Posted on 06/17/2018 1:05:50 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Britain's six Type 45 destroyers, described as the backbone of the Royal Navy, spent 80 per cent of last year in dock.
The ships, costing £1billion each, need a multi-million pound refit after repeatedly breaking down in the Persian Gulf. But the work is not due to start until 2020.
Two of the cutting-edge warships, HMS Dauntless and HMS Defender, did not go to sea at all during 2017 – which had been hailed by officials and ministers as 'the year of the Navy'.
All six warships, which entered service from 2008, were made with an engine system which cuts out in warm seas, leaving sailors stranded for hours in total darkness.
Britain's six Type 45 destroyers, described as the backbone of the Royal Navy, spent 80 per cent of last year in dock
This led to fears that these key vessels – designed to shield the rest of the fleet from air or missile attacks – had become 'sitting ducks'.
HMS Dragon spent 309 days in Portsmouth last year, followed by HMS Daring with 232 days and HMS Diamond with 203.
HMS Duncan spent the most time at sea, but was still in dock for 197 days.
From January to March this year, HMS Daring, HMS Dauntless and HMS Defender have not left port.
Shockingly, engine-makers Rolls-Royce claim the Ministry of Defence did not tell them the 8,000-ton vessels would spend long periods in warm waters so they were not designed to operate in the heat.
Insiders say a shortage of manpower, Christmas leave for sailors and routine maintenance had also been factors that kept the ships at Portsmouth.
Lord West, former head of the Navy, said: 'It is a disgrace that work on these ships has not been done as a matter of urgency.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“With the American military...
I once asked engineers developing an aircraft system how much heat the internal parts could handle. … They told me it wasn’t in the contract. And this is critical - I replied it would fail operational testing and not be bought, so they could fix it or never sell their system to the government. …” [Mr Rogers, post 49]
Problems bedeviling all acquisition.
Contractors hire the highest powered legal counsel they can, with contract-law experience. Few SJA types have any experience in contract law, and anyway are too busy with other tasks. If it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t exist. Endured situations just like Mr Rogers came across, but we could not induce the design engineers to use their imaginations.
Another problem: there’s a pecking order among engineers. Various specialists compete for the top spot all the time, but all of them hold systems engineers (who alone have the training and imagination to detect such problems before they become deadly, or impossible to fix) in contempt. They don’t consider the systems engineers to be “true” engineers, and often make it a point of pride to ignore what everyone else is doing.
And all of them absolutely hate and fear operational testing. As a pass/fail system-level activity, it deprives them of the opportunity to tinker, tweak, and fix: grossly unfair, by their lights.
A trip to the local German auto mechanic and then another to the auto parts store, fixed the problem with nary a tool.
Seems the 30 wt. oil I was using was too "thick" when it got too cold for the starter to turn the flywheel over. An oil replacement to 10W30 did the trick and she started every time after that.
I have never designed a warship before, but wouldn’t you want it to be able to operate nearly any where in the world? (Except for the arctic)
That is so true.Will be round to smite thee round 8ish.In the best colonel crittendons voice.
Backbone of the fleet - six destroyers?
Manpower issues?
They are too dependent on the US protecting them.
We need to de fund NATO.
“In the best colonel crittendons voive’’. Indeed old man. Jolly good, bang on!
Actually, if you look into these warships, the Brits did the exact opposite - they’ve spent a *lot* of money on them.
You can find all of those in US Navy vessels as well. :P
Good stuff wot.
Shush, there gonna find out just how old we really are.lol
They’re
“I have never designed a warship before, but wouldn’t you want it to be able to operate nearly any where in the world? …” [READINABLUESTATE, post 84]
In a word, no.
Building ships to range farther and function across a broader range of temperatures costs money. As costly as these vessels were for the Royal Navy, doing what’s suggested would only make the final bill that much higher.
One of the inescapable truths of weapon system design: British naval architects and RN leaders had to deal with it during the leadup to the First World War. RN warships had to sail all over the place, guarding the British Empire and policing the sea lanes; warships of the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy of Germany) did not.
A constraint that applies to all weapon systems, down to the rifles and bayonets for footsoldiers.
