HMS Queen Elizabeth: Leak found on new aircraft carrier

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

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

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

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

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.

Lignum Vitae self lubricating in salt water

Mick

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

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

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.

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.

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

Clivve

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

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**

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.

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.

.

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

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

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?

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