https://www.zerohedge.com/mili...-day-4-month-mission

The UK's biggest warship has suffered an embarrassing setback, breaking down shortly after setting off on a "landmark mission" to the United States. The HMS Prince of Wales experienced an "emerging mechanical issue" - according to a UK defense ministry spokesperson - and is now broken down just off Britain's southern coast.

The ship is the Royal Navy's second aircraft carrier, having becoming fully operational last year, and costs an estimated £3 billion. It is further considered a "NATO flagship". The breakdown came a mere day after it left Portsmouth on Saturday.

"HMS Prince of Wales remains in the South Coast Exercise Area while conducting investigations into an emerging mechanical issue," a Royal Navy spokesperson said.

The deployment to the US coast was supposed to be for four months, but after a history of problems in only its first year on the seas, the whole mission could be now in question, per The Guardian:

Divers have been inspecting the 930-foot carrier after damage was reported to a propeller shaft, according to the Navy Lookout news site.

The vessel – Britain’s largest warship and Nato’s flagship carrier – has had a history of problems, getting stranded in Portsmouth at the end of 2020 after flooding in its engine room damaged the electrics. During its first two years in service, the carrier reportedly spent fewer than 90 days at sea after springing leaks twice in five months.

The planned joint mission once entering US waters is to focus on F-35 fighter take-offs, as well as operations involving advanced drones. This was going to involve stops in New York, as well as Halifax in Canada and the Caribbean.

A defense and maritime monitoring site Navy Lookout had this to say:

“Should the issue prove to be serious it goes without saying that this is extremely unfortunate and not a good look for the RN [Royal Navy]."

Reports are further strongly suggesting this is no minor issue for the 65,000-tonne warship, but that a "significant technical fault" has forced its halt.

It didn't take long for Chinese state pundits to begin trolling and mocking the plight of the state of the art carrier...



BBC and others have further cited Navy Lookout to speculate the following:

The website says a photograph of the carrier leaving Portsmouth shows only a wake on the port side suggesting a problem with the other propeller shaft.

It states that, unless the problem can be resolved at sea enabling the warship to continue its journey to the US, it might need to go into dry dock at Rosyth in Scotland early, ahead of a planned inspection in 2023.

However, there's as yet been no official UK defense ministry confirmation of propellor damage, the extent of possible damage, or when the carrier might continue on its journey.

I'm no navy expert but that is a much different design than any of ours right? Are they able to launch and recover at the same time?

It also looks huge!

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
I'm no navy expert but that is a much different design than any of ours right?

Yep. Rather than using catapults and arresting cables like our current fleet carriers, it uses a "ski jump"-style launch ramp and small landing pads, and is intended to be operated with V/STOL versions of the F-35 (kinda similar to the old Harrier's V/STOL capabilities).

It also has two separate islands, one dedicated to ship operations and one dedicated to flight operations, rather than the traditional single island.

You can see the angled ramp on the bow, towards the right side of the above photo, and the dual towers on the starboard side, towards the bottom of the photo.

quote:

Are they able to launch and recover at the same time?

Yes. V/STOL aircraft can be launching off the forward ramp (Short Take Off) while others are landing on the rearward section (Vertical Landing).

Sounds like the whole two years have been an embarrassment for that ship.

I wonder what percentage of fault would be attributed to design vs. operator error?

If the ship has been that problematical, one would think somebody, at some point, would say "Get that ship right or heads will roll!"

quote:

Divers have been inspecting the 930-foot carrier after damage was reported to a propeller shaft, according to the Navy Lookout news site.

That does not bode well.

Anyone remember the Triumph or MG ??

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:


It also looks huge!

Would that thing fit through the Panama canal?

quote:

Originally posted by Schmelby:

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:


It also looks huge!

Would that thing fit through the Panama canal?

It will through the newer 3rd set of locks. Neo-Panamax...

It could also access the Pacific via the Mediterranean-Suez-Indian Ocean route.


While it's pretty huge, note that these carriers are slightly smaller than the US Navy's supercarriers.

Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth class carrier:
Length: 932 feet
Width: 128 feet (waterline)
Width: 240 feet (deck)

US Navy Nimitz class carrier:
Length: 1,092 feet
Width: 134 feet (waterline)
Width: 252 feet (deck)

I guess. From that picture you can't see the beam.

