Queen Elizabeth arrival in Pompey - integrated thread.

I saw it in Invergordon the other week, and found it quite unimpressive when compared to many of the oil sector vessels which have been there; all very clever ships at a fraction of the cost, and available within 5 years (or so) of first being thought of. I'm aware that I don't know any of the details of the carrier, but the timeline from conception to active service isn't swift is it. Prepared of course to be corrected by someone informing me of the efficiency, and cost effectiveness of this ship, and also of how HS2 will be good value as well!
 
jamie N said:
I saw it in Invergordon the other week, and found it quite unimpressive when compared to many of the oil sector vessels which have been there; all very clever ships at a fraction of the cost, and available within 5 years (or so) of first being thought of. I'm aware that I don't know any of the details of the carrier, but the timeline from conception to active service isn't swift is it. Prepared of course to be corrected by someone informing me of the efficiency, and cost effectiveness of this ship, and also of how HS2 will be good value as well!
Click to expand...

Comparing Warships and Merchant vessels is rather a false analogy a bit like trying to extrapolate from a JCB to AS 90. One source gives the following cost comparisons, though such things are always going to be broad brush estimates.

Charles de Gaulle (France)-$3.7 billion
CVN-78 Gerald R Ford-$13.5 billion
Queen Elizabeth (UK)-$3.7 billion
George HW Bush-$6.26 billion

As to efficiency it's worth noting the ship complement size for a US CVN is about 5,000 and QE about 1,500
 
jamie N said:
I saw it in Invergordon the other week, and found it quite unimpressive when compared to many of the oil sector vessels which have been there; all very clever ships at a fraction of the cost, and available within 5 years (or so) of first being thought of. I'm aware that I don't know any of the details of the carrier, but the timeline from conception to active service isn't swift is it. Prepared of course to be corrected by someone informing me of the efficiency, and cost effectiveness of this ship, and also of how HS2 will be good value as well!
Click to expand...

Blame the Ministry of Rip-Offs, more commonly know to you as the MoD.
 
Elecglitch said:
Comparing Warships and Merchant vessels is rather a false analogy a bit like trying to extrapolate from a JCB to AS 90. One source gives the following cost comparisons, though such things are always going to be broad brush estimates.

Charles de Gaulle (France)-$3.7 billion
CVN-78 Gerald R Ford-$13.5 billion
Queen Elizabeth (UK)-$3.7 billion
George HW Bush-$6.26 billion

As to efficiency it's worth noting the ship complement size for a US CVN is about 5,000 and QE about 1,500
Click to expand...

Some years ago, I was working as THE ROV pilot/navigator on a Danish vessel assisting with the building of StoreBelt bridge, with 4 of us usually onboard; Captain, 2 divers and myself. The vessel had a 3 point anchoring system, where the 3 of 'us' would deploy and recover the anchors, I did the nav stuff, so that the captain had a screen with our desired location visible to him. One of the diver's was a marine engineer, and looked after the engine, I was tasked with the vessel's electric stuff. The 2nd diver 'mucked-in', and assisted as required. The vessel ostensibly worked from 07:00-19:00hrs, 5 days a week helping around the pier bases on this enormous bridge, and worked well enough as we were all able to achieve what we needed to onboard.
My Father, 28 years an RN (FAA) officer came out with us on one occasion, and was surprised by the minimal crewing, telling me that if it had been a RN vessel, there'd have been 22 onboard. He was very definite about this, which I found surprising.
Your point about a USN carrier is astonishing! I was once told by an RAF engineer that they took a Shackleton on a tour one time, with 5 of them running the aircraft, including the pilots. He told me that an F-14 (or similar) had a ground crew of 22!! 1 guy to fill the left tyre, another for the right and so on, 'possibly' a bit too tall of a story, but indicative.
 
Sandyman said:
Blame the Ministry of Rip-Offs, more commonly know to you as the MoD.
Click to expand...

