HMS Queen Elizabeth: Leak found on new aircraft carrier

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Please do not quote me with your uninformed drivel meanderings inserted as though I have written that previously. Only the last three lines (in normal typeface) are attributable to me. The rest is yours!

Do you not comprehend that this carrier has no catapult? Do you not comprehend that some faults will not be exhibited until operation at sea? Do you not comprehend that this leaking seal is likely a very minor item? Do you not comprehend that all these systems will have an operating standard, to which the contactor/supplier/manufacturer must comply? It is called a 'specification'. Like a warranty on most devices purchased, any faults arising will need to be rectified by the builders (just like a new car, for most of us).

Until it is determined what the excess leakage, past that seal, is due to – ie diagnosed – remedial work cannot be carried out. It is clearly not a case of "was working, but now started leaking". Likely they already know what has to be done, mind. Propshaft seals are regularly fixed at sea when a problem arises. I don't suppose for one minute that the ship had to dock urgently for this problem to be fixed, but was convenient to allow the suppliers to carry out the work.

I'm not going to reply to you on this issue again. Just not worth the effort.

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

One should also point out that it's hard to notice the noise or extra torque produced by (say) some swarf in the seals of a 50,000hp drive.

Once saw a 1000 MW generator lose all its cooling hydrogen in five minutes due to idiot workers doing pipe modifications after the hydrogen oil-seal filters and not policing the swarf. That cost a major on-site machining repair.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by not done it yet on 20/12/2017 23:28:22:

… It is clearly not a case of "was working, but now started leaking". …

.

That's an interesting assertion ^^^

I wonder: Did you read the piece that I linked on page 2 of this thread ?

MichaelG.

.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-encounters-propeller-shaft-debris-issue-trials/

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 21/12/2017 00:09:15

[Bill PudneyParticipant @billpudney37759]

I used to be a draughtsman working for the MoD as a ships draughtsman. The section I was working in (Ship Section, responsible for hull and associated systems) had, across a wall, probably 12 to 15 metres of shelf space full of "Design Guidelines". In these guidelines were surprisingly, approved and tested methods of doing just about anything concerned with ship design. The concept, as explained by my boss, was that if you stuck to the guidelines, experimentation was minimised, success was, if not assured at least highly likely. By all means deviate from the guidelines, but be prepared to have your design interrogated at length. As proven new developments came along, the Design Guidelines were updated.

So I would suggest that this leaking seal, is just something that needs a bit of care and attention. Almost certainly it's design and construction complies with the associated specifications, this means that all components also comply with specs/drawings etc. I would even wager that it has an acceptable leak rate. The seal would have been tested on assembly/installation but after some use it's developed a leak. Whereupon the whole world of journo's, uninformed public, etc etc all jump up and down and label the builders, designers, users as incompetent, everybody is an instant expert.

Quite simply there are a lot of people who just do not understand the design process.

Merry Christmas, from this wide brown land

cheers

Bill

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

There was a similar kerfuffle (or was it a shamozzle? I don't remember.) when Australia's first Collins class submarine off the line developed leaks in the shut-off valves where the diesel exhaust exited the hull. Of course journalists get excited: it's a multi-billion dollar project and it "doesn't work", well not 100 per cent anyway. Good story. And, as in this case apparently, true. The thing about being a newspaper journalist is you have to be an expert on submarines in the morning for one story and then an expert on horse breeding or some such in the afternoon for the next story. It's a tough job. (And no, you can't just ask an expert, you have to know what to ask and what their answer means in plain English.

The one I always wondered about though was subsequent media reports that the Collins class subs' super-secret design propellers were incredibly loud, giving away their location. The media went wild on that one for a long time. But being that subs of that class are all about stealth, monitoring, subterfuge and faking out the enemy, I always had to wonder how much truth was in the story the RAN fed to the media about the props being noisy. Maybe it was all part of the game?

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Perhaps the "leak" comes from else where, if from the conractors or an employee, that's up to the law courts, if it;s the navy, it could mean a court martial. But it's probably the news service, so it will go away by next week and no body will give a damn.

Ian S C

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Hopper on 21/12/2017 03:12:58:

The thing about being a newspaper journalist is you have to be an expert on submarines in the morning for one story and then an expert on horse breeding or some such in the afternoon for the next story. It's a tough job. (And no, you can't just ask an expert, you have to know what to ask and what their answer means in plain English.

