Aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is set to sail from Rosyth Dockyard this week following a long period of repairs, quelling rumours of the ship being turned into spare parts or being scrapped.

After suffering significant mechanical issues in August 2022, the aircraft carrier had been docked in Rosyth for repairs since October 2022.

The damage to the vessel, including a failed external coupling connecting the outer propeller shaft to the propulsion motors and superficial damage to the rudder, had halted its exercise schedule.

However, the Ministry of Defence confirmed in May that the rumours of the vessel being cannibalised or mothballed were untrue and that the aircraft carrier was set to be back in full service by autumn 2023.

In anticipation of this momentous departure from Rosyth, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued restrictions on the airspace above the Firth of Forth. These restrictions, put in place in collaboration with Police Scotland and the Department for Transport, will apply to unmanned aircraft, which will not be allowed to fly below 1000 FT AMSL within certain areas on two key dates: July 19 and July 24, 2023.

  • The first restriction will be active on July 19, between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, within the area adjacent to the dockyard as the vessel leaves the shipyard.
  • The second restriction will be put in place on July 24, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, within the wider First of Forth as the vessel departs the Forth.

These restrictions do not apply to manned aircraft. They also aim to safeguard the public during this high-profile event, which is expected to attract significant media attention.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

226 COMMENTS

      • My late grandfather was Vice Admiral Devonport and in his day we had a proper sized Royal Navy compared to today both in terms of shipping and manpower. This momentous occasion should be noted on a global scale. To meet the current global crisis of saber rattling we as an island nation have to show our naval expertees. Also we need a monumental program of upgring the existing fleet and increasing the numbers. As for the affordability build using totally British people providing a smaller unemployment benefits dependency. There are global security issues too. People like Putin are causing serious internal problems and issues we need to have the ability to respond at a moments notice.

        • Hi Chris. Thank you for the sent message.. My family also has a navy background, my Uncle served on carriers and the Royal yacht, also going way back – Two members of my family ancestors were at the battle of Trafalgar. One served as a ships Master and another served as a gunner. So much interest in my family too, when it comes to naval matters. Agree the Royal navy needs to be given extra ships and capabilities.. Hoping by the 2030’s we will have a few extra escorts with more missiles onboard for air defence and other options of course. Also hope we have extra capabilities in other areas when it comes to the navy by then. I guess we have to be realistic when it comes to our politicians and what they are willing to spend these day’s. Hope they do carry – through some of their plans for the Royal Navy over the coming 10 years plus.

  2. Excellent news. She should be heading state side in the autumn for more F35 work ups, and extensive SRVL trials. 👍

    • Always good to have more top end kit at the ready.

      Although I am sure the usual suspects will be along to decry the ‘fact’ that we only have one inflatable model jet as opposed to the 30+ that we really have and the 36(?) we will have by year end.

      Mind you that is better than the fleet of model carriers that Mad Vlad has assembled.

        • I will keep on saying it. No cats and traps, no credible aew, not enough F-35s (and from the few, they are shared with the RAF), not enough defensive systems, not nuclear powered, no aar. But yeah, no big issues, still better than mad vlads effort right?

          • yep our carriers actually work👍 Now if you had bothered to keep up you would know that instead of having a continuous expensive cycle of carrier qualifying for air crew ours are able to do it when needed and quickly too boot! Now sod off back to the North Pole and don’t come out till crimble when Santa needs his little elves or probably in your case orcs.

          • Even if we had the Westland Sea King AEW, there is no guarantee that those RN ships would not have been sunk

          • That is possibly true.

            However, the longer alert times would have seen ships fully closed up and and on station looking at the advised threat vector.

            In this case we are talking about detecting the planes at range and not the missiles.

            It all adds up to make a difference.

            But I grant you maybe not *the* difference. But it shifts the odds significantly.

          • The lack of AEW required the escorts to be deployed as radar pickets- implying a willingness to sacrifice them to protect the carriers. That wouldn’t have been necessary if the AEW was there. Although I’ve no idea how effective the Searchwater radar was against sea-skimming missiles.

          • OK if you take that the AEW radar was taken from the Gannet and stuck in a inflatable bag and slung under a Seaking. that radar system, would struggle to track and trace the missile, maybe the launch aircraft. but track the missile and shoot it down with Sea Cat. 2 hopes and one is Bob

          • Andy, chill mate. You know he doesn’t have a clue about carrier warfare. Welcome back PrOW. Now for some serious training 👍👍👌

          • Our carriers are from working. POW is unlikely to be cleared for operations much before November. That’s if sea trials which she is about to embark on go to plan. Assuming POW Is cleared for operations and it gains the confidence of all in involved she is of to the states for trials. On return she will then have work up under FOST. Then Glen Mallan to Ammunition up. Hence my estimate of November at best.
            So briefly you have your two carriers. Don’t hold your breath though, guess where QE is going.
            Glen Mallan to de ammunition, then Rosyth to drydock. Again my estimate for QE back operational is November 24.

          • Be sensible QE has been worked hard so it stands to reason she needs a bit of care! When it’s done then we will have two fit carriers!

          • I would predict a small window at the end of this year is possible if all goes well with POW. That will mainly be used as photo opportunity not anything meaningful. Certainly not an operational deployment. The main focus will be get QE docked down.
            The next chance for two operational carriers is likely to be November 24, dependent on QE rejoing the fleet in a timely fashion. It will go through the same process that POW is about to undertake. Even small things like degaussing takes best part of a week. Glen Mallan and back is a week It all adds up. A more likely scenario is early 2025 for two operational carriers deployable at the same time. Towards the middle or Autumn of 25 you will see POW back in Roysth for docking again. QE docking in late 25 early 26.

          • Yeh, that’s a realistic forecast. F rom memory (getting dusty) of when we had multiple Fltdecks.. 👍

          • Degaussing??

            The RN hasn’t degaussed surface units in 40+ years.

