Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: BazaJT on 19 December 2017, 08:05:01
-
So Britains biggest,most expensive warship H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth has a leak.Apparently it's a seal on one of the propeller shafts that's the cause.As yet the cost of repair is unknown.perhaps they should have ticked the box for an upgraded warranty ::) ;D
-
New design so you expect teething problems. I am not unduly concerned.
We live in an age where every small problem is blown out of proportion by a media driven only by sensationalism . It would be interesting to see what teething problems China andRussia experienced on sea trials of their new designs. Of course they would not publicise them.
-
200L/day water ingress apparently; which sounds like the proverbial drop in the ocean to me, given the size of the ship and assuming it has a decent bilge pump..
-
Of course they would not publicise them.
I'm sure plenty of journalists there would love to.. but they know they would swiftly disappear, never to be seen again.
I think I prefer our version of the world, but I'm not entirely sure these days...
-
From what I have seen, the prop lines always piss water in when the prop is stationary, the amount quoted is bugger all, the local pump would shift that much in a few minutes tops.
-
From what I have seen, the prop lines always piss water in when the prop is stationary, the amount quoted is bugger all, the local pump would shift that much in a few minutes tops.
or three disident journalists armed with buckets.
-
Send some spotty yoof down there with a grease gun and that'll be alright! ;D
-
The seals I have seen on other vessels are a pretty hard polyurethane or similar tube and the shaft has a spiral profile machined into it. In fact, many setups have a tank arrangement at the base of the shaft to collect and manage the leak.
When the shaft is rotating you get pretty much bugger all leakage but, when its stationary, it pisses in.....in reverse (which is actually pretty rare) it increases further.
-
The seals I have seen on other vessels are a pretty hard polyurethane or similar tube and the shaft has a spiral profile machined into it. In fact, many setups have a tank arrangement at the base of the shaft to collect and manage the leak.
I always wondered how the prop shaft was sealed.. now I know! :y Clever setup (in forward rotation, anyway).
-
So we need to take it out and give it a good Italian tune-up? :y
I guess the senior service are saving up for the fuel now. ;D
-
200L/day water ingress apparently; which sounds like the proverbial drop in the ocean to me, given the size of the ship and assuming it has a decent bilge pump..
It says 200L an hour from what I read
-
Either way its all pretty irrelevant, must be a slow news day :y
The ship is currently in port for systems snagging (we have a crew back on board), it will be 'well sorted' before it even becomes a major issue
-
I seem to remember that one of my earlier cars (maybe the A30?) had a similar arrangement, called an "oil scroll" in the manual, to help with crankshaft sealing - or am I dreaming?
Ron.
-
It's too long ago for me to remember how shafts were sealed. We had a few educators dotted around to 'pump' bulges out .... venturi connected to fire main .... many a bilge pumped out under the cover of darkness ???
-
I seem to remember that one of my earlier cars (maybe the A30?) had a similar arrangement, called an "oil scroll" in the manual, to help with crankshaft sealing - or am I dreaming?
Ron.
Many a car used an oil scroll in years gone by :y
-
How embarrassing! Incontinent Lizzie doesn't Zoom and needs to become a Tena lady. :P
All to do with a ring on an inserted throbbing shaft causing the problem apparently. ::)
Where OOF Lizzie's family have a strong navel history, I'm sure she will be along soon to give us all the intimate graphic details. :P
-
How embarrassing! Incontinent Lizzie doesn't Zoom and needs to become a Tena lady. :P
All to do with a ring on an inserted throbbing shaft causing the problem apparently. ::)
Where OOF Lizzie's family have a strong navel history, I'm sure she will be along soon to give us all the intimate graphic details. :P
:y :y :y :y :y ;D
As others have said, this is such a non story it is almost laughable. My father used to talk about new Royal Navy ships going on sea trials and being "worked up" so that any faults could be seen and the crew could be trained to sail their new vessel. Faults were common, and when he joined HMS Fife, a then brand new "Devonshire" type guided missile destroyer in 1966 with systems that he had never seen before in the ships of "the old navy" as he called it (no port holes, and James Bond like control systems) there were faults. But this is common of all ships ever built, and especially those of the "new navies" of the 21st century. They are highly technical beasts, with mechanical, electrical and electronic parts that need to be tested, hence the extra special needs for sea trials. HMS Queen Elizabeth appears to have a simple propeller shaft gland issue that should be rectified quickly.