So if you don't know what questions to ask, and wouldn't understand the answer anyway why not shut up rather than plastering rubbish across the front page

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Shipbuilding has always been difficult and warships particularly challenging. First of class warships are 'rocket science' in the sense they are miracles of organisation pushing technology to the limit and beyond. No wonder things go wrong!

Examples of nautical teething troubles include:

• The Mary Rose, which sank in the Solent in 1535
• The Vasa, which capsized 1300 metres into it's maiden voyage at Stockholm in 1628.
• HMS Royal George, sank in Portsmouth harbour in 1782 killing 900
• HMS Captain, which sank off Finisterre in 1870
• US Iowa Class Battleships in 1938, where it was found at the end of the design process that the gun mountings and turrets didn't fit the hull.
• HMS Thetis, which sank in Liverpool Bay in 1939 due someone painting over a test-cock.
• Multiple problems with the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle, including a propeller that fell off and a runway that had to be extended after testing with aircraft.

Dave

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Unfortunately, the "Sun" seems to have many informants in positions of non power "leaking" misinformation over the years. My original comment regarding outside toilets would have had a suitable nail for hanging 1/8th page pieces of the publication – for the use of.

Regards Ian.

[FarmboyParticipant @farmboy]

I bet the designers are kicking themselves now for not consulting the ME forum at an earlier stage

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Re: the non provision of steam catapult because the aircraft are VTOL , a recent report in the press stated that F35 aircraft, which will equip the carriers some time in the future, have serious problems with being over weight for the power of the engines and this seriously compromises their ability to operate off carriers, maybe the omission of a steam catapult is a serious design error. We may need to operate alternative aircraft, perhaps Harriers, oh forgot we threw them all away, perfectly serviceable and would have filled the gap temporarily until the F35's could be made to work to spec., yes I know Harriers are VTOL as well and wouldn't need a steam catapult but a catapult would have kept our options open.

Dave W

[vintagengineerParticipant @vintagengineer]

They could use rockets similar to those used on Hercules for quick take off on short runways.

Posted by Samsaranda on 21/12/2017 12:40:50:

Re: the non provision of steam catapult because the aircraft are VTOL , a recent report in the press stated that F35 aircraft, which will equip the carriers some time in the future, have serious problems with being over weight for the power of the engines and this seriously compromises their ability to operate off carriers, maybe the omission of a steam catapult is a serious design error. We may need to operate alternative aircraft, perhaps Harriers, oh forgot we threw them all away, perfectly serviceable and would have filled the gap temporarily until the F35's could be made to work to spec., yes I know Harriers are VTOL as well and wouldn't need a steam catapult but a catapult would have kept our options open.

Dave W

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I blame Max Boyce.

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Posted by vintagengineer on 21/12/2017 16:49:23:

They could use rockets similar to those used on Hercules for quick take off on short runways.

Posted by Samsaranda on 21/12/2017 12:40:50:

Re: the non provision of steam catapult because the aircraft are VTOL , a recent report in the press stated that F35 aircraft, which will equip the carriers some time in the future, have serious problems with being over weight for the power of the engines and this seriously compromises their ability to operate off carriers, maybe the omission of a steam catapult is a serious design error. We may need to operate alternative aircraft, perhaps Harriers, oh forgot we threw them all away, perfectly serviceable and would have filled the gap temporarily until the F35's could be made to work to spec., yes I know Harriers are VTOL as well and wouldn't need a steam catapult but a catapult would have kept our options open.

Dave W

One big problem re the catapult, we don't use steam on board modern ships now.

The F35's also use the ramp for takeoff – same as the harrier on the CVS, very rarely would VTOL be used,

Lofty

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Vintagengineer, rocket assisted take off would certainly be spectacular.

Lofty, not much use with a takeoff ramp for F35's if the latest report on their development states that they are overweight for the engine performance to land on the carrier which has to be done from the hover.

Dave W

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

I must admit I've not been keeping uop to speed with this F35 saga. But if we've got the ship and the F35's are having problems that could always re-commission the Harriers GR7/9's and keep people occupied.