            In and out of harbour over a range to look at the signature and offer corrections for the coils does not take a week.
            Sea trials a couple of weeks and while that’s happening Fosties will be onboard doing basic sea safety training anyway.
            A full work up will follow later.

          • Radakin wants both at sea with a full airwing for each. He said he wants to be bold. And why not I say?!

          • He can say what he wants but he’ll probably out of job next year with a change in government and someone more sympathetic to the new governments policies installed.

          • Thought you might state that the Adm.
            would be forced to walk the plank, or be marooned on Pitcairn Is. 🤔😉

          • QE is over two years past her planned dry Dock appointment. Obviously planned Hull maintenance below the water line will be conducted. Flight deck resurfacing, upgrades to landing systems etc all standard stuff. Propulsion will no doubt get a special eye.

          • It was always envisaged that just one carrier would be deployed or deployable. We have that.

          • Radakin I am afraid would not be choice to take charge of a five a side team. To much of a yes man. He is looking at the top job. Not the long term future of the RN.

          • Face facts, we still don’t have Aircraft for both. that is going to take a few more years. we know the RAF has huge holes in its training. as is well behind its fast jet training. POWs @ NATO lead could take Nato partners aircraft.

          • It has. It’s called fitting 24 more Sea Captors to the T45’s. And replacing Aster 15 with Aster 30’s. Otherwise know as Sea Viper. And also adding BMD capability. 👍

          • Afternoon Robert, I wonder if they could ever increase the CAMM to 32, 36, or 48, to make these T45s even more potent? The 4*6 CAMM silos could be made into 4*8 if there’s enough room forward/sides of the Asters and maybe even above the hangar. The AB’s, Hobart’s, Tromp classes all have well over 80 SAM/ESSM shots available so I don’t think this is being too over indulgent and would offer even more protection for a CSG. And considering there’s no capacity yet reload at sea.

          • “I wonder if they could ever increase the CAMM to 32, 36, or 48, to make these T45s even more potent?”

            That might just be a very wise idea depending on their area of operation.

            “Finally bringing the WS-15 to successful operational status is a major milestone for Chinese aerospace. That the PLAAF now have an engine that delivers the range/payload performance that the J-20 was designed for from the beginning makes the fighter jet more of a concern for the US Navy and other US partner nations in the Pacific that could potentially encounter it in combat.

            The system should provide a significant boost in performance over the previous engines used by the J-20, the Russian Salyut/Lyulka AL-31FN and the successive WS-10 variants built by the Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company.

            “No one wants the Chinese to become capable of designing and building their own jet engines,” said a retired NATO-nation intelligence officer who spoke to Breaking Defense. “It would move the threat marker as to their air power capability up more than just a couple of notches. But they seem to be close to that goal whether we want them to be or not.”

            LINK

          • Let’s hope that CAMM-ER and the CAMM-MR can be easily upgraded into either the CAMM farm or make it to the MK41s quad packed. The RN T26s could have gone for 4 MK41s also and maybe a separate 24 CAMM set up but I guess as they’re more in the ASW role that there’s also weight considerations. I like the possibility of the ER/MR in MK41s giving the T26/31/32 an extended AAW coverage beyond just the basic CAMM. Hope it wins some export orders. Looking at the end on end layout of the Aster silos, I think they could go 4*6 = 24 down each side but it could all look a bit ugly… Lol 😁. Whatever the T45 upgrades are they’re welcome.

          • You beat me to it Andy… Lol 😁. Still too “much fitted for fresh air” IMHO. 😆
            They can take the forward 40mm off the five T31s, replace that with more 🍄 CAMM or vls as onT32 and put 2-3 each on the Carriers. What do you reckon?

          • QEC was due a planned dry docking?

            Which was pushed back due to POW’s mechanicals?

          • STOVL still requires carrier qualification training and currency.

            There is no getting around the fact that CATOBAR is better than STOVL. The RN wanted and still wants CATOBAR. It’s a money problem.

          • STOVL does need POWs to get that qualification as the systems are only on POWs, but it is very much like Cruise control. Hit the button and eat your crisp’s. F35s very much programmed to prevent USMC from flying into the sea,

          • There is probably no better armed warplane for sea combat than the F35. It’s situational awareness, target acquisition and kinetic weapon effects are second to none in all air combat domains. What’s your reasoning?

          • well British weapons aren’t due to be integrated until the early thirties I now hear?? US trying to derail meteor by offering deals on AIM-260 based on better commonality etc

          • Typical USA dirty tricks from their defence works or senate gives the States a bad name which their servicemen and women could do without. Could see the move against Meteor coming a mile away. Same with EH101, Brimstone, Voyager, etc , etc. Sad.

          • Yep – I would say the irony is if they opened up the weapons aspects of the software to be more open source and allow countries to plug and play they may have a more saleable commodity. But in the case of the F35B there is no other option so they have a closed shop.
            This is the main con I have about us using STOVL – there is a small market availabilty- of 1- we are hampered by the commercial machinations of good ol uncle Sam and LM- never a good thing.

          • Dirty tricks? How about being realistic. The UK hasn’t footed the bill for UK weapons integration. The US isn’t prioritizing it as currently only one customer with 30 airplanes wants it. Get a grip.

          • Pretty irritating if not kind of silly behaviour if the latter is true. Bit of US jealousy perhaps over Anglo-Japanese developments on Meteor and Tempest? Why not find an allied friendly US company for some shared development with the later two? Could be a huge opportunity.

          • British weapons have already been integrated (Asraam and PWIV). Integration should happen by 2027/28.

            Integration across all customers, including the US, is delayed. Remember F-35 has 3 AAM’s available (AIM-9X, Asraam and Amraam)…but no other powered weapons are currently cleared for use….all freefall only. So everyone is in the same boat.

