Subscribe
Notify of
guest
64 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Urwin

Six weeks to change a GT and require BAE assistance, shocking.

Graham

The article claimed this was done quicker than if done in the UK.

Duker

Didnt Invincible do one ‘while under way’ in South Atlantic. Sure it was a carrier with a spare but still

Gunbuster

There was a 10-14 day delay due to a viral stowaway being delivered to the ship along with the spare parts.

Jamie

Do all the ships offloaded their munitions underway to the RFAs once they are close to home?

Gunbuster

No. They will afload some but not all. It will be stuff approaching lifex dates. Complex weapons will remain onboard

Darren

No, munitions will stay in the deep stowage’s until going to the ammo bouys if the require to de-ammo ship

Sipowitz

Wot Gunbuster said! She may not even be working much ammunition but Fort Victoria (and the late and much lamented Fort Austin/Rosalie) are limited in what alongside berths they can use in the UK whilst carrying ammunition. Basically all options involve acquiring a taste for Irn Bru and Haggis.

Cammy

None in a England like?

Peregrine16

A very good article on this superb deployment, thank you.

The T23’s seen to be absolute bricks, so reliable. I think Richmond has had PGMU and Kent has not. PGMU seems to have passed the audition.

Hope that PIP does the same for T45. The reliability of the carrier suggests good lessons learned from the T45 program. Great effort by Defender even without PIP.

I wonder if the carrier has had to forego some of the propulsion efficiency of the T45 in order to get the reliability or if they have got the efficiency by other means?

N-a-B

The propulsion efficiency on T45 has been proven to be a bit of a myth – largely because the original concept (essentially do away with diesel generators and run GTs on a flat fuel curve) was “somewhat” flawed.

It’s all dependent on load cases across the speed power curve and service loads across environments. QEC has a different philosophy (planned to run DGs as base load with GTA for high power cases) – so comparisons are of limited use.

Supportive Bloke

Isn’t that what PIP is trying to do to reverse the load balance to base MTU’s and sprint GT’s?

N-a-B

Yes. Opposite to the original design intent. But constrained by the fact the ship is already built.

Phillip Johnson

The T45 Propulsion Improvement Program (PIP) has been in the works for so long how on earth can the implementation on Dauntless be suffering ‘serious implementation problems?’

Gunbuster

What you see on a CAD screen rarely reflects what you actually get onboard.

AlexS

I see that Gunbuster is still making excuses for another sad episode of Type 45 propulsion debacle. Now the episode is called the PiP.

Phillip Johnson

CAD is always a bit of an issue, particularly if the ships in the class are built over an extended period and evolve away from the screen version (officially or otherwise). However, that is why you survey the vessel as you strip it out the effected compartments.
Too much Defence planning is done on the basis that everything will go smoothly when it rarely does. The impact is that too many Defence contracts are started on false assumptions, with false costings and false schedules.

Duker

Its not the only place. Building industry works like too. From design on computer to how to build it on computer and then the schedule of work on computer and the final commissioning ….on computer. Often they are different people using different software at each stage, on short term contracts.

N-a-B

Echoing Gunbuster – a CAD screen shows you what the design is supposed to look like. Numerical models tell you how it’s supposed to perform. In order for reality to match the prediction, the installation has to be as per the design and the assumptions in the numerical models have to be correct – NB they often aren’t, at least to start with.

The other crucial thing is that when the “system” has been “installed” you still have to have skilled people to inspect it (confirm it’s as per the design), commission it (conduct the functional tests for all items – it isn’t just switch it all on, you need pressure tests, connectivity checks, instrumentation checks, reversionary tests) and then you need to set the system to work which involves bringing individual components online and checking they are performing, gradually opening up the whole system to ensure all components behave and interact as predicted. Availability of the right competent people to do that in CL is AIUI a major driver of the delay.

X

What we could have had….
comment image

N-a-B

Lucky escape.

T45 isn’t a looker, but that thing is fugly.

More importantly, I doubt that it’ll be capable of any relevant upgrades on the exotic ASMD side if required.

Phoenix_jz

More importantly, I doubt that it’ll be capable of any relevant upgrades on the exotic ASMD side if required.

While I don’t agree with X’s point beyond perhaps the propulsion system – this is a bit of a silly assertion given the Orizzonte-class already have an MLU program laid out, which will start in 2025. Notably, they’ll be replacing their multifunction radar (their main weakness versus the Type 45’s), and integrate the Aster 30 Block 1NT to allow for ATBM and ASBM work, something still not yet on the cards for the Type 45’s.