We did that when the Harrier GR1's were having problems in the early days. The Hunters were dragged out of retirement to give the aircrew something to do and 45 and 58 sqns were formed at RAF Wittering

Pete

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

With the amount of shaving to the bone the government does, i'm surprised we bother with armed forces at all in this day and age.

Perhaps the impulse of self-preservation twinges from time to time in the ruling classes.

Michael W

[vintagengineerParticipant @vintagengineer]

All our submarines are still steam powered!

Posted by *.* on 21/12/2017 18:14:30:

Posted by vintagengineer on 21/12/2017 16:49:23:

They could use rockets similar to those used on Hercules for quick take off on short runways.

Posted by Samsaranda on 21/12/2017 12:40:50:

Re: the non provision of steam catapult because the aircraft are VTOL , a recent report in the press stated that F35 aircraft, which will equip the carriers some time in the future, have serious problems with being over weight for the power of the engines and this seriously compromises their ability to operate off carriers, maybe the omission of a steam catapult is a serious design error. We may need to operate alternative aircraft, perhaps Harriers, oh forgot we threw them all away, perfectly serviceable and would have filled the gap temporarily until the F35's could be made to work to spec., yes I know Harriers are VTOL as well and wouldn't need a steam catapult but a catapult would have kept our options open.

Dave W

One big problem re the catapult, we don't use steam on board modern ships now.

The F35's also use the ramp for takeoff – same as the harrier on the CVS, very rarely would VTOL be used,

Lofty

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Posted by vintagengineer on 21/12/2017 20:28:23:

All our submarines are still steam powered!

Submarines are boats – not ships

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Posted by Samsaranda on 21/12/2017 18:44:32:

Vintagengineer, rocket assisted take off would certainly be spectacular.

Lofty, not much use with a takeoff ramp for F35's if the latest report on their development states that they are overweight for the engine performance to land on the carrier which has to be done from the hover.

Dave W

Keep believing the fake news Dave

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Looks ok to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPy7FuA0Z6A

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Posted by *.* on 21/12/2017 20:50:46:

Looks ok to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPy7FuA0Z6A

You would think that he would have a little light or something to tell him that he had left the boot lid open !!!!

[Sam Longley 1Participant @samlongley1]

Was it not designed for the HMS QE to have an electro magnetic launch system added once the system has been properly developed. Was that not a major cost addition within the build & was there not a lot of arguing because nobody really knows how it will fit so an area has been left to take it. That is why, in the meantime we have to adopt the expensive STOL aircraft which cost more than a steam launch system ( which works) would have cost over & above cheaper aircraft options

I thought that the idea was that it will be fitted sometime in the future. Or has that now been abandoned

Edited By Sam Longley 1 on 21/12/2017 21:35:26

[vintagengineerParticipant @vintagengineer]

I was once told by a submariner that there are only submarines or targets at sea!

Posted by *.* on 21/12/2017 20:39:37:

Posted by vintagengineer on 21/12/2017 20:28:23:

All our submarines are still steam powered!

Submarines are boats – not ships

[Bill PudneyParticipant @billpudney37759]

Posted by Sam Longley 1 on 21/12/2017 21:33:02:

Was it not designed for the HMS QE to have an electro magnetic launch system added once the system has been properly developed. Was that not a major cost addition within the build & was there not a lot of arguing because nobody really knows how it will fit so an area has been left to take it. That is why, in the meantime we have to adopt the expensive STOL aircraft which cost more than a steam launch system ( which works) would have cost over & above cheaper aircraft options

I thought that the idea was that it will be fitted sometime in the future. Or has that now been abandoned

Edited By Sam Longley 1 on 21/12/2017 21:35:26

Sam, Q1 Why no steam catapults?

A1 No steam

Q2 Why no electro magnetic launch system

A2 Experimental system and VERY expensive, I'm not sure if even the USN have got it working yet, but I'm happy to be corrected.

unasked question but relevant to Q1. Catapult launched aircraft require not only a catapult system (steam, electro magnetic, magic whatever) but a recovery system, that is arrestor wires strung across the blunt end of the deck. These are not simply random bits of steel cable, strung across the deck, but bits of steel cable with a gobsmackingly complex and expensive set of hydraulic dampers to absorb the loads imposed by a (say) 20 tonne aircraft at 150mph.stopping in (say) 20 metres.

Merry Christmas

cheers

Bill

[Author]

Posts