Britain's new 3 billion pound warship has a leak

[joeyg]

On 12/19/2017 at 6:28 PM, OJAS said:

Can you imagine the field day which the Thai bashing brigade on here would have had if we had been talking about a new leaky Royal Thai Navy aircraft carrier instead?!!

Yep...

[JAG]

Can you imagine the field day which the Thai bashing brigade on here would have had if we had been talking about a new leaky Royal Thai Navy aircraft carrier instead?!!

Especially if it didn't have any airplanes...

Umh, sorry, hang on a minute.

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JAG]

Always remember in defence that the equipment you take to war was made by the lowest bidder. 

Yes, how did it go?
"As you advance to close with the enemy, remember that your rifle was made by the lowest bidder..."

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, johna said:

The shaft seal is lubricated with oil to decrease wear, with 200 litres of water pouring in that obviously is not happening. as the shaft rotates wear on the seal increases and the leak grows progressively worse. As an example, a Marsk container ship had a leaking stern thruster seal that catastrophically failed, flooding the shaft tunnel, before the watertight door to the engine room could be closed the engine room flooded causing over a million $ of damages and the ship out of service for several months.

It's an embarrassment' Britain's major warships all DOCKED at Portsmout

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/894744/Britain-Royal-Navy-warships-destroyer-frigate-all-docked-Portsmouth

 

Like I said before, they should have spent the money on the rest of the navy instead on a white elephant.

Don't blame lack of manpower when it's probably the navy that makes people not want to join up. I left the services because I was tired of being treated like **** and I'm pickin' that nothing much has changed.

I don't have any figures, but the ships might not be getting fixed because the people supposed to fix them have left to get better pay with civilian companies. I know that is a problem with the US air force.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, JAG said:

Yes, how did it go?
"As you advance to close with the enemy, remember that your rifle was made by the lowest bidder..."

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I never had a problem with the US made equipment that we used. It was far superior to British equipment, which was pretty poor, to be complimentary.

Our good M16s were replaced by Steyrs, which are a piece of junk, and recently ( thankfully ) been dumped in favour of American weapons again.

[KhaoNiaw]

On 12/19/2017 at 6:28 PM, OJAS said:

Can you imagine the field day which the Thai bashing brigade on here would have had if we had been talking about a new leaky Royal Thai Navy aircraft carrier instead?!!

Not to mention this part:

"On Tuesday, parliament's defence committee raised questions about the procurement of the F-35 fighter jets from a consortium led by Lockheed Martin which will eventually operate from the Queen Elizabeth.

The committee said there had been an "unacceptable lack of transparency" about the programme and the MoD had failed to provide details of the full cost of each aircraft which one newspaper had estimated could be as much as 155 million pounds."

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Not to mention this part:

"On Tuesday, parliament's defence committee raised questions about the procurement of the F-35 fighter jets from a consortium led by Lockheed Martin which will eventually operate from the Queen Elizabeth.

The committee said there had been an "unacceptable lack of transparency" about the programme and the MoD had failed to provide details of the full cost of each aircraft which one newspaper had estimated could be as much as 155 million pounds."

I'd say there is some creative accounting at work if it's only 155 million quid a plane. That shambles should have been killed off long ago, but it's probably politically unacceptable to admit the truth that it's far too expensive, too technologically vulnerable and probably already obsolete.

The Brits would have been better off ( if they absolutely had to have a big new toy, even if it's useless now ) reopening the Sea Harrier assembly line and upgrading the electronics and weapon systems.

In an age where even North Korea is going to have nukes on long range missiles, big slow aircraft carriers are as obsolete as battleships. Subs are about the only thing viable at the moment.

Better off building a really good coastguard and a ballistic submarine deterrent force.

I can't even see why Britain wants big carriers any more. It's not like they have any empire to protect, and 2 carriers isn't enough to fight a real war.

 

It just occurred to me that Gordon Brown spent twice the cost of the ship on the NHS and ended up with even less to show for it. At least with a big ship they can use it for Navy Day shows.

Edited December 21, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[JAG]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never had a problem with the US made equipment that we used. It was far superior to British equipment, which was pretty poor, to be complimentary.

Our good M16s were replaced by Steyrs, which are a piece of junk, and recently ( thankfully ) been dumped in favour of American weapons again.

When our (British) rifle was introduced in the 90s it was known as "The Civil Servant".

 

It didn't work and couldn't be fired.

[baboon]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

When our (British) rifle was introduced in the 90s it was known as "The Civil Servant".

 

It didn't work and couldn't be fired.

Was that the SA-80?

[JAG]

18 minutes ago, baboon said:

Was that the SA-80?

Yes. When it was first introduced.