            By 2028 we’ll get Asraam Block VI, Meteor, Spear and PWIV Penetrator. The other powered weapons that ‘should’ arrive then are JSM only. JASSM/LRASM will come a little later. AARGM-ER is in the early stages of integration and the SiAM variant is being re-competed. There is no detail on when AIM-260 could arrive, based on its current progress there is little chance of it arriving on F-35 before 2030…

            So of the 7 (or 8/9 depending on JASSM and LRASM integration timeframes) powered weapons likely to be integrated by 2028 over 50% will be British…(Asraam, ASsraam Block VI, Meteor and Spear).

            Beyond that we’ll hopefully see Spear-EW integrated quickly, because it shares the same shape as Spear, along with the potential MRUSW weapon (which should be a ‘simple’ Spear variant), SpearGlide and FCASW in the 2034 timeframe.

          • The timeline I hear is AIM260 will be integrated prior to meteor and mentor integration is being slipped…

          • Yes. Better in most areas than the F-18 which was the only other alternative in the CATOBAR alt- universe

          • We have two state of the art aircraft carriers with state of the art stealth fighter jets. You have one old aircraft carrier, that is only worth its weight in scrap metal. Hardly a capital ship to be proud of.. That’s if it ever sails again! And let’s face it, thrs a big IF!

          • We have two state of the art aircraft carriers with state of the art stealth fighter jets. You have one old aircraft carrier, that is only worth its weight in scrap metal. Hardly a capital ship to be proud of.. That’s if it ever sails again! And let’s face it, thrs a big IF!

            I see you are quite primitive. In your world people that disagree belong to the enemy tribe.

          • Nuclear powered has pros and cons but only really become an advantage at sizes akin to the US Super carriers simply because replenishment is required far beyond fuel oil so the main advantages of nuclear power are far reduced while reducing upon other user flexibility. It’s why the Americas are not nuclear powered. If power were needed for EMALS the balance might be a little different mind, but then overall equations may be very different again come the thirties when such a fundamental change just might be contemplated. As ‘Mad Vlad’ doesn’t have the capabilities you mention or they are woefully ineffectual without the great advantages over them the QE design with the F-35 offers the user by contrast, I am not sure what superiority the Russian carrier has that you seem to be claiming. Its operational history is a disaster by the way and even India doesn’t want to use its only available Russian jets that can fly off of that woefully compromised and frankly decaying design.

          • STOVL aircraft don’t need cats and traps
            AEW is credible – it works and has nearly the range of fixed wing
            Defensive systems – you may have a point if you are talking about point defence systems mounted on the carrier – but carrier does of course have layered defence, including that by airborne F-35s, DD/FF and submarines.
            Nuclear power – many disdavantages and only one advantage, which is debatable.

          • Makes no difference how often you say it. All you ever post is idiotic bullshit.

          • No we did not buy a Ford class carrier with 4th generation planes, a carrier that costs 5 times our carriers and needs vast amounts of crew to run it….

            What we got was an affordable powerful platform. It also has potential for growth in the future with new capabilities. The current AEW will be replaced during the life of the carriers.

          • That is harsh but I agree with the defence systems, nuclear powered is very expensive indeed given our parlous defence spending so not realistic, I’m not too worried about the F35B (even if shared with RAF as the numbers will go up eventually).

          • Cut the cloth to suit comes to mind. They are mighty fighting vessels suitable for the defence of the UK realm. And all carriers are more vulnerable than ever in the age of hypersonic missiles.

          • Why in particular do you think they should be nuclear powered, given the greatly increased running cost and the marginal benefit in terms of logistical support requirements? ‘Defensive systems’ are what escorts are for. The relative deficiency in AEW is one reason that work is underway to develop an EM launch system for UAVs. In reality the Nimitz/Fords aren’t much more survivable in a high-end conflict, despite the difference in price tag- nor do any of these ships’ aircraft have the range to engage any adversary that possesses IRBMs. These assets are all perfectly adequate for ‘coercive diplomacy’ against smaller powers however, which has been the primary use-case since at least the ’70s.

          • On the plus side, no cats and traps saved the huge cost of installing them and of course the F35b does not need them, F 35 numbers rising steadily, RAF/RN sharing improves inter service operations and availability of a bigger crew in an emergency when the jets are needed for carrier operations, avoid the downside of nuclear power, the rapid development of drones will sort many of the AAR and other surveillance probs….

          • Not being nuclear powered is always a plus for me. Conventional propulsion is much cheaper & if a nuke powered ship goes down it adds lethal radiation into the seas & food chains for 1000’s of years. Also they’re a nightmare & expensive to dismantle. Hopefully a drone or tiltwing will be found to do AEW better. AAR too. Defensive systems should be improved. F-35 numbers are growing. We can’t embark any until the POW is qualified off America, so let’s get that done first!

  3. The spare parts or scrapping stories are an insult to ones intelligence. It seems people will believe ANY negative if it feeds their need to put the UK military down.

      • We couldn’t afford to run an America class, which needs 1200 crew. A Mistral is half the displacement and has a complement requirement akin to a Type 23. Very different ships.

        As much as I’d like a couple of Mistral-sized amphibs, I can’t see the money being made available. Let’s see what the joint initiative with the Dutch brings us. At least we might get something military spec.

        • But US ARGs do not need to be escorted, they have the ability to defend themselves. Something out next gen Amphibs will probably have to do.

          • That is a matter of opinion.

            Yes, they are set up like a battle ship but they are not really specialised anything?

            Close to VTOL only as there is so much stuff parked topside that a running jump isn’t possible and they don’t believe in ski jumps. This does affect duration as well as fuel/weapons load outs.

            Then you have the issue of lots of stuff parked topside is a big fire hazard and how does it slow sortie generation.

            I am not sure that the is such a great idea IRL as in any contested environment they will need specialist escorts.

            I suppose it works at gunboat/min carrier diplomacy level against smaller states who don’t want to irritate America.

