Assume they don't see it going back to sea any time soon.If the lead time for components or systems is months(or shortening it costs an unreasonable premium) then unbolting it from POW and fitting it to QE makes practical sense.
NB. Unreadable for those who are not Telegraph subscribers.
NB. Unreadable for those who are not Telegraph subscribers.
It's still garbage whatever paper you read....Strange, I'm not a Telegraph subscriber, it's readable for me.
We know - it broke down over 7 months ago. Can see when passing over bridge.It's in drydock to rectify the prop shaft issue and complete a short planned refit, it will be there for a while.
You've never worked in the airline industry have you?It appears to me that the MOD are trying to make the best from having to choose between some very poor options, which wouldn't have occurred in a commercially aware organisation, where having a vessel U/S is viewed quite dimly.
It was either that or refit as King!
You've never worked in the airline industry have you?
We have right now a number of almost new CSeries (A220) aircraft sitting waiting for engine spares. Many of which have gladly donated parts to keep the rest of the fleet in the air.
In my RAF days I can remember times when perhaps 30% of the nimrod fleet was grounded awaiting spares and they were used in the same fashion as spares donators to keep the rest of the fleet airborne.
As said, it's standard practice.
In my RAF days I can remember times when perhaps 30% of the nimrod fleet was grounded awaiting spares and they were used in the same fashion as spares donators to keep the rest of the fleet airborne. As said, it's standard practice.