) are not up to carrier use. They are stressed for occasional use with an arrester system that slows the aircraft down over a longer distance than a naval system. Making a naval variant of the Typhoon would need far more than just beefing up the hook.
For land based aircraft, RAF fast jet airfields have arrestor systems for both approach and take-off. The one for take-offs is for when an aircraft has a significant engine problem, where it has built to to near take-off speed. But no longer has the thrust to allow the aircraft to rotate. This can also be backed up with a pop-up barrier that also incorporates a cable brake system.
You will notice from the video, that the length of the cables needed to stop the Typhoon. Compared to what is the norm for carrier landings, these are about three times longer. Part of this is due to the types of aircraft that are cleared to use the arrestor system. But also to do with how the aircraft is stopped. The brake mechanism used is hydraulic, and is controlled to produces a smooth progressive retardation, unlike a carrier’s, where it has to stop the aircraft abruptly.
Typhoon was not designed for the abrupt stopping used for carrier aircraft. If the Typhoon landed on the carrier. It’s likely that the tail hook and surrounding structure would be ripped off. Along with a collapsed nose wheel, where the strut has probably punched through the floor and in to the cockpit.
I have read extensively on the Battle in San Diego, and the reports of what took place are incredible. While fascinating stuff, you have to ask what were these dock workers, welders, fitters, etc, sailors doing! Several heads rolled after it was all over. On another note, several years ago on a holiday in California I took a boat tour all around San Diego Harbour which included the entire naval base. There were more ships in dock that the entire RN. Sfter, and While having a picnic opposite the very large North Island Base we enjoyed a hours long free air show with all the aircraft going in and out. Great holiday.
RBH loss was to a large extent contributed to by the yard and crew not following NAVSEA Standard Items with regards to fire safety. That was a massive management failing.
By the way bottles should never be on a ship. On the jetty they are a risk to the jetty not the ship. Start of work you connect the hoses and leak test. End of work you isolate the bottles and blow down the hoses and disconnect them. You even do that at a shift change.
Hose, cable and vent duct transits through doors/hatches should have disconnect points within a few meters of the door to allow you to clear the door and close it. Cables and hoses should not cross between designated fire boundaries.
Non Flammable materials should be used by the contractor. Scaf planks should be metal or flame proofed wood. Haz materials get stowed on the jetty , not onboard. All these things and others reduce risk. All these things where not done properly on RBH.
Currently I am working on a LCS and a Tico doing some defect repairs. All of the above and more (I apply RN standards as well that exceed most USN ones!) are in place by my engineering teams.
Gunbuster
I agree wih your points….., and also it is very reassuring to know that you and your team know what they are doing….
However the bottle storage at Rosyth, as shown in these NL photos, does not comply with the bare-minimum UK safety standards
Therefore…… could you and your team please nip into Rosyth over the weekend = and tidy the place up a bit?
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Its a “file photo’. It doesnt mean its this months dock period at Rosyth
The hull and waterline is ‘too new’
This aerial view was when newbuild at Rosyth
They are both built with the same flaw the prop shafts not running true.
If the shafts on both ships have proved faulty, but a new design is expected to solve the problem, then the original design/ manufacture was flawed. The taxpayer should not have to bear the cost of rectification.
They knew both were not true but within tolerances, but if they admitted it could cause problems before they were launched and commissioned the manufacturer would bear the cost. Since the fault started causing problems after commission the tax payers bear the cost because of the way these large military contracts are set up the tax payers take the risk so that way these companies can give low quotes, if this didn’t happen the cost would be higher. But since the money is not the governments and more than likely they could be out of government before anything happens they don’t give a £
Several years for a refit?? The word several is being used to exaggerate in this case ie admittedly it does mean more than one. Refits for conventional RN warships are / were 2 to 3 years .
There exists a very interesting archive, The Royal Navy research archive dot org dot UK, which includes a section on RN Escort Carriers during WW2. Yes, a much different era and much different ships. I have read several articles on specific RN Escort Carriers from the archive, most where constructed on the west coast of America. But my point is that every one of these carriers spent large periods of its life in dry dock for repairs and what was termed rectification. They docked all over the globe to get repairs. So when I read this article about the QE class I am not surprised at the amount of time they spend in Rosyth. I recommend the archive. If you like Navy Lookout, you will like the archive.
