UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
One of the things which puzzles me is this quote from:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Significant work has gone into reducing the manpower levels of the ship. Current crew complement for the vessel alone is 679 sailors, compared to 3,200 for a Nimitz-class carrier of the U.S. Navy."

What's your take on this?
On such a large ship, it is very dangerous to reduce your manpower too drastically...even with automation.

If the ship is meant to go into harm's way, you have to take into account that there may be damage inflicted on the ship...perhaps significant damage. This damage is likely to inflict casualties on the crew.

When there is significant damage...automated systems fail, and the difference between life and death of the ship is often the ability for the crew to perform damage control and save the ship.

To do that, you have to constantly train the crew at it, and you have to have sufficient numbers of crew to account for it. Both the damage that may occur and the casualties you may take. If you do not get this right...you may lose a very expensive and important vessels you might otherwise save.

So, I am for automation, but I am also for ensuring that the crew is large enough to handle battle damage. A war ship is made to go in harm's way. It also must be prepared for the consequences of doing so.
 
Last edited:
On such a large ship, it is very dangerous to reduce your manpower too drastically...even with automation.

I the ship is meant to go into harm's way, you have to take into account that there may be damage inflicted on the ship...perhaps significant damage. This damage is likely to inflict casualties on the crew.

When there is significant damage...automated systems fail, and the difference between life and death of the ship is often the ability for the crew to perform damage control and save the ship.

To do that, you have to constantly train the crew at it, and you have to have sufficient numbers of crew to account for it all. Both the damage that may occur and the casualties you may take. If you do not get this right...you may lose a very expensive and important vessels you might otherwise save.

So, I am for automation, but I am also for ensuring that the crew is large enough to handle battle damage. A war ship is made to go in harm's way. It also must be prepared for the consequences of doing so.

yeah I remembered reading about increasing the crew of another "automated warship", the USN LCS (now I found this link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-- check the 2nd paragraph, mentions smaller crew(s) burn-out) ... but back to the QE, POW: the crew of 679 sailors is not much bigger than that of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

but don't worry, I'm a fan of the Royal Navy, following its history since 1906 Dreadnought!
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
8xwRSf8.jpg

Lynx from HMS Montrose, after carrying out a surface search of the surrounding area encompassing HNOMS Helge Ingstad, HMS Montrose and the Bulk Carrier Ark Futura during Operation RECSYR in the Mediterranean

UOhTGKj.jpg

HMS Dragon's Mk8 Lynx Helicopter conducted day into night flying serial. As part of the sortie it fired all of it's 60 counter measure flares as the sun set over the ship.

brLv7EL.jpg

HMS Defender docked in Glasgow, her affiliated city. On the morning of Sunday 1st December, the Type 45 destroyer sailed out of the Clyde and into the waters off the west coast of Scotland to prepare for live sea firings


will now get back to bottling my Malbec
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



c478103cb215935338f2516a928afb25.jpg


Telegraph said:
A Russian aircraft carrier task group has sailed into the English Channel under escort by a Royal Navy warship.

HMS Dragon met the Russian warships in the south western approaches to the Channel on Wednesday and is shadowing them as they are expected to head into the North Sea and back to Russia.

The heavy carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is accompanied by the nuclear-powered Kirov class cruiser Peter the Great and several support ships after a five-month mission to the Mediterranean.

Naval sources said it was not unusual for Russian warships to pass through the channel and the Kuznetsov was also escorted past British waters on its way out in December when it passed Scotland heading south.

Capt Vadim Serga, spokesman for the Russian Northern Fleet, said: “The cruiser has accomplished its mission within the Navy task force in the Mediterranean and headed for Severomorsk. The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is expected to return to base by late May.”

The Russian ships have spent months training in the Mediterranean, where the Kuznetsov’s Sukhoi Su-33 fighters and Kamov Ka-27 helicopters carried out more than 350 practice sorties. The ships also took part in missile and artillery firing drills.

A Royal Navy spokesman said: "We can confirm that HMS Dragon was activated as the fleet-ready escort vessel. She met the task group centred around the Admiral Kuznetsov."
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Just dang!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



12916110705_b29a83719d_c.jpg


The Scotsman said:
The Royal Navy’s largest ever warship, under construction at a dockyard in Fife, was hit by a blaze onboard today.

Initially there were fears that 21 workers assembling the HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth were unaccounted for.

However, that situation quickly changed and all personnel were located safely.

A spokesman for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service confirmed that they were alerted to a blaze on one of the decks at 6.37am.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is undergoing final assembly at Rosyth Dockyard and is due to be named by the Queen in a ceremony on Friday July 4.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service sent six appliance from across Fife to deal with the incident.

A spokeswoman said: “We got the call at 6.37am. We had in attendance six appliances and three officers.

“At first there was 21 people unaccounted for but they have all been accounted for now.

“We had four breathing apparatus, two emergency response teams, a main jet and a thermal imaging camera in use.”

It was extinguished by 8.25pm and was confirmed as being caused by insulation on fire in one of the ship’s compartments.

Seven shipyards across the UK have contributed to construction of two aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, including BAEs yards on the Clyde.

Final assembly of both is taking place at Babcock Marine’s yard in Rosyth.

A spokeswoman for BAE said: “We can confirm that on June 5 6.40am, smoke was detected in a tank onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth which is suspected to have originated from insulation near the bottom of the ship.