UK Ministry of Defence officials and political leaders chose not to fund vessels incapable of doing what R-in-BS has deemed important, accepting whatever risks that came with the decision. This one has come back to bite them.
“When I was in the Air Force, stationed in the high desert of New Mexico, my VW camper bus wouldn’t start at all when it was cold outside. … the 30 wt. oil I was using was too “thick” when it got too cold for the starter to turn the flywheel over. An oil replacement to 10W30 did the trick …” [HotHunt, post 82]
Which AFB was that? HotHunt may have told us already; if memory has failed me, I apologize.
No quotes required around “thick” - it can often be the case.
I found myself in western South Dakota courtesy of the Air Force. Ambient temperatures swing quite a bit: from lows of minus 40 Fahrenheit to highs above 110 F. A never-ending headache for maintainers of aircraft and ground vehicles.
I traded my SAAB for a VW and found the latter far more reliable (we’re on our third VW now, 40 years later, returned at length to western SD). Still had to watch out for severe high and low temperatures. Engine oil has thickened sufficiently to prevent startup: one must observe seasonal recommendations on viscosity carefully, and block heaters are a must.
Doesn’t always to the trick. When the battery began to go out on our latest VW (a small diesel), cranking speed declined to the point where the motor refused to fire. Couldn’t detect the difference by ear; more common in diesel systems, we discovered.
“...I’ve always been struck by how we gave bold and brash names to our bombers like “The Flying Fortress’’ and “The Liberator’’, ... Brits gave their bombers rather up scale, genteel sounding names like “The Wellington’’, The Handley-Page, The Bristol Blenheim and The Lancaster. …” [jmacusa, post 83]
Handley Page was not an airplane; founded by Frederick Handley Page, it was the UK’s first publicly traded aircraft manufacturing company, existing from 1909 until 1970. The firm co-founded Imperial Airways, and turned out such noted bombers as the O/400, the Hampden, and the Victor; together, these three span the timeframe from World War One to the Cold War.
RAF and USAAF used different nomenclature systems n the 1940s.
British defense practice was to assign an official “name” for an aircraft when it was approved for service. After that it became part of all official documentation and correspondence. Thus “Spitfire Mk I,” Mk Ia, Mk IX etc (up to Mk 24; they changed from Roman numerals to numbers, in the late 1940s)
USAAF used the mission-design-series system of nomenclature, a combination of letters and numbers designating primary purpose, model number, and subvariant.
Names began informally: the story is that a reporter spotted Boeing’s 299 (later the B-17) taking off and uttered the words “Flying Fortress,” which stuck.
Names have gained official approval at times, the moreso since the public-affairs establishments of the armed services gained influence. But operators and maintainers rarely use such names, sticking to MDS in daily use and official documentation.
Unofficial nicknames do appear, and gain wide acceptance in military culture. Some incorporate bad language and can be unflattering.
This may have affected US reluctance to use names in paperwork. The American sense of proper expression may have balked at the use of “BUFF” or “Aardvark” in official communications and records.
These are gas turbines (from an earlier comment).
I loved my VW's when I was younger. Over time, I owned 3 bugs, 1 square back, 1 Karmann Ghia, 5 buses and 1 pop-up camper bus.
My wife of 43 years, who was stationed at Holloman with me, and I went on our honeymoon in the camper bus, camping in Colorado for two weeks.
Even bought a beetle for my son's first car and to teach him how to work on cars with.
I could adjust the valves in my sleep. :-)
Big ugly friendly fellow.
We had nuclear air-craft carriers with the same problem.
Yes, that is understood. Still, the problem is insufficient cooling capacity (or poor maintenance of the existing heat exchangers). Tedious job that, cleaning heat exchangers.
In gas turbines, the principal cooling functions are turbine blade cooling and lube oil cooling. LO cooling is by standard heat exchangers, and blade cooling by bleed air from the compressor. Usually the bleed air temperature can be reduced by interstage heat exchangers. Fitting additional units is not possible, but a more efficient unit might help. Inlet air coolers would also help, assuming there is space for them.
The RR turbines and the GE turbines are both aero-derivative
plants, mainly designed for running in low ambient temperatures. I wonder ..... does the USN experience the same problem with their GE units?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.