HMS Prince of Wales is prepared to resume duties after a nine-month hiatus dedicated to repairs.

Post undergoing significant upgrades, the aircraft carrier has left dry dock at Rosyth and moved into the River Forth.

Once stationed at anchor and in deeper water, the ship’s team will bring machinery and systems to life, before setting sail under the iconic Forth Bridges to Portsmouth.

“After nine months undergoing engineering repairs and receiving significant capability enhancements to support her future tasking, aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales moved out of dry dock at Rosyth and into the River Forth.”

The ship is scheduled to build upon its past achievements, which include acting as NATO’s command ship and leading the Maritime High Readiness Force in the Arctic. It will assume the mantle of the nation’s flagship from HMS Queen Elizabeth by the end of 2024.

Captain Richard Hewitt, HMS Prince of Wales’ Commanding Officer, praised the diligence and efforts of his 750-strong ship’s company.

“We are returning HMS Prince of Wales to operations as the most advanced warship ever built for the Royal Navy. This year we will be operating F-35s, V-22 Ospreys, drones and the RN Merlin helicopters ā€“ pushing the boundaries of naval aviation and UK Carrier Strike capability as we progress towards a global deployment in 2025.”

The revamp included meticulous work by the ship’s engineering departments and industry engineers, primarily from Babcock, who operate the facility at Rosyth, and BAE Systems.

Commander Helen Jones, the carrier’s Commander Marine Engineering, added her praises for the onboard team, saying they “rose to the challenge” of restoring the ship to sea readiness.

“The team on board have risen to the challenge of returning this ship to sea and we are looking forward to testing the systems and returning to operations for the Royal Navy.”

You can read more by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

103 COMMENTS

  1. Welcome back. Now all that needs to happen is to convince Daily Telegraph readers, in particular, that she is not laid up being used for spares.

    • A carrier without aircraft…., aircraft that if even existed would not have anti ship missiles.

      This seems even worse than the sad FAA at start of WW2 since all fighters went to the RAF and the miserable Gladiator, Fulmar could not compete with single crew land based monoplane fighters but at least the Swordfish worked. Well it worked because the enemy in Europe had no Zeros.

      • A carrier that has a full flight deck on deployment? Not sure if your post was tongue in cheek mate but spot on in regard to the FAA at the start of WW2, very much similar to bomber command and itā€™s one or two engine flying death traps!

          • In or on, or both? On deployment there are enough airframes to put 18 F35s on deck, with change! To say otherwise is a bit indigenous and shows an agenda! Your turn?

          • None of the F35s are permanently assigned. The 30 aircraft are divided between the carriers depending on each ship’s mission and status. Lockheed Martin is now more than 3 years late with the remaining 18 aircraft. I heard a rumour that Mr Wallace asked Biden to give them the hurry-up and was greeted with a blank look. Ho hum.

      • You’ll get into trouble asking for our carriers to have aircraft Alex.ļ»æšŸ™„ļ»æ. I like my history too. My father was on HMS Stork and HMS Starling on Atlantic and Artic convoy duty and the old stringbag was always a welcome site.

        • They made valuable service in ASW with various radars after their torpedo era ended. The slow speed made them also very good to operate in the dark.

          • There is also the story about the attack on Taranto about the Italian AA gunners not being able to depress their guns because the old workhorse was too low and too slow.ļ»æšŸ›©ļ»æ

          • Yes. Twice. She’d been hit by a shell from the Prince of Wales (what’s in a name?) After a few hours a single Swordfish managed a glancing blow, not doing any new damage but reopening the damage from POW. Later again three Swordfish all got hits, I think, but the critical one was the damage done to her rudder which jammed. After that it was just a matter of time. Gunfire stopped her and torpedo’s finished her.

        • As was the harriers in the Falklands in 82. Harrier jets had their shortcomings, but would have been good enough in a Ukrainian conflict scenario and we’d have had 72 more to dress up the QE’S WITH.

        • Hi Geoff , that is an interesting post. Did your dad serve under Commander Walker on HMS Starling? I imagine he had some fascinating tales to tell.

          • Yes, right through the war. He joined HMS Stork in early 1940 just in time for Norway. After that they were mostly in the Atlantic with EG2 until Stork came in for refit ,I think. Johnie Walker then took over command of Starling in 1943 and most of the crew from Stork went with him, back to the Atlantic and then the Arctic. They managed to fit in the Med, Normandy and the Pacific Fleet on their days off!!