        • Have we lost some posts here? I could have sworn I replied to a comment that suggested we got some Americas or Mistrals as though they were equivalent.

        • Now you are talking about getting the basic fit right.

          FFFBNW Barista won’t cut it?

          I had enough of stewed tea some years ago.

        • Trieste, Mistral or Juan Carlos, all good, But apparently we’re looking at a Bay class replacement with the Dutch instead, that will also (I guess) replace Bulwark class as well. So they will provide the D in LHD and the CVAs the LH. Not a good solution

          • Why do we need something with a ski jump on it?

            Mistral isn’t all that really.

            I’ve no idea why we would want at Trieste or a Carlos as they are just highly compromised carriers.

            We have two really good carriers to do the F35B aviation and some of the cab work too. Italy and Spain don’t have one or even two really good carriers. So why not focus on the other bits and do those even better that the all singing all dancing nothing quite right versions?

            If we need hospital facilities then expand the facilities on the carriers where there is loads of space and multiple lifts.

            I think you mean replace the Bay class or do you mean Albion class…..the Bulwark class went some time ago…….?

          • I wouldn’t risk a CVA close to shore acting as a helicopter carrier. Also, the more space taken up by helicopters and vehicles the less available for jets. The Bays and Albions will need replacement at some stage and something like a Mistral to carry equipment, personnel, helicopters and landing craft seems ideal. Also more likely to be risked closer to shore. Bulwark, by the way, is an Albion class

          • Ummm yes but you said ‘Bulwark Class’ – whilst I appreciate that Bulwark is part of the Albion Class – Bulwark Class is something different.

            I think we discussed this before, and didn’t agree then, with the likely outcome being lily padding via the very large flight decks of just about every ship we now have.

          • Yes I’d go for a LHD rather than a straight Albion replacement. More deck space for troops to be quickly inserted by chopper & still a dock to send heavy equipment ashore.

    • It’s not always about putting our military down; certainly not from me! However, the MOD’s motto should be “anything can happen in the next half hour”! or “Incompetence in abundance”!

    • See when she comes out with the back island missing, a painted on anchor, a couple of traffic lights instead of navigation lights and broom handles where the machine guns should be.

    • Quite agree Daniele, the main stream media will not give much credit to this matter. Nor will they mention how many other nations have the same ability for carriers as the UK.
      Cheers,
      George

    • Too true, could not agree more. I do find it very tiring sometimes when people go on about – Not enough jets and so on.. Early day’s, superb capability to have. Will be more aircraft and potentialy drones and other tech in the future.

      • I agree.
        There are not enough jets because not enough F-35B jets have yet been made by the US-led consortium. These were always 2 different programmes (F-35B and UK carriers) originating in 2 different countries at 2 different times. One programme would always lag the other.
        Amazing that intelligent people can’t see that.

    • I think the Cavour solution is better. This one if something goes wrong it is easier getting hit by a drone veering out of control.

    • Can they see where they are going from the bridge or is it just Leslie Philips Turkish equivalent saying left hand down a bit as he inevitably gives the harbour wall a glancing blow upon leaving port as made famous in the Navy Lark. There’s one for the youngsters.

    • The two RAN Canberra LHD’s down here in Sydney could be upgraded similarly to this and launch drones. At the moment they just have 4*25mm CIWS and Anzac/Hobart’s for protection. Could be a good storage space there under the CIWS mount?

      • Probably transit accommodation for visiting aircraft ground crews, like they did under the ramp for the Invincible class.

  6. Did the Russians sabotage the price of Wales seems strange the Queen ELIZABETH Aircraft carrier is working well and they are exactly the same ship ,yet the prince of Wales was supposedly to of hit something under the sea..? eather that or perhaps the captain couldn’t hold his drink and may of got over excited when commissioned to the prince of Wales seems strange as well that he has disappeared you mind boggles?.

    • Not sure what websites u read but it’s didn’t hit something under water. It’s shaft was a bit wonky, the crew thought it might be ok but it wasn’t.
      To sabotage a ship there’s much easier ways than to get right to the bottom of the ship and mess with a multi ton shaft.
      Someone else can give the technical descriptions I can’t be arsed looking it up again.

    • Ships of this size are not totally identical.
      It’s not unusual to encounter problems on one and not on the other (or different problems).

      All the more so as the UK didn’t build ships of this size (20,000+ tons) every day.

      • No ☝ HMS QE’s Sea Trials picked up a Propeller problem where the Blades were misaligned ,causing excessive vibration,likely due to picking up some Sea Debris ( a Lobster Pot was mentioned ) on her exit from Rosyth.

        • Damage on exit from the Dock at Rosyth is a potential risk. There is only 50cm under the keel. One metre either side the beam. Plus entry and exit can only be undertaken on I think it is seven tidal events each year. Each event is between 5 to seven days. Wind speed being the other limitation. Last time QE left the Dock it was a six day window.

        • The QE blades are removable from the hub and are bolted in place so that they can be removed or adjusted. When they were fitted the bolts are torqued down in a specific order. They use SuperBolt. There was an issue (Bolts didn’t get torqued/installed correctly?) so the divers had to revisit the blades.

          It was apparently a laugh a minute for the divers …Long days with a specialist torque wrench doing up and checking bolts. I spoke to one of the guys involved and they certainly got their dive hours in on that job.

  7. Met someone who was engineer on Queen Elizabeth…basically a heap of crap. Also as a country we do not have enough supplies, munitions and aircraft to make 1 carrier fully battle ready carrier, never mind 2

    • Every RN first of class is assessed as crap. Once they settle in and corporate knowledge grows that attitude disappears.
      T23 was known as the Skoda Class when it first came into service. Norfolk didnt have a working command system for years. I haven’t heard the term Skoda Class frigate used in decades.

      • It’s funny how attitudes change over time. Especially when you consider that Skoda products are generally very reliable these days. My mate had the turbo fastback. Now that was amazing when it was working. Didn’t like going round bends or stopping mind!