Amongst other stunning features, the plastic of the "furniture" went soft after prolonged exposure to the issue insect repellant, so you were left with superb sets of fingerprints on the stock; and the magazine release catch was perfectly placed, so when the rifle was slung across the front of the body (as was intended) the protruding catch snagged on your web equipment, depositing your magazine and its ammunition all over The Falls Road!

Edited December 21, 2017 by JAG

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Yes. When it was first introduced.

 

I seem to recall reading that not only was it crap, but it was overpriced crap at that...

[baboon]

10 minutes ago, JAG said:

Yes. When it was first introduced.

Amongst other stunning features, the plastic of the "furniture" went soft after prolonged exposure to the issue insect repellant, so you were left with superb sets of fingerprints on the stock; and the magazine release catch was perfectly placed, so when the rifle was slung across the front of the body (as was intended) the protruding catch snagged on your web equipment, depositing your magazine and its ammunition all over The Falls Road!

Remind me again why youngsters don't want to join up these days...?

[JAG]

9 minutes ago, baboon said:

I seem to recall reading that not only was it crap, but it was overpriced crap at that...

BAE were involved somewhere I believe. They're not known as "Big and Expensive" for nothing...

Edited December 21, 2017 by JAG

[overherebc]

On 19/12/2017 at 9:38 PM, punchjudy said:

just wait until they take her out in warm water......the engines will grind to a halt.

Please explain your in-depth knowledge.

[Justgrazing]

On 19/12/2017 at 11:28 AM, OJAS said:

Can you imagine the field day which the Thai bashing brigade on here would have had if we had been talking about a new leaky Royal Thai Navy aircraft carrier instead?!!

Yea perish the thought of the Thai's operating an Aircraft carrier .. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

Please explain your in-depth knowledge.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/index.html

 

[overherebc]

7 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/index.html

 

Doesn't cause worse leaks though.

[OJAS]

8 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

Yea perish the thought of the Thai's operating an Aircraft carrier .. 

I personally perish the thought of us Brits operating one at the present time, though!

[OJAS]

On 12/20/2017 at 5:48 AM, phutoie2 said:

Steady on that bar stool.

I was very steady in my computer chair and in a state of complete sobriety, actually....

[VocalNeal]

On 12/19/2017 at 3:05 PM, webfact said:

has an issue with a shaft seal which was identified during sea trials,

That is what sea trials are for. 

 

Just more nuisance news from numpties that know very little about the real world.

 

This does highlight however that they need two carriers not a single one.

 

 

[MaxYakov]

Yep, the shaft leak is a minor item compared to say the F-35 fighter situation IMHO.

 

I see this carrier has the typical ski-ramp rise on the runway at the bow. U.S. carriers did not adopt this feature, apparently. Does any carrier expert out there know why not? I'm a retired submariner, but have always been an aviation enthusiast.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, JAG said:

When our (British) rifle was introduced in the 90s it was known as "The Civil Servant".

 

It didn't work and couldn't be fired.

I was able to hold one at an Army day event when I was in the UK, and I was shocked at the weight of it. IMO if issuing a short rifle it should be lighter than the weapon it replaced. Same with the atrocious pile of junk Steyr.

Luckily I left the forces before I was required to parade with the disaster. We had the good old SLR when I joined up- heavy, but groundable on parade. The M16 replacement was a delight- light and easy to clean. Not worth a tin of beans, IMO, for actual firepower though; that was where the SLR was excellent.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Yep, the shaft leak is a minor item compared to say the F-35 fighter situation IMHO.

 

I see this carrier has the typical ski-ramp rise on the runway at the bow. U.S. carriers did not adopt this feature, apparently. Does any carrier expert out there know why not? I'm a retired submariner, but have always been an aviation enthusiast.

Google comes up with too much information for a 30 second scan, but possibly because catapults are expensive and the US carriers have them while the new UK carrier apparently doesn't. Even a STOL plane needs a hand to get off when fully loaded.

Seems the new electric catapult is turning out to be a lemon though. Trump will be laughing if the Ford has to convert to steam.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

That is what sea trials are for. 

 

Just more nuisance news from numpties that know very little about the real world.

 

This does highlight however that they need two carriers not a single one.

 

 

LOL. Second white elephant big target arriving in 2020. The big question will be if after buying the piece of junk F35 for 2 carriers they can afford to put fuel in them.

Seems I heard that story before in another country some of us know about 55555555555555555555555.

Edited December 22, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[VocalNeal]

57 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Yep, the shaft leak is a minor item compared to say the F-35 fighter situation IMHO.

 

I see this carrier has the typical ski-ramp rise on the runway at the bow. U.S. carriers did not adopt this feature, apparently. Does any carrier expert out there know why not? I'm a retired submariner, but have always been an aviation enthusiast.