I've been told stories about their profligacy which were truly incredible. One was that it would've been cheaper for some departments to buy a new laptop every day, as opposed to the lease deals that they're locked into!
Is that a true example?
 
jamie N said:
Some years ago, I was working as THE ROV pilot/navigator on a Danish vessel assisting with the building of StoreBelt bridge, with 4 of us usually onboard; Captain, 2 divers and myself. The vessel had a 3 point anchoring system, where the 3 of 'us' would deploy and recover the anchors, I did the nav stuff, so that the captain had a screen with our desired location visible to him. One of the diver's was a marine engineer, and looked after the engine, I was tasked with the vessel's electric stuff. The 2nd diver 'mucked-in', and assisted as required. The vessel ostensibly worked from 07:00-19:00hrs, 5 days a week helping around the pier bases on this enormous bridge, and worked well enough as we were all able to achieve what we needed to onboard.
My Father, 28 years an RN (FAA) officer came out with us on one occasion, and was surprised by the minimal crewing, telling me that if it had been a RN vessel, there'd have been 22 onboard. He was very definite about this, which I found surprising.
Your point about a USN carrier is astonishing! I was once told by an RAF engineer that they took a Shackleton on a tour one time, with 5 of them running the aircraft, including the pilots. He told me that an F-14 (or similar) had a ground crew of 22!! 1 guy to fill the left tyre, another for the right and so on, 'possibly' a bit too tall of a story, but indicative.
Click to expand...

You only seem to be taking into account the crew needed to 'drive' the ship. Actually those are in some ways peripheral to the ship's function as a weapons system or delivery platform (before one even starts on the need for DC and redundancy if one is to survive a fight). I rather suspect the numbers involved on passage in managing the propulsion machinery and navigating are not wildly dissimilar between the MN and RN.
 
Elecglitch said:
You only seem to be taking into account the crew needed to 'drive' the ship. Actually those are in some ways peripheral to the ship's function as a weapons system or delivery platform (before one even starts on the need for DC and redundancy if one is to survive a fight). I rather suspect the numbers involved on passage in managing the propulsion machinery and navigating are not wildly dissimilar between the MN and RN.
Click to expand...

Good point, however an 'average' DSV in the North Sea, working in a variety of modes will have between 60-80 crew onboard, rarely above 100. These vessels will be conducting multiple complex tasks, using many disciplines onboard, and working 24/7 without replenishment for many weeks, perhaps not docking for several months. It's my understanding that this would be extremely rare for an RN vessel. In no way am I being critical of the manner in which RN vessel's are operated, but in a commercial world, it wouldn't be viable, as a Frigate's complement is 180 crew.
 
jamie N said:
Some years ago, I was working as THE ROV pilot/navigator on a Danish vessel assisting with the building of StoreBelt bridge, with 4 of us usually onboard; Captain, 2 divers and myself. The vessel had a 3 point anchoring system, where the 3 of 'us' would deploy and recover the anchors, I did the nav stuff, so that the captain had a screen with our desired location visible to him. One of the diver's was a marine engineer, and looked after the engine, I was tasked with the vessel's electric stuff. The 2nd diver 'mucked-in', and assisted as required. The vessel ostensibly worked from 07:00-19:00hrs, 5 days a week helping around the pier bases on this enormous bridge, and worked well enough as we were all able to achieve what we needed to onboard.
My Father, 28 years an RN (FAA) officer came out with us on one occasion, and was surprised by the minimal crewing, telling me that if it had been a RN vessel, there'd have been 22 onboard. He was very definite about this, which I found surprising.
Your point about a USN carrier is astonishing! I was once told by an RAF engineer that they took a Shackleton on a tour one time, with 5 of them running the aircraft, including the pilots. He told me that an F-14 (or similar) had a ground crew of 22!! 1 guy to fill the left tyre, another for the right and so on, 'possibly' a bit too tall of a story, but indicative.
Click to expand...

We regularly took Vulcans round the world with a team of 6.

Five aircrew, who could complete all of the replenishment and first line tasks (including wheel changes) and a Crew Chief who oversaw all servicing operations. As the Crew Chief was primarily airframe and engines, at times,we also had a techie in the 7th seat to look after the avionics. We only had 7 seats!

If diverted, the 5 aircrew 'turned the aircraft'!

The real nightmare was if we had to divert with a fuelled (HTP) Blue Steel Missile and as the HTP heated up (decomposed), we had to defuel the missile. RNAS Lossiemouth was not very impressed when we pumped the HTP onto their tarmac - didn't improve the finish. But needs must when the devil drives!