Faults at this time are expected, but it is crucial that when our warships are in battle they do not suffer those flaws. But even then, occasionally they will. You just hope it is not a major design flaw, such as with the K Class submarines, and the battlecruisers of WW1 & 2.
What should be of more concern is the future use of HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the morale of it's crew and the Royal Navy generally. Further Defence cuts will only exasperate the existing problems, just when we need our navy to be more powerful than ever. ;)
-
I wonder why the MOD even release this sort of information. :-\
Unless it's disinformation. ;)
-
That'll teach em, to use a cheap pattern Chinese gasket.
Obviously the ships engineering dept aren't OO'fers, and don't know about using genuine parts ;D
-
I wonder why the MOD even release this sort of information. :-\
Unless it's disinformation. ;)
No it's what happens when you use a Jubilee clip to keep out non-GM water ;)
-
I wonder why the MOD even release this sort of information. :-\
Unless it's disinformation. ;)
More likely a shifty sailor looking for a backhander.
-
Don't know how many aircraft she's slated to carry but apparently they're talking circa £150m a pop for them now that's when/if we actually get any!
-
All ships leak, taking into account the size of the vessel the amount of water ingress is to forgive the pun is" a drop in the ocean". Stern gland leaks are a common problem that can happen a lot with ships the trick is is you have a bad one "don't stop!!!" ;D
-
How embarrassing! Incontinent Lizzie doesn't Zoom and needs to become a Tena lady. :P
All to do with a ring on an inserted throbbing shaft causing the problem apparently. ::)
Where OOF Lizzie's family have a strong navel history, I'm sure she will be along soon to give us all the intimate graphic details. :P
:y :y :y :y :y ;D
As others have said, this is such a non story it is almost laughable. My father used to talk about new Royal Navy ships going on sea trials and being "worked up" so that any faults could be seen and the crew could be trained to sail their new vessel. Faults were common, and when he joined HMS Fife, a then brand new "Devonshire" type guided missile destroyer in 1966 with systems that he had never seen before in the ships of "the old navy" as he called it (no port holes, and James Bond like control systems) there were faults. But this is common of all ships ever built, and especially those of the "new navies" of the 21st century. They are highly technical beasts, with mechanical, electrical and electronic parts that need to be tested, hence the extra special needs for sea trials. HMS Queen Elizabeth appears to have a simple propeller shaft gland issue that should be rectified quickly.
Faults at this time are expected, but it is crucial that when our warships are in battle they do not suffer those flaws. But even then, occasionally they will. You just hope it is not a major design flaw, such as with the K Class submarines, and the battlecruisers of WW1 & 2.
What should be of more concern is the future use of HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the morale of it's crew and the Royal Navy generally. Further Defence cuts will only exasperate the existing problems, just when we need our navy to be more powerful than ever. ;)
Spot on. If anyone wants to read a true horror story google the k class subs. Steam powered on the surface. What could possibly go wrong. Quite possibly the worst class of ship ever especially when you consider how refined the German offering was at the time.
Dont worry about defence cuts, we will be able to go to our friends in Europe for help when Russia cuts up ( literally the undersea comms cables, and metaphorically) . For years they have consistently not met their agreed NATO spending. Our turn now.
-
I cant think of any vessel that we don't have a team on fixing things before, during and after sea trials and then also on the sail away.......and I have worked on a few.
-
I cant think of any vessel that we don't have a team on fixing things before, during and after sea trials and then also on the sail away.......and I have worked on a few.
.
From a source in the know "if the press knew how many submarines we have, that are serviceable, there would be uproar" ::)
-
I cant think of any vessel that we don't have a team on fixing things before, during and after sea trials and then also on the sail away.......and I have worked on a few.
.
From a source in the know "if the press knew how many submarines we have, that are serviceable, there would be uproar" ::)
Do we include HMS Alliance in Gosport? ;)
-
I cant think of any vessel that we don't have a team on fixing things before, during and after sea trials and then also on the sail away.......and I have worked on a few.
.