But this is not news they knew before the ships were even launched that the props didn’t run true but they let them be launched because they said it was with in tolerances, for the simple reason if it was highlighted it was a design/manufacturing error they would have to be put right but not at the tax payers expense but out of the profits. Once the ships were commissioned then the fault would have to be corrected/repaired at our expense. They were hoping that the fault didn’t cause any problems but how wrong they were.
Why put the engines so far inboard And who signed off these 2 ships as good to commission
Ann
As I (and others ,especially N-a-B) have pointed out before on Navy Lookout, the design of all warships is a compromise..
As others have pointed out above, most larger “bulk-carrying” ships have their engine(s) located near to the stern. That keeps their prop-shafts nice and short…
However on most aircraft carriers, the key constraint is that the engines exhaust must vent up through the main island: and also discharge well above the flightdeck. However the island needs to be amidships; to avoid upsetting the aerodynamics of the wind over the deck (eddies around the island cause Biggles a lot of aerodynamic instability)
That one key constraint forces the engines inside any aircraft carrier to be amidships. It also requires the exhaust stacks to be offset on their way up through the hull. Thus, as the propellers need to be near the stern, locating the engines amidships inevitably means having a very long set of prop-shafts.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Do remember that non of the engines on a QE class are connected to the propellers. I suspect the long shafts from the electric motors are for so hydrodynamic or structural reason but it’s not down to the placement of the power sources.
The only way to go . Otherwise the electric motor is outside hull in ‘pods’ as used on cruise ships Was looked into for QEC but damage control and fully integrated electric system which uses power from gas turbine and diesels
They are fully electric propulsion so there is no correlation between the GT locations and the motor locations.
They are connected by big thick cables..
That said you don’t want your motors in outer compartments for BDR reasons.
Another reason for multi-part shafts is shock resistance. A single long metal tube when it is shocked will deform maybe permanently….but it will transmit nearly all of that energy into the prime movers. . The shock would affect the motors etc.
If the shaft has multiple couplings this can disperse the shock effects. Try a standing wave down a rope…..
It is probably easier to replace a shaft section and a few bearings rather than a one piece shaft motors, bearings and blocks…..
Thanks for that.
This is the vertical cross sections from a detailed NL article of the QEC design development. C and D were more or less the final layouts
https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
Clearly the GT were located beneath the twin islands and the location of the electric motors and the shafts to the propellers are shown
In comparison to the hull length , the shafts are as close to the rear as possible considering the hull shape change
Navy Lookouts hull cross sections from above story
Beautiful ships and I was watching their development eagerly. First of class usually has teething problems that need to be worked out and I hope both ships deploy soon as they are fixed. I served on many American Carriers in my career.
Both white elephants. Pointless. Should have been catapult. F35A better operationally. The threat of swarm drone attack. And lack of overall air defence capability. Very venerable unless out of range in blue ocean operations. Not mediiterranean or Black sea. Container ships carrying banana’s more reliable.
F35A can’t take off of carriers. So figure out the right aircraft before making your argument.
He didn’t say that did he? He said the carries should have had catapults. And he is right F35A has a better operational envelope and there has always been talk of the RAF acquiring Fat Amy’s. You decided to link the two statements.
So well just pretend the original post isn’t badly written.
And what talk other than them not ruling out F35A, unless tempest fails I don’t see it happening.
And he doesn’t exactly make a compelling argument in favour of catapualts or address how they would’ve been afforded.
A few updates on the F-35A B and C.
https://www.twz.com/air/usaf-f-35s-are-officially-getting-joint-strike-cruise-missiles-that-fit-in-their-bays
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/netherlands-first-to-declare-f-35s-performing-nuclear-role
good find Nigel
The Netherlands F-35As have also taken up the nuclear strike role.
https://www.twz.com/air/dutch-f-35s-take-on-a-full-nuclear-role
The F35C can take off from carriers and has a better operational envelope than ‘Amy’
That would have been the only other choice.