N-a-B

Exotic isn’t radar and/or missiles …

Phoenix_jz

Would you be able to elaborate on what you mean by ‘exotic’, then?

X

It’s the propulsion system I am on about. Though I think the 76mm’s are something we should have kept too.

N-a-B

The propulsion system includes an MV distribution ring at 4160kV, fed by a goodly chunk of of electrical grunt if need be. That can make certain things easier in future.

Duker

Plus a pair of 25mm each side just behind the bridge

AlexS

“More importantly, I doubt that it’ll be capable of any relevant upgrades on the exotic ASMD side if required.”

Why?
Aster are French Italian development. Big radars are either Thales or Leonardo.
Again French(or Dutch Thales side) or Italian
BAE ended up with SAMPSON in their hands but they don’t have a “radar industry” and it is been said that SAMPSON is not being updated.
Thales and Leonardo have R&D in UK.

N-a-B

See above

X

Which is the whole probably with Sea Viper. AEGIS will be still in service decades from now.

Supportive Bloke

Let’s wait and see who pops up and says the guns will do a better job 1-2-3 than Ceptor!

X

Sea Ceptor is glorious. But I think the threat is greater now.

X

T45, apart from Mk8 which destroys a sense of scale, looks pretty. I am not sure many modern ships look pretty.

I am not sure about your ASMD point. But you are the expert. 🙂

Geoff

The triple 16 inch mount seems to be missing.

X

There is always somebody who points that out! ALWAYS!!!! 🙂

Geoff

Apparently the problems are Daunting

Gavin Gordon

Altogether excellent and we await the TV series with interest.
Separately, two recent controversies have come to light on internet defence sites that could impinge on UK MoD operating costs, which I’d personally appreciate any knowledgeble context upon, if possible.
The first is the ruckus emerging from a number of countries, including Australia, that are fed up with the unreliability & expense of running their NH90 helicopters, to the extent of ditching them for Blackhawk. The subject seems potentially a little too close to home for our AW101?
The second is similar but with regard to the USA and their LCS vessels, but adds to unreliability with commercial maintenance contracts that even the USN cannot afford, extending to private company and OEM veto over enlisted engineer access whilst on operations. Overall, both extortionate and impractical in a war situation. Are the RN subject to the same constraints, say with Rolls Royce and even much less technical contractors where previously our sailors would have done the work?
Regards

N-a-B

I think you may be confusing unreliability and expense with poor contracting.

It is a sad fact that people tend to be more concerned with headline numbers in service than with the support arrangements that enable them to be operationally available. Given the choice, acquisition organisations (which are NOT a bunch of civil servants, but a mix of CS, service personnel and occasionally defence contractors) will invariably choose to skimp on ILS when confronted with hard budget choices.

You can trace the T45 availability issues directly to the failure to agree a Contractorised LS contract – with associated sparing provision until the last minute prior to service entry. Those contracts define who does what to what and with what caveats – so for example if the ships MEO chooses to operate a piece of equipment in a certain way, or conduct a certain repair procedure, that may or may not be within the warranty provisions and invalidate any support/repair agreement.

It’s a delicate trade-off – some kit is so specialised that you really don’t want Jack fiddling with it – however competent (or not) they may be. In other cases you’ll probably find that no-one agreed a sufficiently short lead time for spares provision, compounded by inadequate provision of in-stock spares.

Just in time logistics works for many mass-production operations, precisely because volume can be predicted reasonably well for them. For small-volume one-offs with “random” demands, it is potentially less applicable. Lessons always being learned.

Gavin Gordon
N-a-B

Not sure I’d give too much credence to either.

NH90 definitely appears to have issues. Whether that is because they didn’t contract for the required level of support, or because the bird is too fragile isnot clear.

The LCS one appears to be a former enlisted asking why they didn’t keep doing it like they did back in the day, while using a GAO report as backdrop. Much like our own HCDC and NAO, it is entirely possible for the GAO to write critical reports without actually understanding the issues. I would be astonished if the actual causes did not come down to failure to plan and specify ILS contracts in sufficient detail – and with sufficient flex. In those circumstances where the contractor tends to be pushed to justify each line item of cost assumption and cut provision out of their cost base, “extras” always tend to attract a higher premium.