      • There are still some airworthy Swordfish and there’s no reason they couldn’t be brought back into service to fly from this ship – its almost the only thing that can. It would only need a little imagination (sadly lacking) and a Sting Ray Mod 1…

  4. Damn, it should have been ready months ago, and why isn’t their 24 F35s, 36 Buccaneers, Phantoms and some Wedgetail AEW aircraft on the deck? Where’s the submarine docking bay, the Trident missiles, the Star Gate SG1 and the international space station? In my day carriers were carriers and could travel the globe in less than 5 minutes. There you go, should save a few posters from, er, posting! No need to thank me.

    • Following criticisms that the Star Gate is insufficiently lethal, a new specification has been authorised (despite promising experiments which repeatedly dropped the current version on the enemy). The new Death Star Gate (delivered in a NavyPOD) will be able to banish entire budgets to the cold depths of a black hole. It is hoped that, unlike with previous projects, criticisms from the NAO can be avoided as it’s part of the specification. The DE&S planning assumption is IOC in 2035 and it’s expected to enter Concept phase very soon.

      • I believe itā€™s a UK derivative of the fully serviceable and capable US star gate, with UK manufactured parts, lights, flashing stuff and spinning wobbly things, all perambulating in a very impressive fashion, ensuring 23 jobs at the pound stretcher who provide the parts! ISD 2029, at a very impressive cost to the taxpayer of just 15 Billion. It will be more agile, lethal and flexible, ensuring UK forces are capable of facing future and emerging threats. It is, however taking a capability gap in its ability of sending people to other planets, a capability which will be covered in the short term by an in service platform, with a project name of ā€œtardisā€, which is even more cost effective in its ability to be operated by just one crew member (and a token female in a short skirt)! šŸ˜‡šŸ˜‡šŸ˜‡

    • If she doesn’t have X and Y wings in sufficient numbers I don’t see the point in this ship, Ark Royal had em

      • The Yanks can’t build F35s fast enough, even after various boots have been applied to American backsides.

    • geee I miss the Buccaneer Airborne. 28 tons of fine British engineering, down on the deck, thundering past.

    • Responsibility for the lack of aircraft lies squarely with Lockheed Martin. I know where the Millennium Falcon lives, but RN was not interested.

    • Because 1 is just sssssoooooo last century ! Hence Italy and Korea following our fashion setting trend.

      Actually it worked out better in the wind tunnel, splits the main command functions between them but also increases redundancy.

    • So you have more space on the flight deck.
      https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/04/10/Admiral-Kuznetsov.jpg
      If you look at how much deck space the single island on Russias single, non-functional aircraft carrier takes up and then compare it to the QE’s you can see how a whole extra deck lift fits between them.
      https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/fleet/images/02—our-organisation/2-1-1-unit-detail/surface-fleet/queen-elizabeth/tabbedpanel/1440×673-new_mq180026037.jpg

        • That’s not the reason for two islands though. You can still house the uptakes in a single Island, the issue is when you do that you have to build a bloody big island (relative to the ship) because even if you trunk them together (Like in Admiral K and her derivatives) you can’t do that at a 90 degree angle, so you end up needing the vertical space.

          https://i.imgur.com/toGusYM.jpeg

          So your options are either: 1 big funnel with one big island, 2 small funnels with one big island, or 2 small funnels with 2 small islands (unless you do the American/French route and stick a nuclear power plant into your carrier).

      • I always find I heartwarming to see the Russians investing in their useless carrier.

        It is so good to see their limited budget being wasted on this pointless prestige prop.

        • I find it more heartwarming when they accidentally sink their floating dry dock and collapse a crane on it’s deck šŸ˜€

          • Iā€™d no idea Jacques Clouseau also did naval architecture but Iā€™m beginning to suspect that Mad Vlad contacted him for GRU training and otherā€¦.

          • That takes years of training to ensure that massive crane lands exactly on deck where it was expected to be! Maybe a Russkie Fredski Dibnaskiā€¦..šŸ˜‡šŸ‘

        • Not back in service until 2025 earliest. Stories from reputable sources that the keel structure is very badly rusted and the ship is basically unseaworthy.

          • I think we all knew it had been unseaworthy for at least a decade but had continued aided by vodka, prayer and blind luck.

            The think is a death trap.

            But I am so happy to see if soaking up resources and attention.

            It gives us all something to laugh at?

