During a recent parliamentary session, Member of Parliament for Dunfermline and West Fife Douglas Chapman raised concerns about the status of HMS Prince of Wales, the £3 billion asset currently in Rosyth for repairs.
Allegedly, the naval ship has been utilised for spare parts, leading to questions about its future operational readiness.
“I hear it has been cannibalised for spare parts. Will this £3 billion asset be back on full operational duties by the end of the year?” Chapman queried, during the session.
In response, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace provided assurance about the future of HMS Prince of Wales. Wallace affirmed that the ship is not being cannibalised due to plans for it to be mothballed.
“Yes, by the autumn. It is perfectly normal for ships to take ship stores from each other. HMS Prince of Wales is not being cannibalised because it is off to be mothballed. The ship will be back in full service in the autumn,” Wallace declared.
The Defence Secretary’s assertions seek to alleviate fears over the readiness and future operational duties of the significant naval asset. The ship, currently undergoing repairs in Rosyth, Scotland, is anticipated to resume full operational service by the autumn of this year.
What happened?
Last year, we broke the news that HMS Prince of Wales had broken down off the south coast shortly after setting sail on what had been billed as a “landmark mission” to the United States.
Stores have always been transferred between sister vessels that are In refit or repair. Its a decades old practice. Major Upgrade work to POW has also been brought forward. So they are killing two birds with one stone so to speak. Repairs and planned upgrade work.
Thats fine provided that the process is controlled and meticulously documented. But what if an item removed is a long lead item – surely then a swift return to service could not be guaranteed.
Surely one of the benefits QE world tour last year is to find out exactly which parts are prone to wear & tear and get a few in stock or get the design changed to make them more durable. You would hope this is happening.
Very true. In the army we estimated what spares would be required (Initial Spares Pack) by experience and modelling, even before ILS was a thing. Then adjusted in the light of further experience gained in-service. Navy must do similar.
Everything is meticulously documented. Like i said. This has been the norm for decades. And every Navy does it. POW isn’t going to back in service quickly, she isn’t the on call carrier. QE is. Even when QE is covered in scaffolding it can still be back at sea within 72hrs.
Well said
Thanks Robert. Navy Lookout says PoW will be back in service in August.
https://www.navylookout.com/repairs-to-hms-prince-of-wales-will-not-prevent-return-to-operations-this-summer/
The scaffolding you speak of is probably on the stern section of the flight deck. It’s from what I have seen a permanent fixture when alongside in Pompey. Apparently the 35 down blast on landing damages the flight deck coating. Seems strange the USMC would appear not to have the same problem.
👍👍👏
You would really hope they would not be that lacking in organisational and project management skills….
But wouldn’t be surprised if they were?
SRO? They will not lack organisational skills – every senior officer has those from a multiple number of both command and also staff jobs.
He does not need detailed PM skills as the Project Director and his staff report to him and it is they who must have the PM skills.
SRO needs an awareness of PM methodology – and that is not a ‘difficult ask’. If the SRO has done the MPLA course then he will be very well qualified.
STOROB is controlled by Fleet HQ. Thats how high up the tree a decision goes for STOROB to be granted. Fleet factors in all of the concerns from the receiving and donating vessel and the plan for the STOROB spares to be replaced.
Thanks mate. I am reassured. I had to look up the acronym STOROB, thinking it would be something pukkah and esoteric – it really is STOres ROBbery!
Official confirmation that HMS PWLS will be both repaired and updated by autumn is obviously good news. Presume HMS QNLZ has been assessed for susceptibility to same defect?
I would imagine so.
🤞
Yes
👍
I hadn’t realised that Prince of Wales has the old Ark Royal pennant number, R09. There was talk at one time of dropping the name Prince of Wales and using Ark Royal instead.
Ancient history. HMS QE is R08 which is HMS Bulwark’s pennant number… the choice for R09 was purely sequential as the Invincibles had been R05-R07 and at one time it was likely that all 5 would still be around together for a short time before all the cuts and programme delays occurred.