From a source in the know "if the press knew how many submarines we have, that are serviceable, there would be uproar" ::)
Do we include HMS Alliance in Gosport? ;)
Be a good bet.might be more reliable.
-
It seems to me as an uneducated bystander, that due to the relentless march of cuts to the defence budget by governments of all colours over the last 30 - 40 years or so, our armed forces are now little more than a national defence force. ::) No government will admit it and they'll send the odd frigate or destroyer off on a flag waving foray, but I think that is about what it amounts to. :( HMS QE is impressive no doubt about that, but is probably a white elephant that could be sunk by a relatively low tech missile. :o
Compare and contrast all the cuts to our public services over the last few decades, with the open chequebook we've apparently offered the EU, as I believe that we probably did have commitments worth £100 billion with Brussels. David Davies should probably be getting more credit for whittling the bill down to the reported £40 billion that we will end up paying. ;)
Anyway back to leaks! :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/20/britain-has-no-warships-deployed-overseas-unprecedented-move/
-
Its actually a well defended and advanced vessel and only the likes of the super powers and advanced forces could do much to it (who generally are our allies or somebody we would not pitch up against without many others in support). :y
The harsh reality is that a lot of our naval fleet spend a growing portion of their time on humanitarian activities and the modern ships actually have features as a design requirement to support this (the QECs being one of them).
-
Its actually a well defended and advanced vessel and only the likes of the super powers and advanced forces could do much to it (who generally are our allies or somebody we would not pitch up against without many others in support). :y
The harsh reality is that a lot of our naval fleet spend a growing portion of their time on humanitarian activities and the modern ships actually have features as a design requirement to support this (the QECs being one of them).
Yes, but it probably takes the rest of the fleet to defend it. ::) ;D
Meanwhile plans have been mooted to scrap HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion along with getting rid of 1000 Royal Marines, which will end Britain's capability to mount an amphibious assault and possibly heralds the beginning of the end of Devonport Naval Base. :(
-
Its actually a well defended and advanced vessel and only the likes of the super powers and advanced forces could do much to it (who generally are our allies or somebody we would not pitch up against without many others in support). :y
The harsh reality is that a lot of our naval fleet spend a growing portion of their time on humanitarian activities and the modern ships actually have features as a design requirement to support this (the QECs being one of them).
Agreed :y :y
The fact is that Great Britain no longer has a world empire, with the needs to defend it and project international power. I am one who would love to see the Royal Navy doubled or even trebled to project our sea trade, which still accounts for 95% our country's trading.
But we also want first class NHS, Education, Policing and Health care services. These have to be paid for. As said, I would ideally like to see a much larger Royal Navy, like in the days of GB projecting it's power on the sea and being able to defend the Empire. Then the Government (of 1910) spent £64.9 million on Defence out of a total expenditure of £147.5 million. Would the public of today be willing to pay for that proportion of Defence in the UK's total expenditure?
It would be great to see again the obvious power of The Grand Fleet that consisted of 28 Dreadnoughts, including 5 Super Dreadnoughts, plus 9 Battlecruisers, and another 114 assorted pre-dreadnoughts, cruisers, frigates, destroyers , and others deployed in 1916 at the Battle of Jutland. The Royal Navy also had other ships in the Mediterranean and elsewhere on the Earth's oceans. But do we really need such numbers, with each modern warships with such destructive firepower, and, again, would we pay for them? ;)
-
Would the public of today be willing to pay for that proportion of Defence in the UK's total expenditure?
Sure, as long as we stop paying subsidies for 'renewables', ditch the NHS (which didn't exist in 1910, AFAIK), roll back the state pension pot to the size it was in 1910 (having only existed for two years, I imagine it was rather small), etc.. :y
-
How embarrassing! Incontinent Lizzie doesn't Zoom and needs to become a Tena lady. :P
All to do with a ring on an inserted throbbing shaft causing the problem apparently. ::)
Where OOF Lizzie's family have a strong navel history, I'm sure she will be along soon to give us all the intimate graphic details. :P
:y :y :y :y :y ;D
As others have said, this is such a non story it is almost laughable. My father used to talk about new Royal Navy ships going on sea trials and being "worked up" so that any faults could be seen and the crew could be trained to sail their new vessel. Faults were common, and when he joined HMS Fife, a then brand new "Devonshire" type guided missile destroyer in 1966 with systems that he had never seen before in the ships of "the old navy" as he called it (no port holes, and James Bond like control systems) there were faults. But this is common of all ships ever built, and especially those of the "new navies" of the 21st century. They are highly technical beasts, with mechanical, electrical and electronic parts that need to be tested, hence the extra special needs for sea trials. HMS Queen Elizabeth appears to have a simple propeller shaft gland issue that should be rectified quickly.