  9. *spits out tea*
    What? Us Brits are actually GOOD at building and fixing ships?
    But that’s not what they Daily Moan and Twitter taught me to parrot AT ALL!

  10. Good news. Hopefully she will finally make her first major operational deployment, “East of Suez”, in 2025 – CSG25.

  11. Do we know who paid for the repairs as the mis-aliened shaft/s were signed off originally by the carrier consortium as being all good but were out of alignment from the out set or is the tax payer yet again bailing out poor workmanship by defence contractors.

    • You are such an ungrateful git, arn’t you?

      If BAE had built them the drive shafts would have been super glued to the seals – “Our ships don’t leak around the shafts!”

      • Strike me as the only gits around are the ones making excuses for bad workmanship which the tax payer has ultimately have to pay for via an already overstretched defence budget.
        The shafts on the PoW were mis-aliened from day one, yet despite that the ship was passed fit for duty by the contractors. So the Aircraft carrier alliance should be held accountable with the best part of £30 million being spent on a problem that should not have existed.

          • The MoD had to accept the fudge that we call the T45 as it was the government at the time that insisted (an had full knowledge of) the problems with the overheating issues hence we the tax payer have to pay for the PIP upgrades.
            The problem with the PoW is entirely diffrent, the QE had passed the same checks and test by the same company and has had no problems to date (that have come to light). The PoW developed a vibration on the shaft shortly after her first voyage which got worse over time culminating in her being pulled from service after leaving Portsmouth last year on her way to the USA.
            After dry docking it was discovered that actually both shafts were out of alignment and could only have been installed wrong in the first place, so the pass out inspection must have been floored as mis-aligned shafts should have been picked up. These inspections are normally first rate and to have a ship of this size accepted into service with mis-aligned shafts is extremely rear, but if it was a commercial ship it would have gone straight back to the yard to be fixed at the yards expense.

        • PoW shafts where within the allowable tolerances for alignment. If they were not, then one of 2 things would have happened.

          The RN/Babcock QC team would not have accepted and signed off the work

          or

          If outside tolerances Design Engineering would have had to look at the figures and decide if the risk of it being outside of the tolerance was acceptable. If it was acceptable they would then instruct the team to accept the alignment.

          Either way someone would have signed off and accepted it.

          • You are right some one did sign it off as being acceptable but as we now now it was not right and should not have been signed off.

          • If it was within tolerance it was acceptable.
            When doing work on ships in build or maintenance try not signing something off because its within tolerance and is deemed as acceptable. You will find yourself looking for another job.

            Hindsight is 20/20 and sometimes S41t happens and stuff just breaks.

          • You are right yet again, and I would agree with you yet again, but for both shafts to be mis-aligned on the one vessel has to raise some eyebrows somewhere, I would have thourght!!.

            In the big picture it seems we seem have a double standard system in the UK, one for the building in the civilian sector and one for building in the military.
            We have new build barrack blocks with substandard electrical systems being signed off by the DIO, we have new build kitchens being signed off by the DIO with faulty and in some cases no, extractor systems so the first time they are used the cooks end up in hospital with CO2 inhalation.
            The list is quit substantial so I will not go on, but needless to say it is systemic within the military contractor community.

            What I am trying to point out is that there is some thing wrong with the system that insists that the vast majority of contractors have to build to one standard yet allows the MoD via the DIO to pass off construction projects, ships and vehicles to a lesser standard.

            The MoD has a finite amount of money that should be used on more people (with better wages) more equipment (that is fit for propose) but is being squandered on putting right equipment and projects that we have been told by the DIO that is fit for propose.

  12. I just can not see the problem!

    Copy the Russians! Glue the shafts – no more flooding and give them both some ocean going tugs!

    Russian ingenuity would have saved us millions.

    Simples.

    • Maybe copying the Russians could take us further. Fit a smoke generators near the funnels to spew out big clouds of black smoke and replace a couple of escorts with ocean-going tugs. That could be really effective protection – if the Russians saw a carrier spewing black smoke and seemingly under tow they might well assume that it was one of theirs and not target it.

  13. Welcome back PoW. Now hopefully we can see if the rolling landing for the F35B works. As far as I am aware the PoW is technically better equipped than the QE.

  14. Thinking of a viable export customer for 1 of the UK carriers. Spain, no as no F-35B, Italy maybe, USMC can’t see it, Japan – could be interesting, South Korea again possible. It’s got to go somewhere when the cuts come.

    • At a minimum it can always used as a super helicopter and or drone carrier or just carry a smaller contingent of F35Bs. Just to be completely crazy, why not convert it to CATOBAR so it can land conventional aircraft like Rafales, Hornets and Hawkeyes and maybe a naval Tempest in the future?

      • Would be cheaper and easier to build from fresh rather than trying to convert also the cost of the CAG would kill it too. UK does not have the means even to fit out one full CAG now. Need more F35B’s and Helo’s as if all on the QE the rest of the Fleet suffers. Option to increase Wildcat Numbers is transfer those used by the Army and fit with radar to give more units and also the 10+ Merlin HM1’sairframes sitting in about to get the HM2 update to help out on those numbers as 30 is far to small to give the Fleet numbers we have now a shout of having an air unit.
        One unit will soon be in reserve/refit leaving one operational and easing the manning issues in the RN.

        • Not true in a war situation we could form a full carrier air group, 1/2 carriers depending, 3/4 type 45, 4 t26 and a couple of t31 plus 2 astute subs. Yes allies would have to cover other taskings but we could do it.

    • India? And agree at best we’ll loose one, maybe both as not required when we retrench to our patch of the Atlantic and North Sea. Radakin will be gone in under 2 years and some one more focused on European land defence will be installed.

      • We’ll lose neither. What utterly tripe, Daniele fears a NATO focused RN.