The fact that you want catapults and F35A for the carriers displays your lack of knowledge. The F35A is for land-use only, the F35C is the navalised aircraft for catapult use.
The carriers aren’t “venerable” they’re only a few years old. Seems you’re grammar is en par with your defence knowledge.
You might want to do some research on how long these carriers have been in the pipeline they are not new ships.
They are new ships,
• Queen Elizabeth commissioned Dec 2017 (6 years)
• Prince of Wales commissioned Dec 2019 (4 years)
both with a planned commissioned life of 50 years.
So on Planet Earth, they’re new, but as we all know, Esteban’s logic is not earth logic…
And they’re still like brand new. Because they hardly ever go to sea or do what they’re supposed to be doing. So much for the standard UK worked hard. Drivel.
Who stands the cost of this debacle?
The Navy will claim on the Magic Pixie’s free, unlimited-mileage warranty. Thank heavens for the Magic Pixie! Can you imagine what one of those warranties would cost in a world where magic pixies didn’t exist?
So the keyboard experts are out in force. Where were these guys at the design and commissioning stages of the build? Exactly, sat at their laptops waiting for something to go wrong so they can spout unqualified and unsupported drivel, usually along the lines of “I told you so” …
More important news. Austal is getting $434 million for the first of the new TAGOS-25 class. This sort of thing we need oop north.
AN/UQQ-2 Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) weighs 64 tons. It’s a big un.
That’s nothing like the 80% reported overspend. In fact that’s probably the original estimate.
“The Navy estimates in its FY2024 and FY2025 budget
submissions that the first ship in the class will cost $789.6
million to procure. As mentioned earlier, the estimated
procurement cost of the first ship has grown by $355.2
million, or 81.8%.”
Congressional Research Service. March 2024
Someone’s been reporting the wrong number, and I’d hazard a guess the Navy’s report to Congress is closer to right. I don’t think it’s a fixed price contract and Austal was up for over $3bn for the design work and all 7 ships. If the overruns continue, that could go North of $5bn.
RFA Proteus FTW.
I am not really interested in the politics of the project more what the platform can do for us.
RFA Proteus FTW? I don’t think so.
These platforms seem to go in the opposite direction to that NATO has agreed upon for the High North, the ASW Barrier initiative. The barrier uses multiple, small, interoperable MUS to create multistatic hetrogenous ASW sensor nets, which put Russian subs to hazard when crossing them. Even now I expect RFA Proteus will be operating with small sonar-containing UUVs.
The current US TAGOS ships have been operating near China where it wouldn’t be possible to use something like an ASW Barrier. An even larger version of the TAGOS support ships costing £620m a pop and not arriving until 2028 is not the way the RN has chosen to go and I’m happy enough about that. I’d rather have five of the Damen through-deck MPSS for the price of a single TAGOS-25 class.
WIZ is just deluded, He/It She has social Issues. Not to mention Delusional aspirations of grandeur and Superior Intellectual Self importance…. Personally, I mostly ignore the vast majority of His/Her/It’s random and seldom accurate Guff. Quite why Admin allow such Guff and Non contributory abuse has long eluded me. Maybe Admin just choose to Ignore such comments. Who Knows though.
If I have social issues you are in trouble considering I live in your head rent free. Another username I see. Another childish slur I see.
Ask nanny for scissors to play with you sick little man.
Austal’s ASX Announcement on 31/05/24 says, “If all options are exercised the cumulative value on the contract is US$3,195,396,097”. That’s just over US$456 Million per Hull for the seven Ship Project.
This particular payment is actually US$516 Million, awarded to enable ordering of long lead items of equipment for the first Hulls, not just for the first of Class.
I hope I’m wrong and the report to Congress is just a red herring. Have a read of it and seen what you think.
This demonstrates the need of having two carriers to maintain a credible carrier capability. The can cover for each other and in the future work together. It does point out the problems of bringing a new design into service. The propulsion chain has been problematic on both carriers and probably reflects a weakness in design for the class.
These articles are so full of it sometimes.