    • It has 2 exhaust funnels that run through the towers, the position of the funnels is effectively fixed so the tower(s) have to work around them, so you would either have one unnecessarily large tower to shroud them both or two adequately sized towers with a gap in between. Having separate towers also helps with redundancy and damage control if one tower is hit, it gives space for the aircraft lift in between the tower and supposedly helps reduce turbulence on the flight deck.

        • But USN carriers are all nuclear so no exhausts/uptakes to wrap aroundā€¦?

          So inherently smaller volumeā€¦..

          • I mean it was pointed out why American and French carriers can have smaller superstructures in my responses. Frost002, like most pro-russians, just chooses to ignore anything that doesn’t suit his arguments.

          • Being critical of the UK’s issues such as MOD wastage, the Royal Family, the Special Relationship, NATOs expansion, Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Britain’s delusional self image on the global stage, the BBC, Brexit, the privatisation of the NHS by stealth, erosion of freedom of speech, mass surveillance, dependence on foreign oil with net zero cardon goal, lack of affordable housing and over population, does not mean I am pro russian.

          • The pro-Russian troll shows no difficulty trotting out his GRU provided talking points I see.

          • No it means youā€™re not keeping up with current events and you seem to be rather gullible to internet ā€œexpertsā€ and opinions, opinions which suit your agenda! At least try to research the subjects you moan about, even though you are not a UK citizen, and therefore have no relevance to the subjects in hand! Out of interest, as a none UK citizen, and not ex or current mil, why even make an effort at posting on a UK military site? mmmm?

          • Come on me old mucker, we are asking you genuine questions, why as a none UK citizen, with no military experience, have you joined a UK based military comment and information site, spouting anti UK rhetoric? Please be different than most of the trolls, like Esteban and JohninMK and have the balls to answer and defend your position! Good lad, donā€™t be scared we donā€™t bite!

          • Still waiting for an answer to the question previously posedā€¦.but alas as per standard troll drills, you cannot and will not answer as you donā€™t have one!

          • Cricket. Classical music, especially symphony orchestras. Tea. Links golf. Sarcasm and satire. Elite armed forces.

          • Show me a communist country fulfilling a communist manifesto and I will show you a basket caseā€¦.in fact if it was fit for purpose to be read and followed by grown ups, why are there NO successful communist countries?

        • As Dern pointed out, nuclear is different. Less exhaust trunking to worry about. The redundancy thing still holds and I reckon the Ford class got it wrong.

          IIRC Ford has its backup control somewhere to the rear of the ship. If that was as good as clear sight, why bother with a tower at all?

          • Depends on how you define “as good”. Hidden in the carriers structure might mean worse views on the flight deck and where the ship is going than in a a tower, but also might mean less likely to be damaged. It’s all trade offs and what you think is more likely/more important to matter.

          • London City airport tried putting its ground controllers in a remote bunker. It was total carnage.

      • Wow, you all miss Jon MK or whatever the old tosspot is called. Read all the posts, and yes, understand the towers are just funnel covers Dern. And Mr. Borne, I donā€™t hate the Royal Navy’s Carriers, I think they are excellent examples of the thru deck cruiser concept.

        • I read all your posts as find them to be rather vague and lacking subject matter knowledge (and some very amusing)! Anyway the ā€œthru deck cruiserā€ concept, nope that was invincible class and only named so to get past the MOD beancounters who said the carrier was dead! Please make an effort at research, good lad.

        • Jesus christ, thanks for once again displaying you can’t read.
          They are not *just* funnel covers. The *existence* of funnels placed design constraints on *where* and *how large* towers need to be. They still serve functions beyond being a “funnel cover.” Which is *why* nuclear carriers that don’t need funnels still have towers (albeit smaller ones).

          Stop being willfully dishonest.

    • Take a look underneath each tower there is a ” big lump ” underneath each one , just happens to be a gas turbine in each MT 30 , each tower contains the exhausts from the main cruising engines and the “jet engines” the added bonus is that should a tower be disabled in action ,( it has a spare ) the other tower can double .
      It’s my opinion that we need a third carrier , so when one is in dock for repairs refit amp there is another that can take its place ,the ” flight ” can be transferred from ship to ship

      • It’s not so much opinion as provably true. I do wish the Cabinet would stop short-changing the armed forces on absolutely everything, particularly because they get very cross when they discover the lead times on the projects they cancelled but now wish to revive.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here