        I don’t because the USN pivot to the Pacific means we have to stop the pretentious bravo sierra of Bluffer Johnson and substitute for lost American carrier power in NATO AOR: the US will make clear that means three carriers; fffFrench and British. We’re going to win this one!

        • Agreed. I suspect that for at least the next 15 to 20 years it would also not be as easy a political decision for some future government to make as some people seem to think. Yes, there will always be the “why do we need any armed forces at all, let’s all just love one another” camp that celebrate every decommissioning of any UK military asset but there would also I suspect be a quite significant school of thought along the lines of “we paid over £6bn to build these assets, a hell of a lot more if you include the cost of working them up to full operating capability over the early years, and now we’re selling them off on the cheap – what a waste of money and a blow to UK capabilities” in which case there would be a lot of negative reaction from the public as well – or at least I hope so.

          Out of interest, not that I’m advocating it, but if things really did take a bad turn then how much operational cost saving can be had from implementing an Albion/Bulwark setup where one ship is kept in uncrewed extended readiness while the other is active vs the current QE/PoW setup? As I say, definitely not something I would want to see – I’m just asking out of curiosity.

          • That was always the plan and will be once they are both settled into sea routines and issues sorted. Only ever planned to have one operational with one set of air assets. RN manning is over stretched trying to keep both at sea unless we get the manpower numbers increased (unlikely) not possible long term. Future units joining the Fleet will all have smaller crews than those presently in service easing that issue but will of course give those reason to trim numbers further. Sad day for all out Armed Forces and I advocate we return to Local Yeomanry to boost reserve numbers with a well trained and equipped professional core for each service.

          • The small size of the Services. When I joined the services where far larger and recuts had to wait to get into training as the services were maxed. Now no one wants to join as there is little to look forward too and been glum for years for all the services. They would struggle to cover the fire service again as in the past if they went on strike again. Manpower not just there for war fighting but serving the people of the state.

          • I see – and agree. If you did a list of pros and cons for a young person joining the army (as opposed to many civvy jobs), I am sure there would be more cons than pros.
            Surely everyone wants to drive a train and earn £50k!

          • “Better behaved creatures from our prison system” ??
            Do you mean the guards as folloing privsatisation there’s many of those I wouldn’t trust , never mind the scrotes they puportedly look after.

        • Agree, I think that’s how it will play out. That said I think we will also become more NATO centric in the sense that we will be expected to be the lead European NATO partner in the north Atlantic. In Asia – Pacific I see us with France as playing a support role to the US. China vs the US is super power stuff, I don’t see it as an either /or situation. We will have a bigger navy.

          • China v USA, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, S Korea & probably others too. PLAN may have a huge navy but it faces stronger opposition.

      • He’s baiting, mate. Waiting for someone to bite commenting on an issue that anyone with a UK mil interest cares about and may be sensitive about. Cuts. The 2 Carriers thus the biggest “prizes”
        Typical Troll.

    • You’re daft. We have 2 QEC. They are both staying where they are. British built. RN operated supercarriers. With the best carrier air wing outside of a USN supercarriers.

  15. The refit to put Cats and traps on both will take a while even with them having part of the work already done. I am curious to see how they will configure the deck.

    • NO work has been done on either ship for fitting such and that came from RN team who was on the build. Any thing will be fitted on top of the flight deck already in place and still be very costly. The ramp launch proved that flying stations can continue when regular flat tops could no longer launch and recover as was proved way back in the early 80’s in the Falklands conflict. Harriers launched at max weight often off the CVS’s with little issue. Lets just get some more F35B’s and some supportive types to make it the big stick they deserve to be.

      • I was on the team that put it together and I can state that there is space/ capacity and deck strengthening already in place for future fitting of electrical driven catapults .

        • Yes, true but the estimate cost of that was as much as the ship itself when the Gov wanted to change it as well as on top of getting the aeroplanes (F35C’s) which means much more training too that is why it was ditched. I do not see them ever being fitted and we will stick with the B’s but adding CV22’s to the mix for support and tanking would be a plus.

          • I haven’t read anywhere the intention to buy F35c. I think the intention is to fit Cats and traps to operate unmanned aircraft as loyal wingman but also refuelling and airborne radar pickets so the fleet can run EMCON.
            The logic being if you are fitting them anyway, you may as well fit ones big enough to handle fighters . Which is surprisingly logical thinking for the MoD.
            Also it future proofs the carriers as the QE class service life far outweighs the service life of the F35B.

      • Anti ship missiles are driving carriers further off shore. The F35B simply cannot take off with sufficient fuel on board and using a second F35 as a tanker is a very expensive waste .
        We need the capacity to fly off dedicated tanker aircraft ( unmanned presumably) and loyal wingman.
        The further out the more ocean to hide the more time her escorts have to react to a threat.

        • I don’t know about that. A QEC battleground operating out off shore by 200-300 miles is presumably operating in a large expanse of ocean. With freedom to maneuver. It makes them difficult to target.
          Besides which there are these ships called frigates and destroyers that are armed to the teeth and designed to stop said anti ship missiles.
          An F35Bs radius of operations is circa 450 miles. That’s enough to throw out a strike package of 5th gen stealth aircraft and make most adversaries really regret provoking them.
          Once the F35B numbers are upto the 76 now budgeted for (by the early 2030s) the RN will be cemented in premiere league of carrier operations.

          • Well the US carrier groups have many more of these frigate and destroyer thingies , they also have these huge things called cruisers protecting their carriers and they are sufficiently concerned therefore I do not think it is unreasonable that despite us Brits legendary stiff upper lip the RN is also. I might also point out that there are these damned unsporting ballistic missiles and maybe soon, these very fast things called hypersonic weapons, neither of which our wonderful armed to the teeth destroyer and frigate are much use against. But we should be able to put up a decent show of waving at them as they go by.
            Further given the F35B limited range we can bomb the sh1t out of the coast but not far inland.
            As for potential adversaries not wishing to provoke us, I do hope the Chinese have got your memo.!!