So who sabotaged the build. Was it the army of enemy combatants we let flown into our nation or some simple minded eco warrior type that doesnt understand bad people exist and want to enslave us all (looking at you islam and china) and have already done so to numerous billions of people already.
Has anybody seen a picture of the shaft arrangement? Carriers are big ships so it is no surprise that the shaft comes in sections.
However you would expect that the portion of the shaft(s) exposed to sea water to be a single piece with the joins inside the hull. In that case the stern tube seals should be limiting the water ingress.
That basically is what they are there for although no seal is perfect and there is always some seepage. Mind you, an out of alignment shaft is a good way of making a stern tube seal leak excessively.
What an expensive disaster these carriers are
Yup…. total failure really….
The indignant critiques about the prop shaft problems that “the taxpayer should not have to pay for” are fine in theory. Some people think it is easy to design things that won’t fail. In a carrier there are thousands of things to fail, and something is bound to. As an engineer I understand the impossibility of the perfect design that the lawyers and politicians expect, It’s impossible, and there is no reason the taxpayer should not pay for it as part of the process — the designers were doing the best they could, and besides the govt don’t seem to mind spending 25 times as much on non-defense programmes whose net effect is mainly to over-regulate and suffocate the economy. Devoting only 2% to the government’s main function is pathetic — and even that figure is rigged to include pensions etc.
Meanwhile I am really glad the carrier project went ahead, even though imperfect, it’s the foundation for a possible British revival in sea powe. (Britain is an island). If we had them in 1982, or Eagle and Ark Royal or even one of the cancelled CV-01s, the Argentines would never have dared to attack the Falklands. Not coincidental that they did attack during the time HMS Ark Royal was being scrapped.
As an aside, we managed to deploy 3 nuclear attack submarines down there at that time, could we do that again, not likely.
Fortunately the Argentines have degenerated further since then even faster than Britain, so a flight of Typhoons based in the Falklands can probably take care of them until some other power sells them more weapons, but now we are facing much larger threats from countries that cannot be dismissed as banana republics. Unfortunately the UK and even, increasingly, USA are still in post cold war disarmament mode. Hopefully this will change soon whoever is the government, and the existence of the two new flat-tops will be welcome even if imperfect. In a real war situation hopefully the government would wake up and innovate like it did in 1982, but I really think they need to do so sooner ifwe are to have any chance of deterrance against other major powers.
Cheers
John
If she’s in dry dock for longer than anticipated why don’t we bring the work forward from next year, get that done saving having her in dry dock twice in two years?
Quite possibly parts availability. Lots of the stuff needed for the work planned for next year will be specially manufactured. It’s not likely that in can suddenly be made available months earlier than expected.
I note that the Italian carrier strike group based around Cavour has started a deployment to Asia Pacific, travelling to Australia and Japan and returning by way of the Philippines. Naval News says it carries a mixture of F-35Bs, Harriers and rotaries. This deployment, including a French and a Spanish frigate, is starting shortly after the French carrier strike group returned from exercise under NATO command.
It’s good to see our allies working together and a reminder that this is an area where European NATO has improved significantly over the last decade or so with more to come. As much as I admired the pocket-carrier Garibaldi, the combination of Cavour, Trieste and the F-35s raises Italy’s game significantly. Of course the two British carriers have also come on line since, and the PANG is on it’s way. Turkey is considering a 60K ton carrier after Anadolu. Only the Spanish are remaining tight lipped about their path ahead (at least I haven’t heard anything); an order of F-35Bs must be in the mix at some point.
I know. But I have been told here more than once that Italy’s navy never leaver the Med and is so inferior to the RN in every way…….
Cavour with Harriers and F-35 in Mare Aperto 2024 exercise.
5 Lightnings and 4 Harriers. That’s a surprise. I would have expected more Harriers, and 5 is at the upper end of my guesstimates for F-35s. This time last year the Navy had three in total, including for training. I wonder if the Air Force Bravos are seconded to Cavour for the duration.
I just found the following in the Aviationist from earlier this year.
Yeah, it is possible some F35 are air force.
Naval News 22 May 2023