“We can also confirm that as a standard precaution, employees and contractors were evacuated and no-one was injured during this incident.

“This has had no impact to the Queen Elizabeth Class programme. The health and safety of everyone working at Rosyth remains our number one priority”.

Glad no one was hurt. Glad there was no serious damage and that the christening/launch can go on.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
The former commander of HMS Turbulent recounts a nearly-catastrophic malfunction at sea near the UAE 3 years ago that caused a mass-casualty incident. The cause? The inlet pipes were blocked by crustaceans from the time they spent docked in port prior to departure.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A “CATASTROPHIC” systems failure on board a Devonport-based nuclear submarine caused a mass-casualty incident, The Herald can today exclusively reveal.

When HMS Turbulent’s air conditioning plants malfunctioned during a deployment in the sweltering heat of the Indian Ocean, it resulted in 26 casualties.

Eight of those casualties were in a ‘life-threatening’ condition.

Temperatures inside the boat soared to 60 degrees Celsius with 100 per cent humidity as the crew battled to fix the problem miles from land.

With the three-year anniversary of the previously unreported incident having just passed, Ryan Ramsey, the submarine’s Commanding Officer at the time, today revealed: “I genuinely thought there was going to be a loss of life on board. People were going to die.”

The tragic incident happened at about 10.30am around three hours after the hunter-killer submarine had left Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates on May 26, 2011.

The boat was surfaced at the time and Ryan was on the bridge.

It was then that he received an engineering call reporting that the air conditioning plants had “catastrophically” failed.

“I came down below and I was met with this incredible blast of heat,” said the 44-year-old, who lives in Plymstock.

Shortly after, Ryan said he heard the ‘pipe’ signalling a ‘casualty’.

He arrived to his cabin to find the casualty crying and shaking, clearly suffering from heat exhaustion. The medic was checking him over when another pipe sounded.

Within hours many areas of the 275ft submarine had become makeshift sick bays.

“People were just collapsing everywhere, many at their work stations,” said the married father-of-two.

“We had casualties in the control room, the engine room, the bridge, the wardroom, cabins, and the toilets and showers.

“It was absolutely terrifying, and I’m not afraid to say I was scared. I remember looking at a picture of my family quickly thinking ‘we need to pull through this’.

“Walking around the boat I saw true fear in my crew’s eyes. I saw genuine concern because we simply did not know how we were going to get through it.

“I felt like the world was against us. I was looking up and asking ‘when are you going to give me a break to gain the upper hand here?’ People were crying, and it was all about survival.”

Ryan was faced with tough decisions.

He said it was the first time that such a malfunction had been reported on a vessel of this type – and the crew didn’t understand the exact cause of the problem.

To make matters worse the crew couldn’t gain access to the problem areas because the equipment was too hot to touch.

Understandably, due to the fear of “political” issues, he said he couldn’t turn back to dock in Fujairah with a “broken” nuclear submarine.

Instead he had to solve the problem with a fifth of his 130-man crew injured.

Ryan ordered two of the submarine’s hatches to be opened to vent some of the heat, and moved about 15 of the casualties onto the boat’s casing.

But with the outside temperature peaking at 42 degrees Celsius, other crewmen were collapsing in the heat so everyone was brought back inside.

The casualty numbers began to increase again. The casualty pipe sounded again, and then again, and again.

With the air conditioning system also used to cool the sensitive equipment on board, many of the systems were simply shut down. And with the Trafalgar Class submarine’s steering system now malfunctioning, the decision was taken to dive to try to reduce the heat.

“It was touch and go before we dived as to what might happen to us and the submarine,” he said.

“We couldn’t do anything. I could have radioed for help but it would have taken hours for anyone to reach us. In that time people would have died.

“We were alone in our steel tube. There really was no-one to call.”

Diving to a depth of more than 200 metres, the temperatures finally began to drop.

It transpired that the problem was caused by blockages in the submarine’s inlet pipes caused by crustaceans, thought to have amassed during the period of time alongside in Fujairah.

Just 24 hours later, with systems all returned to normal and crew recovering, HMS Turbulent and her crew continued on with the deployment.
 
The former commander of HMS Turbulent recounts a nearly-catastrophic malfunction at sea near the UAE 3 years ago that caused a mass-casualty incident. The cause? The inlet pipes were blocked by crustaceans from the time they spent docked in port prior to departure.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

horrifying story, Pointblank ... I think there's a very important sentence further down in that article, which I quote
Such was the unique nature of the problem on board HMS Turbulent, Ryan said the Royal Navy has now incorporated the scenario into its submarine training.
end of quote
 

Franklin

Captain
Perhabs the UK was too ambitious to go for two carriers. And to build them simultaneously. It would have been better had they gone for one carrier instead but with all the bells and whistles meaning EM cats, full 36 plane air wing, superior F-35C's, regular training etc.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The former commander of HMS Turbulent recounts a nearly-catastrophic malfunction at sea near the UAE 3 years ago that caused a mass-casualty incident. The cause? The inlet pipes were blocked by crustaceans from the time they spent docked in port prior to departure.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
WOW! What an amazing story!

And to make the decision to dive in such conditions. That was a gutsy call. Could have lost the entire boat.

As it turned out, he used the Ocean itself to cool things off...and it did.
 
Top