          • Good luck with the kill chain for hypersonic missiles. Try finding, tracking, and engaging warships that don’t want to be found against the vast expanse of the ocean. Add in stealth and some very nasty EW and ECM, and engaging warships becomes very difficult.

          • I would not like to hazard a guess at the RCS of a carrier but I would reason it would be pretty big and then again you have those annoying spy satellites.

          • The RCS is probably pretty big, but radar can’t see over the horizon. And even switching the AIS transponder off makes them difficult to find. Plus we know the satellite orbit tracks. These are just some of the reasons why long-range anti ship missiles haven’t be used for a very long time. But the technology is progressing. The best tool to take out another warship is still a nuclear attack submarine. Or helicopter launched Anti ship missiles for the littoral environment. 👍

          • Orbits can be changed and I still think fitting cats and traps to launch aerial tankers , loyal wingman etc is the right way to go, now the electromagnetic tech has matured sufficiently.

          • It looks like they are looking at that type of capability for the QE’s alongside F35B ops. 👍

          • All sats orbits are known and the 5 eyes “Gold” info that ships receive shows all sorts of information on Red Force assets and their locations…that includes Sat orbits and footprints, elint, visual sightings etc.
            Its not easy to stay hidden but its possible. Its a big assed sea.

            Kill chains for weapons are breakable. Break any one link and the chain fails. So if things go south and you start shooting you go after the easy bits.
            Ocean Surveillance aircraft.
            Mid course guidance update assets.
            Missile carrier aircraft.
            Air refuelling aircraft.

            The time from detection to long range missile launch is always a factor especially as ships move. If detection to launch to missile homing takes an hour the ship can have moved 30 miles in any direction. That will put it outside the seeker head basket. And an hour from detection to launch for a very long range asset would need your systems to be very very good. It could be a lot longer than that.

          • I will repeat satellites orbits can be changed, yes they can quickly be recalculated but it takes time for it to be noticed.
            And you pried my point. the F35B relatively short range brings the mother ship potentially into a higher risk environment. Personally I will be surprised if either ship is fitted with cats and traps, this country would rather put a multi billion carrier into danger than spend the money to help make it more versatile and harder to find and kill.

          • Not forgetting something like the DF21’s re-entry vehicle has to slow down, so that its active radar seeker has an unobstructed view of what’s below. It has a limited maneuver capability. Therefore it will be slowing down from Mach 9+ to something below Mach 6. This is to make sure there is no plasma shielding the radar.

            By slowing down and maneuvering it losses some of its kinetic energy, thereby limiting how far off its original track it can move.

            Another question to ask is how good is the radar fitted to the re-entry vehicle. If it’s similar to the ones fitted to an anti-ship missile then their detection range will be pretty poor. Plus their target discrimination will also be fairly basic. So are likely to be susceptible to both active and passive countermeasures.

          • Your numbers work, provided the target is near coastal; however, I think it’s assumed Voyagers will be able to reach the theatre of operations from somewhere, or that we’ll rely on US refuelling.

            I doubt the US Armed Services Committee would be happy with the F-35’s range until it can fly to China from a carrier parked alongside at Yokosuka. The 1000nm “safe” range they were talking about is absurd. Missile ranges will extend faster over the coming years than those of combat aircraft and you can’t expect to park a carrier outside of them. Adding a 4 hour round trip to every run wouldn’t do your pilots’ fatigue or your sortie rates a lot of good either.

            Surely the simplest solution to extend F-35 range is drop tanks until we can afford to run organic tanking. They can’t refuel on the way home like a tanker, but they would extend operations significantly. I know there are issues with the pylons’ radar cross section, but I can’t believe those are insurmountable.

            Buddy refuelling from other F-35s seems like a dumb solution on cost grounds, but as an emergency measure to refuel returning F-35s drinking vapour, it probably should be implemented.

          • Missile range is pointless if you don’t gave the kill chain capability to match it. Find, track, engage at those ranges is currently extremely difficult. Even at a fraction on that range.

        • The F35B can take-off at max all up weight from the carrier using the ramp from half way along the deck.

          What the main issue is, is that the B variant doesn’t carry as much fuel as the C variant. This is due to the fuel tank area being used for the direct lift fan on the B variant. Which gives it a combat radius of 935km vs 1241km.

          However, the B’s combat radius is still significantly more than a AV-8B that is carrying two drop tanks. To put that in perspective. During the Falklands War the carriers were about 150 miles off East Falkland. Which meant the Sea Harriers could patrol along Falkland Sound for about 30 minutes. Or carry out a coordinated interception off West Falkland then fly straight back (until the FARP was set up).

          If somehow magically the Argentinians did a part 2. With a QE class carrier operating from the same distance off East Falkland. A F35B could carry out an hour’s long CAP off West Falkland.

          The F35 is not cleared for buddy refueling like the F18. With the forthcoming USN’s MQ-25 Stingray, it’s very unlikely that the F35 will ever be cleared. If the FAA can get the funding, then an aerial refueling drone like the Stingray will likely be at the top of their wish list.

      • A STOVL carrier generally can operate aircraft in most weather/ sea states.
        Also they can generate more sorties/ day per aircraft carried as the catapult launches and arrested recovery slow down deck operations.
        A US Ford Class carrier costing X4 the price of a QEC cannot operate x4 the aircraft. Operational costs for a Ford class are also much much higher. The RN cannot afford to put +5000 personnel on a single ship.
        For their capabilities the QEC design is without doubt the most efficient carrier ever conceived.
        Far superior to an America or Mistral class in all respects.
        The only way I’m supporting an LPHD for the RN is if it’s in addition to both QECs. I like the Trieste design. It’s a good looking and capable ship.

