Update on the construction of the QE

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MikeMcc, Jan 28, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'd be a lot more impressed if they just built it in a yard that could accommodate it.
    Kinda like how you'd be proud if your kid won gold at the special olympics, but you still like not to have mong.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Not that impressive, given that we're in the 21st century, etc, and should be churning out ships like this as a matter of course.

    I'm more impressed when I look at photos in the Vickers archive where, 100+ years ago, they are shaping and fitting vast belts of face-hardened armour to the sides of battleships, or forging and machining 100+ ton guns to the same tolerances being trumpeted today for light metalwork thats been cut by a computer and aligned with a laser...
     
    • Like Like x 5
  3. Isn't it strange, footprints on the moon, stealth bombers, giant space telescopes that can see a gnats arse on Mars and yet no-one can make a tea pot which pours properly!
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. I know. My mother has tested teapots for Emma Bridgewater and no, they can't make one.
     
  5. And to think, Finncantierri churn out cruise ships that dwarf this like sausages, and have done for many years.
     
  6. I'm pretty sure Vickers made good teapots that didn't drip.....
     
  7. Theres a documentary out there somewhere about Mitsubishi Heavy Industries or another of the eastern shipyards: quite awe-inspiring, a complete production line for 100k tonne ships.....
     
  8. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    You're a cynical bugger, 4(T). Those ships are designed to last 10 years, not the 50 we'll expect to get out of Big Lizzy. And there's a world of difference between building what is effectively a giant floating tank with an engine at the back and a multicell hull designed to go to war. If you want something to be cynical about, how about the fact that it was cheaper to build the giant crane assembly in China and ship it here than it was to get it built in britain, or even in Europe?
     
  9. It is impressive but how much more do they cost by building in sections and shipping them?

    Let politicians loose on defense and industry and this is what you get.
     

  10. God knows, 20%?


    What's really depressing is the speed at which the US Navy goes from order to fully commissioned fitted for and with super carrier - just 6 years.

    How long has CVF been in 'build', let alone how long before commissioning possibly with a slack handful of planes?
     
  11. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Way over a century ago someone calculated that if more than 2000 men worked in a battleship in build they started getting in each others' way. Splitting the carriers' build may have got over that factor. Building them from the keel up all of a piece in Rosyth (which I'm sure would have been Gordon Brown's first preference) might not be practicable. Also, it means that work can start on bits for PoW in yards that have now sent their QE bits to Rosyth; that sort of parallel building would be impossible otherwise.

    What will be interesting is the exactness with which the bits fit together or whether there will be little bumps and steps where they don't, quite. Exact fit is not an easy thing to achieve. As a worked example, the 3" barrel trolleys designed and used on board Tiger could not squeeze down Blake's catwalks as there was a small difference in beam.
     
  12. Hopefully BAE UK are doing a bit better on the fit than BAE OZ

    "…AUSTRALIA'S largest defence project, the $8 billion plan to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers, has had its first serious setback.

    A Melbourne shipyard has botched the construction of the central keel block of the first warship.

    The multi-million-dollar bungle could delay the project by up to six months and is believed to have triggered a rift between the Williamstown shipyards, where the hull block was built, and the warship's Spanish designer.

    The setback has alarmed the Defence Materiel Organisation, which sees the AWDs as its flagship project and a key test of whether Australia can sustain a viable naval shipbuilding industry.

    The three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on the Spanish F100 boats, will be the most capable warships in the nation's history when they enter service from 2014.

    The Australian understands that the central keel block of the first AWD warship, HMAS Hobart, was built to inaccurate dimensions as a result of faulty welding and inadequate quality control at the Williamstown shipyards, operated by an AWD subcontractor, BAE Systems Australia.…"


    . | The Australian
     
  13. Trans-sane

    Trans-sane LE Book Reviewer

    Given that block-building seems to be the standard industrial process used in commercial ship building (and has been for quite a while), then any increase in costs would be down to the ****-ups in the contracts and ****-ups by BAE. And thus they cannot be ruled out...
     
  14. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Two of the cost increases were entirely down to Govt:

    Stretching the build time across more financial years in order to achieve paper fy savings;

    And demanding redesign to give a shorter hull in the mistaken belief that less steel meant less money BUT

    It meant very expensive redesign and rework AND

    Function planned into the longer hull had to be reallocate dinto the hangar space thereby reducing the numbe rof aircraft that can be carried - and thus foreclosing the option of a larger maximum air group way into the future.

    The taxpayer in money and the RN in future func tion are thus paying for the suits' ignorance and stupidity.
     
    • Like Like x 3