HMS Queen Elizabeth: Leak found on new aircraft carrier

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Mike on 19/12/2017 20:31:48:

No, it doesn't include you, Neil. Just looked you up on Linkedin – what an interesting career!

"There's no hiding place 'round here!"

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 19/12/2017 21:39:34

[vintagengineerParticipant @vintagengineer]

It could just be a red herring for something classified and more serious!

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by vintagengineer on 19/12/2017 21:47:43:

It could just be a red herring for something classified and more serious!

 

That is certainly an interesting and thought provoking idea!

 

Edited By V8Eng on 19/12/2017 22:03:05

[John ReeseParticipant @johnreese12848]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 19/12/2017 19:09:55:

Posted by John Reese on 19/12/2017 15:56:58:

I share your opinions of modern so-called journalists. They don't know anything. They don't research anything. They sensationalize everything. They ae the same here in the US.

Does that include me…?

N.

No. You know what you write about. That means you can't be a journalist.

[John ReeseParticipant @johnreese12848]

400 L per hour on a vessel that size does not amount to a fart in a windstorm.

[Jeff DaymanParticipant @jeffdayman43397]

Are you sure the Navy didn't report "Able Seaman Joe Leak found on HMS Queen Elizabeth, after brief search" to the media?

All this 200 L and 400 L / hr leak nonsense sounds like media backfill to prop up their iffy byline.

The seams on various bolted hatches on a ship that size would leak more than that, and I am sure the bilge pumps would cope with leakage in thousands of litres a minute anyway, for damage control.

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

Can't your navy get it fixed under warranty?

[Pete SavageParticipant @petesavage40461]

My car has a 255lph fuel pump, if they need to borrow it for a bilge pump just get them to ring me up! It will incur costs however!!

[Dinosaur EngineerParticipant @dinosaurengineer]

Surely the navy could have tested the prop.shaft seal in the dry dock. Car manufactures use a gas test to check for windscreen leaks .Maybe the leak could have been found after the vessel was 1st floated . The cost of changing the seal must be quite high. The size of the leak must be seen as significant or they wouldn't return to port. Maybe the leak could get worse ? It's just as well the aircraft manufacturers don't adopt the same test procedures i.e. check it doesn' leak when in sevice !

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

i.e. check it doesn' leak when in sevice !

Do you honestly think that? It is on sea trials, not in service. Not a full complement of crew, civilian testers, checkers, etc and likely no armaments and only enough of anything to prove the systems.

You seriously don't think they run the screws at full speed while in port, do you?

Of course they return to port – to remedy any faults found during the trials. That is what the trials are for – to find any faults. They will have tested all they can before doing the sea trials.

The ship was built to a specification. It will not be accepted as fully functional until commissioned properly – ie checked carefully to prove it is to the specification provided to the shipbuilder.

Finally, do you know how aircraft are tested before they first fly? They are not just rolled out of the hangar and flown off the runway!!

[“Bill Hancox”Participant @billhancox]

Posted by Circlip on 19/12/2017 10:12:04:

All gone to pot (?) since the advent of inside toilets and soft toilet paper.

Reminds me of one of the stories my Dad told about landing in England during the war. His company Sgt Major Hibbs was giving them a briefing on wartime conditions in the UK: "In Canada you were used to 4 squares of toilet paper to the bum. Here in the UK it is 4 bums to the square."

All this talk of leaks has caused me to head to the loo… or is it loo to the head.

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by Danny M2Z on 20/12/2017 00:25:25:

Can't your navy get it fixed under warranty?

According to yesterday's news broadcasts basically it will be fixed under warranty!

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by "Bill Hancox" on 20/12/2017 05:54:19:

All this talk of leaks has caused me to head to the loo… or is it loo to the head.

A quick calculation suggests the crew will only produce about 40 litres of urine per hour, just 1/5 of the leak, so perhaps the Navy aren't taking the p….

More seriously, I agree with the voices above who suggest the leak means the seals aren't working properly not that the amount of water has any significance.

Neil

[Ray LyonsParticipant @raylyons29267]

It just gets worse. In the Daily Mail this morning, Hardcastle described it as a serious leak. I have the impression that these journalists have never been further than the local duck pond.

In the workshop where I started my apprenticeship , the foreman was an former Petty Officer serving through WW11. , Many times when we had a problem, he would sort it out saying that it was "nothing in a big ship" and the Queen Elizabeth is a very big ship.

This leak is so small that I would suggest that it is hardly worth starting the bilge pumps, a mop and bucket is enough. Mind you tomorrow , the papers may have escalated it to 2000 L/Min . Anything for a sensational report and newspaper sales

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

This sort of reminds me of the first of our ANZAC frigates built in Australia, it had the opposite problem. The stern bearing is made of a plastic material (the old Leander frigates used Lignum Vitae), on the delivery voyage to NZ the prop shaft siezed, not enough clearance had been allowed for the expansion of the plastic. The ship had to heave to, and let every thing cool off, I think they then returned to Australia. I think they would have not had any trouble if they had run at reduced speed from the start until the shaft bedded in, but I think it was wound up a bit just to see how it would go.

I suspect that the bearing on the Queen Elizabeth is actually quite a "simple" job with modern bearings and seals.