Faults at this time are expected, but it is crucial that when our warships are in battle they do not suffer those flaws. But even then, occasionally they will. You just hope it is not a major design flaw, such as with the K Class submarines, and the battlecruisers of WW1 & 2.
What should be of more concern is the future use of HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the morale of it's crew and the Royal Navy generally. Further Defence cuts will only exasperate the existing problems, just when we need our navy to be more powerful than ever. ;)
Spot on. If anyone wants to read a true horror story google the k class subs. Steam powered on the surface. What could possibly go wrong. Quite possibly the worst class of ship ever especially when you consider how refined the German offering was at the time.
Dont worry about defence cuts, we will be able to go to our friends in Europe for help when Russia cuts up ( literally the undersea comms cables, and metaphorically) . For years they have consistently not met their agreed NATO spending. Our turn now.
Read the book on the K-class. Exercises between large ships & low profile submarines at night are not good idea as the RN found out to their cost! :o :o :o They also found out that oil fired, steam powered submarines are also not a good idea either. :o :o :o
Lizzie is spot on with her comment and ships still have to be worked up to make sure all the systems are operational and the crew have been trained sufficiently in their use, so when a ship in on patrol it is "fit to fight tonight". Although defense cuts are making this more difficult, the recent withdrawal of HMS Diamond for Gulf patrol duties due to propeller problems shows they will withdraw vessels that don't meet operational standards.
The carrier's trials are exactly to test and rectify problems. As the first of the class she is also the lead ship for identifying and fixing problems and designing any workarounds procedures that need to be adopted to overcome any system limitations.
-
Ive lost track a bit. Do we have any planes yet to operate from the new carrier ?
-
Ive lost track a bit. Do we have any planes yet to operate from the new carrier ?
Yes, but they're made of paper! ;D
-
Ive lost track a bit. Do we have any planes yet to operate from the new carrier ?
I'm sure we can find a Sopwith Camel from somewhere ...... ::)
-
Would the public of today be willing to pay for that proportion of Defence in the UK's total expenditure?
Sure, as long as we stop paying subsidies for 'renewables', ditch the NHS (which didn't exist in 1910, AFAIK), roll back the state pension pot to the size it was in 1910 (having only existed for two years, I imagine it was rather small), etc.. :y
Fixed in 11 words with no increase in government expenditure. Transfer the 0.7% of GDP Overseas Aid budget to our defense budget. :y :y :y The money stays and benefits the UK, helps improve our chronic trade deficit on what current goes on keeping corrupt dictators living in lavish style, jihadist dancing lessons in North Africa so they bond better before participating in terrorist outrages, Yoga classes for Indian women and green energy schemes for the benefit of middle class French holidaymakers to name but a few scams uses. Charity begins at home. >:( >:( >:( This will add £13bn to our £28.5bn defense budget, yes almost a 50% increase. :y :y :y
CaMoron's crony capitalist public schoolboy pals and all the do-gooder bleeding hearts will be up-in-arms but an an invitation to personally discuss it with TB will sort that. ;)
If you feel we need to spend more then also add the £17bn by 2020 climate fraud subsidies. :y :y :y Again, for those that object, go and personally discuss it with TB. ;)
-
Ive lost track a bit. Do we have any planes yet to operate from the new carrier ?
Yes, but they're made of paper! ;D
At least they are environmentally friendly, and that's the main thing. :y
-
Ive lost track a bit. Do we have any planes yet to operate from the new carrier ?
Plenty of helicopters and we have just taken delivery of our 14th F35B. Carrier trials will start in 2018, so they are operational in 2020. This is a long workup period, but we have not had any carrier based aircraft for training purposes since the Sea Harriers were retired by BLiar in 2006 and AV8B Harriers by CaMoron in 2010. At $150m I would rather they took their time and not lose any. Landing on a carrier is one of the most challenging and stressful things any pilot has to do especially at night in high sea states and poor visibility.