Not an expert but maybe it has to do with variants. The F-35B is the only VTOL variant. So if the US Navy does use the B variant and only the C variant, which is the carrier based one, then they use catapult launch and not the ski jump. The UK carriers are gas turbine powered and don't have any major steam generating plant to power a catapult?  Which bye-the-bye is a British invention along with the angled flight deck which the British carrier also doesn't have.

[joeyg]

1 hour ago, MaxYakov said:

Yep, the shaft leak is a minor item compared to say the F-35 fighter situation IMHO.

 

I see this carrier has the typical ski-ramp rise on the runway at the bow. U.S. carriers did not adopt this feature, apparently. Does any carrier expert out there know why not? I'm a retired submariner, but have always been an aviation enthusiast.

Ski-ramp is a bad idea IMHO.  I'm  also and aviation enthusiast.  And was former Flight Deck Crew on the USS Ranger CVA-61.  Start here... 

Because the method of launching aircraft are completely different in these carriers. Carriers with ski-jump, initially designed for RN Harriers (as @Simon already has explained), requires that the aircraft take-off under its own power.

On the other hand, large aircraft carriers having flat decks have their aircraft launched by catapults (with a notable exception) which basically throw the aircraft from the deck. Though this system is heavy, expensive and complicated, it brings significant advantages to the table:

• It allows aircraft with higher t/o weight to operate from the carriers. USN operates F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, which weigh ~30 tons from its carriers (they even operated the heavier F-14 Tomcats). The ski jumps, on the other hand restrict the aircraft t/o weight (which means less ordnance), as the Chinese are finding out. Indian Navy operates Mig-29Ks from its carrier, but they are lighter (~25t).

• The catapult launch offers more options - it can operate in wider range of sea conditions compared to the ski-jump and can even launch aircraft even if one of the engines fail during the launch, a feat usually not possible for the aircraft in ski-jump.

• The catapult allows for a significantly higher takeoff rate, which means a higher sortie generation. As rusnavy.com notes:

• https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/what-is-the-benefit-of-a-curved-up-flight-deck

[JAG]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was able to hold one at an Army day event when I was in the UK, and I was shocked at the weight of it. IMO if issuing a short rifle it should be lighter than the weapon it replaced. Same with the atrocious pile of junk Steyr.

Luckily I left the forces before I was required to parade with the disaster. We had the good old SLR when I joined up- heavy, but groundable on parade. The M16 replacement was a delight- light and easy to clean. Not worth a tin of beans, IMO, for actual firepower though; that was where the SLR was excellent.

Yes, I too spent the first years of my career with the "mechanical musket" (SLR) although at times I had the joy of carrying a "Sterling" SMG, also known as a "small metal gun" - as a weapon it made an excellent bottle opener.

As far as weight is concerned, the main advantage with the M16, Steyr or SA-80 is that the ammunition is lighter, which allows you to carry a lot more bullets. As far as stopping power is concerned the UK rationale was that most engagements in NW Europe would be at 200 metres range or so, there was no need to be able to reach out to 500 metres plus. Then we went to war in the wide open sandy wastes of Iraq and Afghanistan...

[observer90210]

Was it built by the same contractor as the leaky Phuket Airport ?!!

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Yes, I too spent the first years of my career with the "mechanical musket" (SLR) although at times I had the joy of carrying a "Sterling" SMG, also known as a "small metal gun" - as a weapon it made an excellent bottle opener.

As far as weight is concerned, the main advantage with the M16, Steyr or SA-80 is that the ammunition is lighter, which allows you to carry a lot more bullets. As far as stopping power is concerned the UK rationale was that most engagements in NW Europe would be at 200 metres range or so, there was no need to be able to reach out to 500 metres plus. Then we went to war in the wide open sandy wastes of Iraq and Afghanistan...

Getting off topic, but I'd rather have ammunition that kills or maims with less rounds fired, and the SLR did that. The Americans seem to operate on the more is better theory.

We had Sterlings, but I never got to fire one.

Fact of life that military planning is always for the 'last" war, hence building big target aircraft carriers in the first place. All very well if they have the support ships, but having spent all the budget on two ships they won't be able to use, all the support ships are apparently broken, and they don't have enough sailors any more to man them all.

Gilbert and Sullivan could have written a brilliant play about that. The very stuff of governmental farce.

Edited December 22, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[joeyg]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Getting off topic, but I'd rather have ammunition that kills or maims with less rounds fired, and the SLR did that. The Americans seem to operate on the more is better theory.

We had Sterlings, but I never got to fire one.

Fact of life that military planning is always for the 'last" war, hence building big target aircraft carriers in the first place. All very well if they have the support ships, but having spent all the budget on two ships they won't be able to use, all the support ships are apparently broken, and they don't have enough sailors any more to man them all.

Gilbert and Sullivan could have written a brilliant play about that. The very stuff of governmental farce.

I think "everything " can be done with armed drones and satellite weaponry.  No boots on the ground please.  just press buttons.