HMS Pembroke

[Kukri]

You seriously can't see why?

No, I seriously cannot, and I think Babcocks are laughing all the way to the bank.

This simple little ship of six hundred tons displacement with a perfectly ordinary diesel electric propulsion system spent six months in refit in 2014 and five years later she has just spent a further nine months in refit. One wonders what her crew of 34 do all day.

But if you can offer an explanation, please do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Pembroke_(M107)

 

[capnsensible]

Being blinded by an anti RN bias can clearly cloud ones thinking.

A merchant ship is simply a long distance Lorry, an evolution of the horse and cart. Obviously they are simple to operate and designed to be nothing more than a box with an engine. It has to be or owners won't make a profit.

Any warship is a far more complex machine, akin to an F1 racing car that needs constant care and tuning. The whole concept is massively more demanding than a seagoing Lorry and needs investment to keep it at its peak. The crew too must continually undergo continuation training and excersise to operate the fitted equipment whilst knowing that they will potentially be called upon to operate in a hostile environment that may also be deadly.

To dismiss those facts with disdain is somewhat flippant.

 

[Stemar]

Any warship is a far more complex machine, akin to an F1 racing car that needs constant care and tuning.

they will potentially be called upon to operate in a hostile environment that may also be deadly.

A bit of a non sequitur there? I get that weapons systems need to be sophisticated and effective, or the rest won't be around long enough to matter but, while I freely admit I know nothing about warfare, I'd have thought that toughness and simplicity to operate should be high on the list of priorities. You don't want to go into battle on a racehorse, you want something more akin to a Shire horse.

 

[dom]

I quote:

“ The project, which got underway at the beginning of this year, included Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) work on the freshwater tanks, an overhaul of the propulsion systems, maintaining generators and work on the ship’s sonar and communications system.”

This took fifty people “plus specialist subcontractors”, nine months? She’s only a tiddler.

A typical merchant ship maintains her own propulsion systems and generators and is in and out of dry dock in ten days, with specialist subcontractors for the comms.

Strewth!

Your skepticism is well founded and hierarchy dominated and ever-turgid MoD has more than its fair share of cock-ups to its name, the £1bn Nimrod debacle being a perfect example. Not to mention the earlier advanced-radar disasters. Set against this, there is a useful tech filter down from cutting-edge space and military projects.

More specifically, it is a matter of public record that Pembroke is used as a test-bed for weapons system development and refinement. It's therefore difficult to determine ex-ante whether the R&D element of expenditure will prove fruitful or not.

I guess on some level, it is what it is, but the notion floated elsewhere that Babcock Int is getting it off is entirely incorrect. Just follow this link and look at a 5Yr Chart!
https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BAB:LN

 

[jamie N]

Being blinded by an anti RN bias can clearly cloud ones thinking.

A merchant ship is simply a long distance Lorry, an evolution of the horse and cart. Obviously they are simple to operate and designed to be nothing more than a box with an engine. It has to be or owners won't make a profit.

Any warship is a far more complex machine, akin to an F1 racing car that needs constant care and tuning. The whole concept is massively more demanding than a seagoing Lorry and needs investment to keep it at its peak. The crew too must continually undergo continuation training and excersise to operate the fitted equipment whilst knowing that they will potentially be called upon to operate in a hostile environment that may also be deadly.

To dismiss those facts with disdain is somewhat flippant.

Years ago, I was working on an inshore diving vessel on a very large project in Denmark. My Father, 28 years a naval officer, came out with us for a day, just as a visit and to see 'How the boy earns his dosh'.
A normal days work with diving ops, ROV ops and survey ops, all being done in the 12 hour day. Back to harbour, and a few beers; a normal day.
I asked him how many crew would the RN have had. He'd thought about it during the day and immediately said "22".
We were a crew of 4 that day, due to the usual 5th man having a dental appointment.
Anyone have any stories about HMS Challenger K07, and the illustrious career of that MOD led project? A neighbour of mine was a consultant during the debacle of that complex machine. His experience of the entire deal was that whatever was 'current good practice' that he was thrying to advise on, the reverse happened.
Nothing to do with HMS Pembroke of course, so very off topic.

 

[capnsensible]

Any warship is a far more complex machine, akin to an F1 racing car that needs constant care and tuning.

they will potentially be called upon to operate in a hostile environment that may also be deadly.

A bit of a non sequitur there? I get that weapons systems need to be sophisticated and effective, or the rest won't be around long enough to matter but, while I freely admit I know nothing about warfare, I'd have thought that toughness and simplicity to operate should be high on the list of priorities. You don't want to go into battle on a racehorse, you want something more akin to a Shire horse.

