Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise

Navy Lookout ^ | 2/3/2024 | Navy Lookout

[leopud]

From: Navy Lookout - Independent Royal Navy news and analysis 2/3/2024 During last-minute checks ahead of sailing for NATO exercise Steadfast Defender, it has been discovered that HMS Queen Elizabeth has a significant issue with her starboard propeller shaft. The ship will not sail on 4th February as planned and instead, HMS Prince of Wales will be readied to replace her.

The RN has instituted additional checks on the aircraft carrier’s shaft lines as a result of the painful lessons learned from past experience with HMS Prince of Wales. In the course of an inspection, concerns have arisen around one of the couplings on the starboard shaft. It should be noted that this is not the same problem that afflicted HMS Prince of Wales. Although the ship remains in class (ie. technically seaworthy), it has been decided as a sensible precaution, to withdraw her from the exercise until the issue can be thoroughly investigated and remedied. The Fleet Commander said: “Routine pre-sailing checks yesterday identified an issue with a coupling on HMS Queen Elizabeth’s starboard propeller shaft. As such, the ship will not sail on Sunday. HMS Prince of Wales will take the place of HMS Queen Elizabeth on NATO duties and will set sail for Exercise Steadfast Defender as soon as possible.“ Demonstrating the value of having two aircraft carriers, at very short notice the ship’s company of HMS Prince of Wales have been told to prepare to sail. This process will probably take a week or so and will involve rapidly accelerating existing maintenance tasks, the transfer of equipment from her sister as well as storing and fuelling ship. HMS Prince of Wales was due to take over as flagship from her sister later this year but will now have to work up much more rapidly than planned as she has yet to embark more than a couple of jets or a full air group. 2024 continues to be difficult for the RN but being able to adapt and overcome is a core value of the service.

[Jim Noble]

Neither of their carriers have proper escorts.

I have thought that Iran (or Yemen) sinking a US fleet carrier might be too risky - but if I were the UK I would not let either of those ships anywhere near the Middle East.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Probably has a drag queen performance space.

[RWGinger]

“Probably has a drag queen performance space.”
You are probably right

[Jim Noble]

Is there any evidence that a “NATO goal” of 2% has any real-world value?

I mean, if the Royal Navy is to go on and fight in a contested environment, maybe 2% is a joke. Maybe they need 10%, or 20%.

Those huge targets (HMS QE II and HMS PoW) don’t have escort forces sufficient to protect them. What’s the Senior Service plan if one of them is sunk? Or both of them?

This “NATO target” nonsense is just that. It has no relevance to real-world dangers, it’s a BS number made up by some bureaucrat somewhere.

[Jim Noble]

But it’s sad that the Eastern European states who never should have been allowed to join NATO to begin with are now acting as if it provides them with some margin of safety, as opposed to placing them in incredible danger.

Our elites are making policy based on “narrative” instead of reality.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "Is there any evidence that a 'NATO goal' of 2% has any real-world value? I mean, if the Royal Navy is to go on and fight in a contested environment, maybe 2% is a joke. Maybe they need 10%, or 20%."

One point of the "goal" -- to which many European nations did not measure up -- is to measure someway any "joke." 2% buys what? And when the nation in question isn't spending....

That Royal Navy was mentioned this day on FR.

Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise Freeper post from UK's Navy Lookout, and comments, 4 February 2024

Britain’s warships have gym where land attack missiles should be Freeper post from Telegraph UK, and comments, 4 February 2024.

[Reverend Wright]

I think 2% or some target like it is necessary, but not sufficient.

(The NATO target was 3% back in the Cold War days, but most countries didn’t meet that, either)

If countries spend 2% or even 4%, but waste it mostly on gold-plated toys like F35 and Abrams, vs artillery shells, artillery guns, land mines, low cost drones, a big reserve army... it’s still not getting it done.

We know from 100+ years of peer war battlefield data that land artillery causes 60-80 percent of ALL casualties.

Yet the USA has a minuscule shell production capacity and one remaining factory in the whole country producing artillery barrels.

All of the US Army leadership has been thru Staff College. And they know that casualty data. But they didn’t tell anyone, and let the money be spent on gold plated toys because the are CORRUPT CLOWNS who planned to cash in on the revolving door (eg Lloyd Austin).