It was a pity that they (the m.o.d and government)didn’t leave HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious, and HMS Ark Royal alone until HMS Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales was fully operational
It is the sad state of the media that many stories are exagerated to a ridiculous degree for fear that editors might cut it in favour of some other nonsense. Perhaps they should try printing the truth in a balanced and helpful way – you never know it might catch on.
It’s been a sorry state of affairs really. Not Britain’s finest moment to have a capital ship that is virtually brand new break down and need very extensive and expensive repairs.
As usual the tax payer foots the bill for shoddy workmanship.
Maybe ‘slightly’ harsh Mr Bell, they are hugely complex vessels and a few issues were inevitable.
I think by 2030 these ships with three squadrons (hopefully four) of matured block 4 F35’s, various UAV’s etc, they will be highly potent national assets.
John – please stop hopeless exaggeration. Present plans see a maximum of 3 operational F35B sqns by 2032 – unless funding is radically uplifted we will be lucky to see a 4th sqn at all and then only after 2035 at best.
If by the early 2030’s the UK has received a further 26 F35 aircraft, I don’t see why the UK could not have the 3 or 4 squadrons that have been talked about. We will see.. Fingers crossed!
Whilst highly annoying I think that there are going to be issues with all new designs. The Ford Class, for example, has not been without issues. That said this issue seems to be related just to this one ship which might I suppose suggest that they quality might have slipped a little from the first build. The carrier design overall seems quite solid thus far or am I missing something?
Didn’t QE have a similar issue during sea trials that was fixed? I recall prop shaft misalignment being a thing.
Ah must have missed that ….
Hmmmm, have you seen the problems the US faced with their newest aircraft carrier?
Makes the problems with the PoW look like small beer
well it is a smaller ship….
There is no chance of making a prototype aircraft carrier, testing it, correcting it, then doing a pre-production version, correcting it and then making the final production version. Its not like making a Ford Fiesta! Much of the technology is brand new and/or state of the art. The UK has little recent experience of carrier design, manufacturing and testing as it has been so long since we were last in this area (HMS Invincible was designed in the early 70s). All new complex equipments will have some initial faults. USS Gerald R Ford had no end of faults, such as… Read more »
The ship was told it had a problem with the propeller shaft allignment but chose to sail anyway so no surprise it broke and came apart.
The ship has been more than cannabilised .. it has been nearly stripped and will be very very surprised if it was back in service in the autumn.
BAE are a joke and rely on outside contractors
Nearly stripped, of what? Got a list?
Ok then. Is it in a BAE yard? Nope it’s a Babcock yard.
Are you on the ship or involved in the transfer of parts?
BAE are outside contractors
Probably the only thing true on your post is your name… perhaps
Nope, wrong!
HMS POW could be used to house migrants quite nicely, at least it would be of some practical use to the country.
Oh, I do like this comment. With this ship available, Sumak would be able to open the floodgates to his new supporters.
Tithead 2!
Infantile
Tithead!
Off topic.
Did they ever install the kit to allow full secure communication between the carriers and F35s?
MADL? I haven’t heard so. Link-16 is secure, but it’s less stealthy and I don’t think it handles the same bandwidth.
Yeah, that’s the one. I wondered if they would fit it to PoW during the upgrade.
When are they going to update these carriers with increased self defence armaments? Can’t see any decoy launchers either. A whopping great asset, half dressed and overly dependent on CSG. Rant over… Lol 😁
I sent a complaint to the IPSO (self-regulated stitch up) about The National running with headlines using such words.
Unsurprisingly, they found no fault. An absolute joke.
And Chapman should hang his head in shame.
Why TF are you openly discussing the UK’s defensive position online. And why TF do UK forces/government allow reporting on anything to do with defence.
How can you be so blind to the art of war, posturing and defence. I’m no expert but surely all information should be suppressed. Why advertise your position?
Rhetorical, don’t want replies just think it’s crazy I can get updates from the BBC and the likes.