-
Interesting comment from Gorberchov earlier this week " large vessel it will make nice a big target" :-\
-
Ive lost track a bit. Do we have any planes yet to operate from the new carrier ?
Plenty of helicopters and we have just taken delivery of our 14th F35B. Carrier trials will start in 2018, so they are operational in 2020. This is a long workup period, but we have not had any carrier based aircraft for training purposes since the Sea Harriers were retired by BLiar in 2006 and AV8B Harriers by CaMoron in 2010. At $150m I would rather they took their time and not lose any. Landing on a carrier is one of the most challenging and stressful things any pilot has to do especially at night in high sea states and poor visibility.
[/highlight]
Indeed. I will always remember my father returning from a two year period of duty on the aircraft carrier HMS Albion in 1960. He showed me copies of official pictures of aircraft on the ships deck, including a number showing crashed planes. He told my mum, overheard by me, that during his time on board from 1959 to 1960 5 aircrew had been lost.
As a matter of interest I have just done some quick research and have found a log of all the military aircraft (including some from HMS Albion) lost for a variety of reasons during just 1960. Flying military aircraft is a risky business, and during landing and take offs particularly so, regardless of from a carrier or not.
http://www.ukserials.com/losses-1960.htm
Not that long ago an historical document came to light that showed a Senior commander in the Luftwaffe was expressing his utmost concern over the fact that in addition to the high rate of combat losses during the Battle of Britain in 1940, the Luftwaffe were losing on average an additional 250 aircraft per MONTH, and frequently their aircrew, in non-combat actions. Landings, take offs, and routine training flights were taking there toll. He added that even the Third Reich, with all it's vast resources, could not sustain such losses.
I would still love to fly a military plane though! ;)
-
Interesting comment from Gorberchov earlier this week " large vessel it will make nice a big target" :-\
As I said earlier HMS QE and her sister ship to follow HMS POW are impressive, I can't help thinking that they are 20th century solutions to 21st century problems. :-\
-
Interesting comment from Gorberchov earlier this week " large vessel it will make nice a big target" :-\
As I said earlier HMS QE and her sister ship to follow HMS POW are impressive, I can't help thinking that they are 20th century solutions to 21st century problems. :-\
But at the moment air power, as opposed to just missile power, is still considered the major element in any serious military force. Projecting that power by having mobile air fields and missile platforms in the form of carriers is still thought to be a crucial part of any battle fleet in this part of the 21st century, especially with the international war risks centred on the Middle East and surrounding area. Sending carrier battle groups into the Mediterranean, Pacific, Red Sea and Indian Oceans gives a tremendous edge to the US Navy. The USA who, like Japan, have had real faith in carriers since the 1930's, when the Royal Navy still believed in battleships being THE capital ship and the one viable element to defeat the opposing naval force. That was proved very wrong of course.
Still the USA have high faith in having a carrier fleet, which numbers at least 10 true aircraft carriers or super carriers, with new ones being built. But that is the mistake Britain made in the 1930's, building more battleships when the military world had moved on. Is the USA making a big mistake? We will only know if WWIII breaks out!
Russia however has a number of helicopter carriers, and just one true aircraft carrier. But, apparently, they are not a global military force, only a regional one. Once more, we hope not to see their or the USA policies tested! ;)
-
Still the USA have high faith in having a carrier fleet,
America has faith in anything it can strap a gun to - the bigger the better! ;D
-
Still the USA have high faith in having a carrier fleet,
America has faith in anything it can strap a gun to - the bigger the better! ;D
America has a fleet of carriers so it can project it’s power around the world by parking them off the coast and, thus, have a level of armaments bigger than most countries,sitting in the ocean, anywhere in the world.
I think we’ve got to dismiss the idea that any sort of conventional weaponry is of much use in the event of a clash between the super powers. Hopefully, they realise that any kind of war would be futile. But in the case of smaller countries (we may as well take Iran or N Korea as an example), a large fleet of carriers with attendant vessels a few miles off your coast is definitely enough to make you think twice.