        • All good points but..that doesn’t change the fact that the sphere of operation of the F35C is far more than the F35B – so it’s somewhat of a moot point how many sorties you can fly if you can’t get to where you want to go & in what weather without exposing the carrier to land based threats.
          I’m not saying they do not stand up but I also sometimes think some of those reasons were conconcted after the fact to provide rationale for a choice after the choice was made.
          The arguements for and against Cat & Traps vs. STVOL Cv vs B Nuclear vs. Diesel are circular and never ending.
          Me personally I’d love to see a nuclear powered version with Cats & Traps and the C variant – as well as one of the QE Class carriers with a full compliment of the B variant – but that just aint gunna happen.
          I dunno maybe once the yanks have sorted more of the Ford class issues out maybe we could give them one of ours for one of theirs…

          If not I want to keep both carriers and give them both proper F35B airwings each..with C&T for drones included-

          Go large or go home…

          • The F35C does indeed carry more fuel then the F35B. But in real world flying operations, it doesn’t have vastly greater range that some people think. It carries more fuel, that’s means it carries more weight. It also has larger wings and horizontal stabiliser, so it has more drag. So overall its fuel burn rate will be higher. Add in bring back fuel for potential missed bolters (Go around fuel) and suddenly its range advantage is minimal over the F35B. VSTOL aircraft land first time, every time. Published range and endurance figures also depend on the mission profiles flown. Most fast jets can empty the tanks in less than 12mins if reheat is kept switched on. So just like our cars, range depends on how it is flown. Every fast jet pilot wants more fuel, but the F35 has a very large internal fuel load compared to most fighters of a similar size.

          • Cheers pal. Real world is usual pretty different from Wikipedia stats and figures 😄

          • Appreciate your detailed response- makes me wonder why they even bothered creating the C Variant.

          • Because it’s better is every way.

            The B might not even get the next generation upgrades. Its empty weight is too high. The lift fan and gearbox is dead weight in 98% of the flight envelope.

          • The F-35B has less bring back weight than the F-35C. It lands with less fuel because it has to. The F-35C can return to the ship with more munitions and fuel. It’s a better aircraft, just accept it for what it is.

          • It isn’t a better aircraft. It’s the same aircraft. It just takes off and lands differently. And for carrier aviation, the F35C needs more support than the F35B in terms of deck time, training, the need for larger deck crews. The carrier’s are more expensive. They need longer and more complex and expensive refits and maintenance periods. The list goes on, just to look bit more TopGun. The F35B and QE class is the best overall bang for the UK’s buck.

  16. Thank goodness. Lets hope no more accidents. She now needs to finally complete that WESTLANT deployment and work-up pending taking over next year as Fleet flagship and UK High Readiness Strike Carrier. Big Lizzie deserves her first proper refit since commissioning back in 2017! She’s no longer a spring chicken – upgrades and deep maintenance badly needed. How significant the upgrades will be is the moot point – cost and time being the obvious constraints.

    • What’s the status of that extra bit of kit to enable rolling landings? (I forget its name.) The last I heard it was fitted on PoW but not QE. Is that still the case? If yes then it would be great to see PoW now prove and certify that device so that QE can also get it in her first refit.

    • That’s why when the vessels are alongside side in Portsmouth in-between sea time, they carry out maintenance packages. Little and often is the way, and should reduce the time spent in major refits, and maximise availability rates. Which are projected to be far higher than carrier’s of the past.

      • Absolutely agree, HMNB Portsmouth has been outstanding in keeping QNZL operational over the last 6/7 years. But there still eventually comes a point where you need serious dockyard facilities to maintain the hull, replace over-hour prime movers, reconfigure the flight deck, and overhaul major systems and equipment. Suggestions by BAE and Thales in the early 2000’s that major refits might be somehow be avoidable were always pure fantasy, the RN accepted the story because it helped getting approval to order the carriers.

      • remind me, what was the actual plan regards number of aircraft to be deployed with these, and how many are actually deployed?

        • The Queen Elizabeth class are each expected to be capable of carrying over forty aircraft, with a normal maximum load of thirty-six F-35s and four helicopters, but with a theoretical surge capacity of up to 72 aircraft. The 2010 SDSR anticipated the routine peacetime deployment of twelve F-35Bs, but a typical warload will be 24 F-35Bs and some helicopters.-Wiki

          • Really? I looked carefully from Warrior cam & couldn’t see the green & white Tudor HMS QE badge on the rear island, so concluded it must be POW. That badge is quite distinctive & bright, I just double checked & it’s not there; unless they’ve removed it, but that’s what they’d do in wartime to make exact ID difficult. We’re not at war nor close to another CSG, so I still think it’s POW unless you have better info.
            Either way it’s great to have both carriers back in service. Hope POW will be ready soon to complete F35 qualification off the USA.

          • Hi mate, Portsmouth harbour movements had QE arriving at 0140 this morning. Crew will be going on leave before the deploy in a month or so.
            Looking at various Twitter feeds. POW was passing through the Firth of Forth a few hours ago, having left the jetty earlier on. She won’t be down here for a few days yet.
            Totally agree, it’s good that both are back where they belong.

    • They kicked the propeller shaft (difficult with flippers on), stroked their chins (difficult with breatihing apparatus on ), gave thumbs up signs – and that was it – job done…

  21. Even if we have the ships and the kit (if only!) will we have the personnel? My friend’s daughter is on her New Entry course at the moment- only 28 of them started the course due to lack of applications. When my nephew was at Raleigh 10 years ago there were almost 50 of them.

  22. I can’t see a future for HMS Prince of Wales. i think being she is second fiddle to QE – Let her have 10 F-35B and assorted helicopters – Along with HMS Albion we would be credible in one area.

  23. Lovely to see our Naval might increased to 2 aircraft carriers once again. Love to see a similar documentary on it like the 2 already out for the HMS Queen Elizabeth. In my own opinion i think we should have a 3rd one because 1 is pretty much mandatory for naval warfare, 2 is necessary and 3 is just competent precautions

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here