An answer.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2019/10/inoperable-or-just-maintenance.html

 

[capnsensible]

Years ago, I was working on an inshore diving vessel on a very large project in Denmark. My Father, 28 years a naval officer, came out with us for a day, just as a visit and to see 'How the boy earns his dosh'.
A normal days work with diving ops, ROV ops and survey ops, all being done in the 12 hour day. Back to harbour, and a few beers; a normal day.
I asked him how many crew would the RN have had. He'd thought about it during the day and immediately said "22".
We were a crew of 4 that day, due to the usual 5th man having a dental appointment.
Anyone have any stories about HMS Challenger K07, and the illustrious career of that MOD led project? A neighbour of mine was a consultant during the debacle of that complex machine. His experience of the entire deal was that whatever was 'current good practice' that he was thrying to advise on, the reverse happened.
Nothing to do with HMS Pembroke of course, so very off topic.

Operate 24 hours a day for weeks or even months. With no nipping back for a beer. How many people do you need then?

 

[Thistle]

I can readily accept that the complexity of a warship, even a small one like MHS Pembroke, will inevitably lead to increased time required for "servicing". But isn't nine months excessive? Surely the work can be planned so that many of the tasks can be carried out in parallel thus reducing the overall time required.

 

[Kukri]

Operate 24 hours a day for weeks or even months. With no nipping back for a beer. How many people do you need then?

I’d respectfully advise you, as an enthusiast for the Royal Navy, not to pursue that line of argument. You may find yourself looking silly.

 

[capnsensible]

I can readily accept that the complexity of a warship, even a small one like MHS Pembroke, will inevitably lead to increased time required for "servicing". But isn't nine months excessive? Surely the work can be planned so that many of the tasks can be carried out in parallel thus reducing the overall time required.

Thats the way servicing and refits are planned and excecuted.

 

[capnsensible]

I’d respectfully advise you, as an enthusiast for the Royal Navy, not to pursue that line of argument. You may find yourself looking silly.

Enthusiast? I spent 23 years in it.

Your comment is unworthy. How long does a merchant sailor spend aboard without leave?

How many times have you been at sea continuously for 90+ days, returned for a short leave and maintenance period of intense work and then gone on another patrol straight away?

I dont think you have any idea but feel enabled to criticise a hard working and dedicated service at every opportunity. I would never dream of droning on about how you sit at a desk moving counters around the world. I have no idea what you actually do so I wouldnt be so presumtious to tell you how to do it. Yet you dont expect a response.

I respectfully suggest that listening to those that have done things may be a good start.

 

[jamie N]

Operate 24 hours a day for weeks or even months. With no nipping back for a beer. How many people do you need then?

A couple of things; a DSV does operate 24/7. An FPSO is that and 365 days for years at a time. The reason that there's a tendancy for 'our' rotations to be shorter is efficiency and safety. This a 'Western thing' perhaps, as many Filipino mariners prefer the longer trips in my experience, whatever be the reason for that.
Pretty much every DSV/Offshore vessel is dry. How many RN surface vessels are?

 

[capnsensible]

A couple of things; a DSV does operate 24/7. An FPSO is that and 365 days for years at a time. The reason that there's a tendancy for 'our' rotations to be shorter is efficiency and safety. This a 'Western thing' perhaps, as many Filipino mariners prefer the longer trips in my experience, whatever be the reason for that.
Pretty much every DSV/Offshore vessel is dry. How many RN surface vessels are?

Apples and oranges, isn't it. Different vessels that operate under completely different regimes to do different jobs. Trying to compare them like for like simply doesn't work.

A warship, for instance will have dozens of watch keeping positions that need to be manned round the clock with sufficient jolly jack tars to do it efficiently.

To imagine that an apple can be an orange or vice versa doesn't work. At least Those At sea on fighting vessels have respect for those in the merchant world despite it clearly being a one way street fo some.

RN vessels certainly aren't dry but strictly limited in consumption. I spent many sea going years underwater in a six hours on, six hours off regime. Lots of the six off was filled with many things with sleep sometimes a grabbed few hours here and there. No room for alchohol. Drank an ocean of tea though!

 

[jamie N]

Apples and oranges, isn't it. Different vessels that operate under completely different regimes to do different jobs. Trying to compare them like for like simply doesn't work.

A warship, for instance will have dozens of watch keeping positions that need to be manned round the clock with sufficient jolly jack tars to do it efficiently.

To imagine that an apple can be an orange or vice versa doesn't work. At least Those At sea on fighting vessels have respect for those in the merchant world despite it clearly being a one way street fo some.

RN vessels certainly aren't dry but strictly limited in consumption. I spent many sea going years underwater in a six hours on, six hours off regime. Lots of the six off was filled with many things with sleep sometimes a grabbed few hours here and there. No room for alchohol. Drank an ocean of tea though!

Apples and Oranges indeed.
You mention one thing in particular that has always interested me, the watch system. All of my working life, and pretty much all across the industry, we work a 12on/12off system. I realise that this is way off topic for the OP, but any other system just doesn't add up for me. A subject for a seperate thread to bicker over perhaps.