Gavin Gordon

Certainly in the Sub Brief case the blogger is a former enlisted, but latterly contractor in his own right, with background in how service agreements are structured, US at least. The GAO is in the background but quoted prodigiously. Main concern being focused on bureaucracy over routine maintenance, at least. But I’ll let folk decide on the presented links.
My hope is that similar concerns cannot be laid at our MoD door (you can see my crossed fingers as we speak, I’m sure), since funding is too tight to start with. Certainly there are too many instances of ‘disasters’ on the MoD procurement front, arguably impinging on our military survival now, without that extending to ‘inefficiencies’ in more routine maintenance contracts.
Rgs

DaSaint

The Aussies have smartly decided that a fleet of Seahawks and Blackhawks is much easier to maintain, especially when you’re going to be integrated with US forces for years to come. They always loved the Seahawks, and the Blackhawks, while their capacity is less than the NH90s, they are more reliable with abundant worldwide spares access.

Duker

The Australia NH90 situation seems to be the builder, Airbus was the support contractor and just didnt deliver the hours or reliability promised.
I dont know any more details but when you go from having to do your own maintenance and then total outsourcing the expectations change and quite rightly near perfect support is demanded.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/maintenance-and-safety-issues-leading-to-extended-grounding-of-australias-mrh-90-helo-fleet

Joe16

AS far as I’m aware, we do not have issues with our Merlin- similar to the Aussies’ NH90 or otherwise. The Australians are replacing them because they haven’t managed to meet their contractual availability targets for numerous reasons, and other operators have had a bit of a nightmare with them too- similar issues and more. In contrast, the AW101 seems to be doing just fine, and Norway seem to like it too. There is the possibility that has been discussed about replacing the RAF’s Puma fleet with Blackhawk, but that’s because the fleet is old and Blackhawk is favourable on a cost-basis.
I’m not familiar with the issue that the Americans are having with the LCS, so not sure I can comment.

Gavin Gordon

Ta

Geoff

What I’d prefer to know is, what Brand of Sausages, Variety of Potato’s and were the eggs organic ? Nothing else really matters.

AlexS

The important thing is that this deployment helped made many problems appear that now can be fixed.
It is better doing it now than at war.

Commonwealth Loyalist

I agree this is at least one of the most important things. How may other navies could do this, not many.

Cheers

John

Flying Dustman

Type 45 more breakdowns than RAC and AA.

Deck ape

Loved the only reference to logistic side of csg21 was pic of Fort Vic . No other rfa platforms involved ? Clues in the title . Strike group …. Pretty sure there were some valuable lessons learned about the complexities of moving back in to task group deployments and how much RFA bring to that particular table ….

Commonwealth Loyalist

This recalls great memories from visiting the fleet led by HMS Eagle in Wellington,

Captain P Wash

I got a feeling we might need a bigger navy ! Said everyone on here and everywhere else for the past few decades. looks like the penny might just have dropped.

Michael

Altogether, I would say that the maiden deployment of QE and her CSG was a great success, barring the prospect of being part of an around the world cruise and spending almost the entire bloody time confined aboard.
As far as the crew member that posted the footage of the F-35 going into the drink, granted that there was a a bit of temerity. But to arrest him? Within 24 hours of the incident, the whole world knew of what happened prior to the released footage. A bit of overreaction I would say.

N-a-B

Its the principle of the thing. You don’t take or use PEDs in certain spaces on a ship. You’d have to be mind-bogglingly daft to think that doing so and then posting the footage on an unclass network would have any other result.

That’s the thing about security – the individual doesn’t get to decide what they can and can’t do.

John M.

Some will dismiss this but I believe the RN should purchase four Arleigh Burkes and permanently stopgap the anemia in offensive capacity at sea. Not nice to hear but absolutely necessary. The “special relationship” gives them access and they should take it. Type 45 is a terrific AAW platform (though not carrying sufficient reloads). However, the engine problems are incredible and the platform has negligible offensive capacity. That has to change.

Commonwealth Loyalist

Not a bad idea in the short term if the govt is wiling to increase defense budget to a more realistic level.

Unfortunately no sign of that as far as I can see but there is always hope.

Duker

Too crazy to even consider even if they were available on their busy production line.

Meirion X

The RN would struggle to crew them, at nearly 400 crew each! All the early AB’s are currently in service with the USN.

Allan

The RN could always hire some US sailors and pay them with tea and crumpets. 🙂

Mike O

50,000 Nm or 4939 London buses to use the MODs standard unit of measure.

IwanR

According to a ship tracker, CSG21 actually frightened off a Chinese survey vessel in the North Natuna Sea. Apparently ran off in the opposite direction. Came back later to check out the on going Indonesian gas exploration operation though. Probably harassed the Chinese more than the Russians.

Cammy

We should base a couple submarines an£ frigates in Gibraltar.

Cammy

25 tons of sausage.., Jesus

Amir M

very interesting to see this article. I have a similar article and its on http://www.mianairforce.com in blogs.