Wasn't sorry to see the back of Blue Steel - one big problem!
 
jamie N said:
Some years ago, I was working as THE ROV pilot/navigator on a Danish vessel assisting with the building of StoreBelt bridge, with 4 of us usually onboard; Captain, 2 divers and myself. The vessel had a 3 point anchoring system, where the 3 of 'us' would deploy and recover the anchors, I did the nav stuff, so that the captain had a screen with our desired location visible to him. One of the diver's was a marine engineer, and looked after the engine, I was tasked with the vessel's electric stuff. The 2nd diver 'mucked-in', and assisted as required. The vessel ostensibly worked from 07:00-19:00hrs, 5 days a week helping around the pier bases on this enormous bridge, and worked well enough as we were all able to achieve what we needed to onboard.
.
Click to expand...

I accept what you say, however:
1. How many weapons systems did you have to maintain, re-arm, re-load and fight?
2. If you took on water how many spare bodies did you have for damage control and/or fire-fighting?
3. How many other assets did you have to communicate with 24/7, and in how many languages?
4. Whilst you operated the ROV, who did air defence and anti-submarine sweeps?

I won't go on, a warship is a far more complex piece of machinery, and its centre of gravity entirely different to the merchant marine. Rightly or wrongly the RN will sacrifice sailors to keep the ship afloat, long after any sane MN skipper would have abandoned ship.
 
If I was exhibiting this photo I would call it "Anticipation". If it is your boat and you would like copies of it and others including it in the foreground, message me and I'll send it. PS looking at other photos, the vessel name is Aquila

IMG_0985 small.jpg
 
Last edited:
That could possibly be chrishscorp of this parish as he was mumbling on about having a very large union flag that would be flying from the backstay of his 26 footer. :cool:
 
Pump-Out said:
I accept what you say, however:
1. How many weapons systems did you have to maintain, re-arm, re-load and fight?
2. If you took on water how many spare bodies did you have for damage control and/or fire-fighting?
3. How many other assets did you have to communicate with 24/7, and in how many languages?
4. Whilst you operated the ROV, who did air defence and anti-submarine sweeps?

I won't go on, a warship is a far more complex piece of machinery, and its centre of gravity entirely different to the merchant marine. Rightly or wrongly the RN will sacrifice sailors to keep the ship afloat, long after any sane MN skipper would have abandoned ship.
Click to expand...

With respect, I refer you to post 29.
Your points though: 1) Not often! However, we are multitasking with delivering hardware to a precise location underwater by a heave-comped crane.
2) The ships crew are in constant readiness for these incidents and exercise on a regular basis.
3) We work within a multinational environment, where we usually have around 10 different nationalities on our ship, communicating continuously with many different assets, fixed and floating, that have as many different nationalities on them.
4) The parallel of this is that whilst we're operating underwater, assisting divers perhaps, ans liaising with the surface management teams who integrate and direct these operations, we are receiving helicopters, and conducting continuous sonar sweeps, as well as USBL navigation and HIPAP surveys.
All the above events are routine operations.
As I've said, I'm unable to speak of the RN manning levels as I've not the knowledge, with the point being it's comparing dissimilar operations that share a common sea.
 
Admiral of the Red
Admiral of the Blue
Admiral of the White

Now we give you Admiral of the ROV
Feed of shite there is no comparison whatsoever.
 
jamie N said:
Good point, however an 'average' DSV in the North Sea, working in a variety of modes will have between 60-80 crew onboard, rarely above 100. These vessels will be conducting multiple complex tasks, using many disciplines onboard, and working 24/7 without replenishment for many weeks, perhaps not docking for several months. It's my understanding that this would be extremely rare for an RN vessel. In no way am I being critical of the manner in which RN vessel's are operated, but in a commercial world, it wouldn't be viable, as a Frigate's complement is 180 crew.
Click to expand...

It really is apples and oranges when comparing a merchant ships crewing requirements to a warship. I don't think anyone would deny that in day to day peacetime operations all the ships in the fleets could operate with much reduced crews, but in war they need to be able to operate at their best possible efficiency even with damage and casualties which means you need to have those sailors onboard and trained in peacetime too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top