 

[Kukri]

Deep sea watch system for watch keeping deck officers is 4 on 8 off; hours of work are strictly policed now after years of fatigue related casualties. Engineers on non passenger ships, and everyone else, work days and answer alarms on a duty rota at other times. Hours of work and rest for non watch keepers are also policed by PSC inspectors. Tours of duty are now pretty well standardised at 6 months on 3 months off for officers; ratings still often 9 and 3.

The oil patch works even tours in my experience; 3/3 or 2/2, as do ferries.

My original point was that I don’t understand why the RN spends so long in refit, and so long in port. I still don’t. HMS Pembroke’s long refit is described by the repair yard, Babcocks, as involving propulsion and generator overhaul and work on her fresh water tanks. And this was her second refit taking more than six months in five years. She isn’t a super clever ship like the frigates and the destroyers (let’s not go there..) she is a mine counter measures vessel. No doubt the mine counter measures kit is very advanced but all she is is a quiet non-magnetic little platform for it.

 

[capnsensible]

In an earlier post I linked up to a blog addressing au lot of questions on this thread. I would recommend reading it for those interested in how readiness is maintained.

Regarding refits, these are not simple maintenance periods. If they were, they wouldn't take so long or cost so much to keep a vessel ready to operate at its peak. The amount of work carried out on a Simple Minehunter may have been misunderstood.

The MOD is and always has been looking for ways to reduce maintenance costs and times. From the earliest stages of design throughout the expected life of the hull. And then some. A large department of expert engineers staffed by sea going officers and ratings on a shore rotation spend every working day reviewing necessities and collating evidence as to what works and what doesn't.

A part of that I worked closely with as an operator and maintainer, Captain Submarine Maintenance and Refit Authority. People working there are well informed and liaise with contractors, suppliers and ships staff. It is a large and constantly evolving operation...probably got a different name now but the job must be done.

As an example, the reactor core of the early classes of nuclear powered submarines need a hugely expensive change at intervals of around five years. Due to the diligence of scientists, engineers, designers, operators and economists, the latest generation of hulls will not need a refuel in their thirty year planned life. The evolution of reduced maintenance, just like yer car engine, or the huge diesel on a box ship benefits from the constant work done behind the scenes. So well done them.

The MOD doesn't spend your money for fun. Despite what the cynics may think.

 

[Kukri]

Let’s get back to the question I asked, which was not about nuclear reactor refuelling but about why a six hundred ton GRP little ship needs six months and fifty people to refit. Since you don’t seem to want to answer it, I will offer a suggestion which is that anyone trying to keep a pair of Paxman Valentas running after twenty years is pushing water uphill. In merchant ships we would have done a cut and shut and replaced them, in an operation lasting a few days.

I am reminded of a visit to the frigate HMS Sheffield when her engineers were complaining that they would not get shore leave because they had to do an engine swap on her gas turbines. Innocently I asked why so much time was needed when Rolls-Royce had designed them to be replaced by undoing four bolts with a single crane lift...“You don’t know the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors!” came the reply. And they showed me... Hatches over the gas turbines... don’t be silly!

 

[Stemar]

Hatches over the gas turbines... don’t be silly!

That made me smile, but warships, even little ones, tend to have a fair bit of clutter welded on. Yes, there's probably a big flat bit at the blunt end for helicopters to land on, but the engines need to be a bit further forward than that - underneath the hanger for said chopper. That does tend to make life a bit more complicated.

Mind, it isn't only the grey jobs. I recall reading the revue of a substantial yacht with an even more substantial price tag. It was noticed that there was no access to the sail drive from inside the boat for a change of seal that's required every seven years. Enquiries were made and the answer was "Blogsboat owners don't keep their boats seven years" I vowed at that point, that I would never buy a Blogsboat. Unfortunately, I can't remember which make it was :ambivalence:

 

[Kukri]

To judge from the uptakes, they were forward of the hangar. The hangar would be easy - hatch in deck, hatch in roof.

I also noticed, as one does, that an awful lot of the little bits welded on were not galvanised, not made of stainless steel, but painted. Again not what we do in modern merchant ships. And she had, in her separate chart room, the very last twiddle the dials Decca set that I ever saw afloat. It was the last separate chart room, come to that.

She was quite new at the time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(F96)

 

[capnsensible]

Let’s get back to the question I asked, which was not about nuclear reactor refuelling but about why a six hundred ton GRP little ship needs six months and fifty people to refit. Since you don’t seem to want to answer it, I will offer a suggestion which is that anyone trying to keep a pair of Paxman Valentas running after twenty years is pushing water uphill. In merchant ships we would have done a cut and shut and replaced them, in an operation lasting a few days.
!

Well I'm giving you background information to help you understand. But you are still coming back to the same idea that all they did was change the oil and tighten a fan belt. It's clearly obvious that you have no idea of the extent of the refit package undertaken but are prepared to sneer at it. I find that disappointing from someone like you.

If you are seriously concerned why don't you write a freedom of information request to the Government. Or simply accept an explanation from people who have done this stuff that the refit was far, far more complex than you are trying to make out without trying to understand why.