Considering what a green, leftie loon Charles is, maybe they should have named it something different so it wasn't jinxed.

Plenty of good WWII British carrier names available.

They should have stayed away from that Lucas electrical system.

'I wonder what percentage of fault would be attributed to design vs. operator error?'
'Divers have been inspecting the 930-foot carrier after damage was reported to a propeller shaft, according to the Navy Lookout news site.'


Well, the British taxpayers will get the shaft, am I right?

That's too bad, the ships are a smart design. The UK press is very gleeful to point-out the stumbles of their government and uniform services.

Her sister ship and lead of the class, HMS Queen Elizabeth completed a big-time near around the world deployment with no issues last year. HMS PoW has had some issues though, flooding cancelled a US visit back in 2020

HMS Prince of Wales suffers technical issue after sailing from Portsmouth

quote:

HMS Prince of Wales sailed from Portsmouth yesterday for a 4-month deployment to the United States but soon after departure experienced a significant technical fault.
She is currently at anchor south east of the Isle of Wight and divers have been inspecting the ship below the waterline. Unconfirmed reports say there is damage to the starboard propeller shaft but as is usual, official sources will not comment in detail on the material state of the ship. It may be unrelated but the wake visible in the photo above, taken as she sailed yesterday, appears to indicate only the port shaft turning.

An RN spokesperson said today “The ship is receiving external support for ongoing investigations”. For now at least, the official line is that the deployment is still on, they added: “Having successfully sailed from Portsmouth, HMS PRINCE OF WALES remains in the South Coast Exercise Area. We expect her to continue her WESTLANT 22 deployment as planned in the coming days.”

Should the issue prove to be serious it goes without saying that this is extremely unfortunate and not a good look for the RN. HMS Prince of Wales already experience a major internal flood in October 2020 which resulted in the postponement of the planned trip to the US in 2021. Breakdowns and unexpected defects do happen occasionally, even to relatively new vessels. (In April 1986 HMS Illustrious suffered a major gearbox fire as she set out for a 9-month Global 86 deployment. The damage took several months to repair but Illustrious was able to rejoin the tail end of the deployment.) This event should not be taken as a sign there is a fundamental flaw in the QEC propulsion and shaft arrangement, HMS Queen Elizabeth completed a 26,000 nm deployment last year without a problem and HMS Prince of Wales operated in the Arctic earlier this year.

Hopefully, the issue can be resolved quickly but should repair to a propeller shaft be needed, this would imply a requirement for dry docking. HMS Prince of Wales was due to go to Rosyth for a six-week dry-docking for her first Lloyds Naval Ship Rules inspection in 2023 – this could be brought forward and combined with the repair work. Inevitably this would disrupt or result in the cancellation of a long-planned deployment and an important flying trials programme.

More details on this story are likely to emerge in the coming days.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
I'm no navy expert but that is a much different design than any of ours right? Are they able to launch and recover at the same time?

It also looks huge!

Yes it is.
Doesn't use catapults or, arresting gear like US & French carriers. Rolling take-off, vertical landing. Engineering space made some compromises since nuclear was too costly an option, not to mention other complications.

First couple of deployments for the two ships will have a USMC F-35 squadron embarked until the RN/RAF get enough F-35's of their own to complete their air wing.

This may be a stupid question, but …

quote:

The ship is the Royal Navy's second aircraft carrier …

]
I assume this means this is the second of the two they have now? This can't be only their second aircraft carrier.

quote:

The deployment to the US coast

WTF? Why would our closest ally need to deploy an aircraft carrier to our coast?

quote:

Originally posted by OldMick:
They should have stayed away from that Lucas electrical system.

LOL! One of my thoughts also, hope they aren't using Lucas, The Prince of Darkness.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

The deployment to the US coast

WTF? Why would our closest ally need to deploy an aircraft carrier to our coast?

Joint training with our Naval assets, interfacing with USN and USCG.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I assume this means this is the second of the two they have now? This can't be only their second aircraft carrier.

Correct. They've had dozens before in the past.

The Royal Navy was one of the earliest innovators in carrier operations, and they have a long history of fielding carriers.

Well, at least they're not running into things, although I saw a story on either Whatsapp or Twitter - purportedly from an RN source that claimed the damage was caused when they ran over a Russkie boomer that was trying to hack into an undersea cable near the RN base. Personally, I think that's just mess scuttlebutt.