In the days of wooden bearings it was essential that it leaked a good quantity of water to lubricate the bearing. I do know about what happens if the wood dries out, it siezes solid on the shaft, the old Fransis turbine at our museum had this happen first twenty two years ago when we first thought of getting it going, then about six months ago after a dry spell and lack of use.

Ian S C

[MikeParticipant @mike89748]

When I was a trainee reporter in the late 1950s/early 60s it was drummed into me that, if I didn't understand a situation, I should seek the advice of someone who did. Where are these idiots being trained nowadays – if they are being trained at all? There's one word which describes most of 'em, and it's far to rude to use here.

[Mick HenshallParticipant @mickhenshall99321]

Lignum Vitae self lubricating in salt water

Mick

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

Don't know how large said leak is but military is known to underreport troubles (and losses on battlefield…), so leak could be more serious than we think.

Martin

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

I would think that a leak like that in a warship would not even register as a concern. I would imagine that a warship would have very large capacity pumps to cope with any leaks caused my enemy action. If that is the biggest problem on the snagging list then the builders should have a big round of applause. I can't believe you would need to dry dock the ship to fix something that would be a serviceable item. I admit I know nothing about ships but I think I am blessed with common sense and a logical mind.

Mike

[Dinosaur EngineerParticipant @dinosaurengineer]

I wonder how they tested the .landing gear & steam catapults without any aircraft ! Could they not have borrowed an F35. The vessel has been commissioned. Why couldn't they have tested the prop.. shafts for leaks before the propellors were fitted.

Posted by not done it yet on 20/12/2017 01:11:08:

i.e. check it doesn' leak when in sevice !

Do you honestly think that? It is on sea trials, not in service. Not a full complement of crew, civilian testers, checkers, etc and likely no armaments and only enough of anything to prove the systems.

You seriously don't think they run the screws at full speed while in port, do you?

Of course they return to port – to remedy any faults found during the trials. That is what the trials are for – to find any faults. They will have tested all they can before doing the sea trials.

The ship was built to a specification. It will not be accepted as fully functional until commissioned properly – ie checked carefully to prove it is to the specification provided to the shipbuilder.

Finally, do you know how aircraft are tested before they first fly? They are not just rolled out of the hangar and flown off the runway!!

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I wonder how they tested the .landing gear & sif only one actually thinks about it.eam catapults without any aircraft !

(Sigh!) Let me inform you, just a little. F35 aeroplanes are VSTOL type. They are vertical or short take off and landing. No catapaults required. The other comments are rather self evident, I think, if only you gave them a little thought.

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

Not to worry from what I read in the papers, the French are going to loan us any ships we want.

Clivve

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Dinosaur Engineer on 20/12/2017 14:00:12:

I wonder how they tested the .landing gear & steam catapults without any aircraft ! Could they not have borrowed an F35. The vessel has been commissioned. Why couldn't they have tested the prop.. shafts for leaks before the propellors were fitted.

The whole point of sea trials is to find problems like this. I'm sure they have a lever arch file full of 'snagging' for the builders from faulty light fittings to how she responds to the helm.

This didn't show up on the trials so presumably was a progressive fault and the concern will partly be that it's a sign of the bearing failing with the possibility of a catastrophic failure later on.

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 20/12/2017 15:00:28

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Here, you go folks, a couple of links for you;

SaveTheRoyalNavy.org which has a few comments on the issue.

And for those of you with a Facebook account;

**LINK**

Quote from above, where they also show photos of the seals.

"For those with a more technical interest these are the components of the Wartsila "M" series stern tube seals fitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth. They are designed to be serviced in place on the ship and no need for dry dock. No prop or tail shaft removal needed.

A stern seal face has minor damage, behind this is an emergency inflatable seal. This will be inflated & divers will pack out the stern tube. The rotating faces can then be changed.

BTW since coming alongside the leakage rate has been zero."

**LINK**

[Dinosaur EngineerParticipant @dinosaurengineer]

..ePosted by not done it yet on 20/12/2017 14:23:45:

Does this mean that only VSTOL aircraft can land & take off from this vessel ? Or that they do not need catapult assistance when taking off with a full weapons & fuel load . Surely the carrier has catapults ( which need testing) which would allow non VSTOL to use the carrier. Why hasn't this been done? The point I was trying to make. is that to come up with a quality product a thorough step by step testing & inspection programme is required before the product is put into service or field trials. It should not be beyond the wit of man to test the design.,manufacture and function of the seal assemblies in question before the prop shaft & propeller were even fitted to the vessel.This would reduce the final test time as well as the cost of any repairs. Leaving critical testing late in the product. introduction can cause horrendous problems. e.g. Pressure/ fatigue testing of the De-Havilland Comet fuselage On a £ 3 billion carrier nothing should be left to chance Testing to "see if it works" is simply not good enough. Comparing a house snagging list ( built by questionable "skilled " people) to that of quality control of an aircraft carrier is a bit over simplistic . Many aircraft carriers have been built in the past so it's not "rocket" science Things like lighting should be checked before the carrier left the dry dock or indeed as soon as the light was fitted.

I wonder how they tested the .landing gear & sif only one actually thinks about it.eam catapults without any aircraft !

(Sigh!) Let me inform you, just a little. F35 aeroplanes are VSTOL type. They are vertical or short take off and landing. No catapaults required. The other comments are rather self evident, I think, if only you gave them a little thought.

[Author]

Posts