RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 2, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2017 The latest scandal not to hit the news (yet) - a large RN warship supposed to have been handed over by the dockyard (which is run by a contractor) for machinery trials alongside prior to the full crew joining has not been handed over. Estimated that at least 6 months of 'restorative' work is needed to get the vessel ready for sea. This year's 'long' programme for the ship has been cancelled and it has been established that £50,000 worth of brass fittings from watertight doors rare 'missing' meaning they not only have to be replaced but the ship cannot go to sea until they have been replaced. Such is the state of the ship that the joining crew cannot safely embark and are having to live ashore in barracks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 2, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2017 Unfortunately, that doesn't surprise me at all..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I'm guessing the ship in question is Albion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 2, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2017 I'm guessing the ship in question is Albion. I couldn't possibly confirm or deny that statement. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I couldn't possibly confirm or deny that statement. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 How it used to be.... ALBION leading ARK ROYAL out of Gib in October 1957. Two (fixed wing) RN carriers out of a fleet of no less than fifteen such vessels available under the white ensign at the time. 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 About the time of the Suez debacle? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Probably more aircraft in that picture than currently operational with the RAF, 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 About the time of the Suez debacle? Nearly a year after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share Posted February 3, 2017 An update on the Queen Elizabeth from the Save the Royal Navy blog. http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabeth-making-good-progress/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith George Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I'm guessing the ship in question is Albion. Yes, it seems that it is in fact Albion. Gate security must be very lax at Devonport.. Keith 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D803Albion Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Yes, it seems that it is in fact Albion. Gate security must be very lax at Devonport.. Keith It was never great. Back in 1978 I got in showing a blue taxi card and a small photograph of Debbie Harry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 It was never great. Back in 1978 I got in showing a blue taxi card and a small photograph of Debbie Harry In the mid 2000's one of my AB's got in/out of MOD establishments quite easily with an ID card he'd fabricated which was similar to a MOD90. The difference being that where the photograph should go he inserted a snap of Bin laden and when the combined services logo should be he'd placed a copy of the SS runes, The chap in question was ex Foreign Legion and whilst an extremely clever bloke had something of a screw loose - to put it lightly. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 This may be of interest. http://www.uknda.org/uploads/1/5/3/0/15302742/are_big_ships_really_sinking_the_rn.pdf 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 4, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 4, 2017 UK repair and refit yards don't have the best reputation. I did a major dry-dock in Wallsend a few years ago on a big anchor handler and I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. All the yard workers were on seven day contracts extended by a day after that week and all were old boys long past retirement age who frankly didn't give a toss. And given how they were treated I didn't blame them as when I looked at how they were treated I wouldn't have given a toss either. The yard equipment was a museum. I know its easy to deride management theories and people in sharp suits, but when you see how something like a ship yard operates with what appeared to be a complete absence of management of any sort it kind of makes you think that all that buzzword BS isn't as pointless as we like to claim. There was an RFA tanker alongside doing a major refit and the RFA guys were pulling their hair out. And having spent time in Portsmouth dockyard and Rosyth I wouldn't mark Wallsend down as being unusually bad. Compared to the big Asian yards it was past being embarrassing. And yet for all that, in terms of new construction I found that VT and BAE could work to a high standard. VT more than BAE but even BAE do a lot better than often given credit for. The construction yards are far better managed and with a more stable workforce than the ship repair sector. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Probably more aircraft in that picture than currently operational with the RAF, And all of them together didn't have the capability or firepower of one Typhoon..... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 And all of them together didn't have the capability or firepower of one Typhoon..... but could one Typhoon (very good as it is) dispose of them all & survive ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 but could one Typhoon (very good as it is) dispose of them all & survive ? Doubtful it could do anything. The Sea Hawk, Gannet and their crews only needed a 1950's carrier to operate from. Typhoon does of course require a land airbase, with the boys in light blue requiring nearby minimum 4 star hotels (ideally resorts) for billets and local 18 hole golf course which can issue temporary guest memberships. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 but could one Typhoon (very good as it is) dispose of them all & survive ? On the ground? No problem. In the air? I don't think it would be impossible, given its long range, multiple target acquisition, AMRAAM's and then Mauser gun, plus much higher manoeuvring speeds and turn angles, compared to those things. It did "take out" 3 x F16's on a test, as a guide. But I guess you might need two..... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted February 6, 2017 Author Share Posted February 6, 2017 This article from the War News Updates blog helps put the RN's problems into some perspective. A finite pot of cash and infinite ways to spend it seems to be the problem as usual. http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters.html 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 6, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 6, 2017 The USSR demonstrated in WW2 that quantity has a quality of its own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 As did the UK & USA with tanks, the Sherman was cheap, easy to manufacture in large numbers, but not as "deadly" as the far fewer in number Panzer V & V1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) UK repair and refit yards don't have the best reputation. Hasn't this been a concern since perhaps the 16th century? I'm trying to remember specifics but it is an on-going theme of chandlery and dockyards that contractors skim or build not quite to spec to increase their margins and a constant struggle for the Navy Board to maintain the standards that they paid for - even in the Royal Dockyards like Deptford, Woolwich, Portsmouth and Chatham. No less recently in the US with tweeted noise from the CinC about F35 costs or the Reagan era report on how much spare hammers cost the DoD. Google found this historical list covering US military expenditures. Edited February 6, 2017 by Ozexpatriate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickstart Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 As did the UK & USA with tanks, the Sherman was cheap, easy to manufacture in large numbers, but not as "deadly" as the far fewer in number Panzer V & V1. And on the occasions they came across Panthers and Tigers there are safer ways to overcome them (artillery or aircraft), while the Shermans could do their main job of supporting the infantry All the best Katy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 The USSR demonstrated in WW2 that quantity has a quality of its own. True, but that was then. In Kuwait and in Iraq, it was quality that won (the conventional part of the war anyway). In Afghanistan, the war become asymetric, and showed, as Vietnam did, that alternative methods can also work (but in those cases for the opposition). I am not saying this is the case in fighting a conventional war, if, God forbid, we ever have to, with Russia or China. Their weaponry is reasonably equivalent to ours in quality, but their numerical superiority in those weapons is often over-stated (other than manpower available, and to a certain extent armour - it is not clear how many of the Russian tanks massed on borders are actually operational). We know their navies are tiny, and we know their operationally ready air forces are not as large as is made out. That does not argue against the clear fact that ours should be larger and have more capability, but we could never take them on alone anyway, so the question is, by how much more? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts