HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Cold said:
Early return to port (Portsmouth) last night due to an internal leak needing to be investigated. Confirmed no hull breach but an amount of water required pumping out.
Keriikeee if the Fearless came back into Guzz everytime it had a leak it would never get past Drakes Island!RN spokesperson said:
“Following a minor issue with an internal system, the ship’s company were required to remove a small volume of water from the ship. An investigation into the cause is underway.
HMS Queen Elizabeth has had a minor issue relating to water from an internal system. At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. The ship, which was due to return to Portsmouth for a planned maintenance period later in the week, is now returning earlier than planned. This is a precautionary measure and the cause of the issue is now under investigation.”
Expect hysterical over reaction from numerous media quarters.HMS Queen Elizabeth has had a minor issue relating to water from an internal system. At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. The ship, which was due to return to Portsmouth for a planned maintenance period later in the week, is now returning earlier than planned. This is a precautionary measure and the cause of the issue is now under investigation.”
98elise said:
Why so you think anything is being swept under the carpet? It's pretty normal for all sorts of mechanical failures to occur. It will happen day in day out during the life of the ship. It's why a large proportion of the ships company are engineers.
I've seen full engine changes done, aircraft damaged, hull cracks, weapons systems damaged, magazines flooded etc. I've even witnessed an aircraft clip a ship. None of this is swept under the carpet.
Edited to add... I've also seen the aftermath of another air accident (no fatalities) and we were not stopped from taking photographs on personal cameras. This was back in the days of film, so would be processes in Boots!
Different service, granted, and older equipment, but as an Armoured Engineer, I know that our Availability State board often showed 75% of our "battle winning equipment" Chieftain AVRE/AVLB fleet was unserviceable at any one time. That is totally unserviceable too, not "battleworthy" (battleworthy = it runs, and can carry out it's primary role, but is not roadworthy in so far as there is some fundamental fault in a system subject to inspection). Our regiment had four AVRE and four AVLB, so if that availability was repeated in the other squadron, we'd have only two out of eight of our primary role callsigns ready to roll out. Many of those faults were caused by insufficient hours run (to much time srood idle) on the vehicles, because getting them to a training area to drive and operate them was logistically difficult and costly. Those faults were exacerbated by penny-pinching in the supply system restricting/rationing spare parts and whole assemblies up to and including engines. And it's not as though the parts were not available in the supply system - when we were warned off for deployment on Op Granby (Gulf War '91) there was suddenly a "whatever you need, yesterday if necessary" attitude from the supply chain.I've seen full engine changes done, aircraft damaged, hull cracks, weapons systems damaged, magazines flooded etc. I've even witnessed an aircraft clip a ship. None of this is swept under the carpet.
Edited to add... I've also seen the aftermath of another air accident (no fatalities) and we were not stopped from taking photographs on personal cameras. This was back in the days of film, so would be processes in Boots!
Let's just hope that something as eyewateringly expensive as HMS QE doesn't "do an Endurance" (
https://wavellroom.com/2018/12/16/mayday-in-magell... )- perhaps why they have erred on the side of caution and brought her in early...
Cold said:
Expect hysterical over reaction from numerous media quarters.
As expected !https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48...
I see last year's shaft seal issue which apparently involved less than a "fish tank sized" amount of water ingress is now being reported as "water pouring into the ship".
I've never got through a season with my modest yacht without a lot more things going wrong than have been reported with QNLZ. For something of this huge complexity I think they're doing pretty well.
Seight_Returns said:
As expected !
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48...
I see last year's shaft seal issue which apparently involved less than a "fish tank sized" amount of water ingress is now being reported as "water pouring into the ship".
I've never got through a season with my modest yacht without a lot more things going wrong than have been reported with QNLZ. For something of this huge complexity I think they're doing pretty well.
Of course, but in the world of sensationalist media and the need to make people click a link 'small seal leak on large warship' is less interesting than 'multi-billion pound aircraft carrier returns to port with to water pouring in'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48...
I see last year's shaft seal issue which apparently involved less than a "fish tank sized" amount of water ingress is now being reported as "water pouring into the ship".
I've never got through a season with my modest yacht without a lot more things going wrong than have been reported with QNLZ. For something of this huge complexity I think they're doing pretty well.
Half the issues in this country are due to inaccurate or sensationalised journalism, rather than what is actually being reported on.
yellowjack said:
Let's just hope that something as eyewateringly expensive as HMS QE doesn't "do an Endurance" (
https://wavellroom.com/2018/12/16/mayday-in-magell... )- perhaps why they have erred on the side of caution and brought her in early...
Good little link, I like this quote. https://wavellroom.com/2018/12/16/mayday-in-magell... )- perhaps why they have erred on the side of caution and brought her in early...
article said:
Civilians do not go to sea in a Royal Navy ship to be told that it’s filling with water and that look was very clearly etched on many of their faces.
Yep, as expected and I would suggest that details of the incident may never been made public simply to avoid such exaggeration.
However, it's interesting that the problem was severe enough for early termination of the current portion of testing and that it was decided repairs were best carried out alongside rather continue with the schedule. A parts supply issue or something more technical?
Water is pumped all over the ship in various guises. Engine cooling, salt water, drinking water and sewerage are all contained within the miles of pipework spaghetti so I wonder if a breach in any of those could cause a residual or knock-on effect of the flood that has impacted other areas/functions of the ship?
(Pure speculation - feel free to correct with actual knowledge!
)
However, it's interesting that the problem was severe enough for early termination of the current portion of testing and that it was decided repairs were best carried out alongside rather continue with the schedule. A parts supply issue or something more technical?
Water is pumped all over the ship in various guises. Engine cooling, salt water, drinking water and sewerage are all contained within the miles of pipework spaghetti so I wonder if a breach in any of those could cause a residual or knock-on effect of the flood that has impacted other areas/functions of the ship?
(Pure speculation - feel free to correct with actual knowledge!
) Cold said:
Yep, as expected and I would suggest that details of the incident may never been made public simply to avoid such exaggeration.
However, it's interesting that the problem was severe enough for early termination of the current portion of testing and that it was decided repairs were best carried out alongside rather continue with the schedule. A parts supply issue or something more technical?
Water is pumped all over the ship in various guises. Engine cooling, salt water, drinking water and sewerage are all contained within the miles of pipework spaghetti so I wonder if a breach in any of those could cause a residual or knock-on effect of the flood that has impacted other areas/functions of the ship?
(Pure speculation - feel free to correct with actual knowledge!)
I wondered if it was a sewerage issue. Has the potential to be a health hazard, so stop and get it sorted sooner rather than ignore it.However, it's interesting that the problem was severe enough for early termination of the current portion of testing and that it was decided repairs were best carried out alongside rather continue with the schedule. A parts supply issue or something more technical?
Water is pumped all over the ship in various guises. Engine cooling, salt water, drinking water and sewerage are all contained within the miles of pipework spaghetti so I wonder if a breach in any of those could cause a residual or knock-on effect of the flood that has impacted other areas/functions of the ship?
(Pure speculation - feel free to correct with actual knowledge!
) Also keep the specifics quiet to avoid various "s
t" headlines.Munter said:
Cold said:
Yep, as expected and I would suggest that details of the incident may never been made public simply to avoid such exaggeration.
However, it's interesting that the problem was severe enough for early termination of the current portion of testing and that it was decided repairs were best carried out alongside rather continue with the schedule. A parts supply issue or something more technical?
Water is pumped all over the ship in various guises. Engine cooling, salt water, drinking water and sewerage are all contained within the miles of pipework spaghetti so I wonder if a breach in any of those could cause a residual or knock-on effect of the flood that has impacted other areas/functions of the ship?
(Pure speculation - feel free to correct with actual knowledge!)
I wondered if it was a sewerage issue. Has the potential to be a health hazard, so stop and get it sorted sooner rather than ignore it.However, it's interesting that the problem was severe enough for early termination of the current portion of testing and that it was decided repairs were best carried out alongside rather continue with the schedule. A parts supply issue or something more technical?
Water is pumped all over the ship in various guises. Engine cooling, salt water, drinking water and sewerage are all contained within the miles of pipework spaghetti so I wonder if a breach in any of those could cause a residual or knock-on effect of the flood that has impacted other areas/functions of the ship?
(Pure speculation - feel free to correct with actual knowledge!
) Also keep the specifics quiet to avoid various "s
t" headlines.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48...
...does that mean that there's a 66,000 tonne submarine lurking somewhere that we haven't been told about???
BBC Article linked above said:
HMS Queen Elizabeth
The Royal Navy's largest ever surface warship
The Royal Navy's largest ever surface warship
...does that mean that there's a 66,000 tonne submarine lurking somewhere that we haven't been told about???
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 10th July 15:52
yellowjack said:
...does that mean that there's a 66,000 tonne submarine lurking somewhere that we haven't been told about???
Off topic there was a study some years ago to convert them to carry 15,000 tonnes LNG to allow them to export from ports that were iced in.
normalbloke said:
I’m seeing photos on anti social media of buckled bulkheads and bent steel. How true, who knows.
Forces News confirms the same but no picshttps://www.forces.net/services/navy/britains-bigg...
Seight_Returns said:
normalbloke said:
I’m seeing photos on anti social media of buckled bulkheads and bent steel. How true, who knows.
Forces News confirms the same but no picshttps://www.forces.net/services/navy/britains-bigg...
normalbloke said:
I’m seeing photos on anti social media of buckled bulkheads and bent steel. How true, who knows.
Any links? I doubt there would be buckled bulkhead and bent steel from a flood. Warships are built to survive big holes in the side.The inside of a warship will be instantly recognisable to anyone that's served on one.
98elise said:
normalbloke said:
I’m seeing photos on anti social media of buckled bulkheads and bent steel. How true, who knows.
Any links? I doubt there would be buckled bulkhead and bent steel from a flood. Warships are built to survive big holes in the side.The inside of a warship will be instantly recognisable to anyone that's served on one.
normalbloke said:
98elise said:
normalbloke said:
I’m seeing photos on anti social media of buckled bulkheads and bent steel. How true, who knows.
Any links? I doubt there would be buckled bulkhead and bent steel from a flood. Warships are built to survive big holes in the side.The inside of a warship will be instantly recognisable to anyone that's served on one.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff