HMSPWLS in Portsmouth today.
Receiving fuel from barge alongside.
Tents erected over the flight deck last week to facilitate resurfacing being taken down already.
The US, France, Russia and now Britain.
Everyone has carrier problems
This is why you don't just have one
by @TomSharpe134
RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Daily Telegraph article by Cdr Tom Sharpe RN (Retired) about R08 HMS Queen Elizabeth's recent technical issue and other UK carrier related and pertinent matters.
A very good summary and analysis.
Well worth the read(as transcribed below) and puts to shame any other recent and no doubt on-going media posted nonsense.
"On Friday night, a pre-sailing inspection on HMS Queen Elizabeth revealed corrosion on a shaft coupling. Pending the fine detail, we know she will now not be sailing for Exercise Steadfast Defender. Instead, she will be heading to Rosyth for a docking period to repair the defect.
The first and most obvious point is this is why two Carriers were built. If this had happened to the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle for example, France would now be without Carrier strike options for the duration of the repair. Twice now redundancy has proved its worth. ‘Should it have to?’ is something I’ll look at later.
The general metric for warships is that you need (just over) three to guarantee one on task. Clearly we couldn’t afford that and there are many who don’t think we could, or should, afford any. Those inside the services or Ministry of Defence who despised the Carriers through their design and build phase, and there were many, often lobbied to reduce the class down to one ship. That this was resisted at each stage has proven to be a good example of strategic decision making.
Right now, getting HMS Prince of Wales to a position where she can take on QEs programme is not like flicking a switch. She is in a maintenance period that needs to be accelerated. She will then need to be trained, assured, and provided with the equipment, ammunition and people that she didn’t need as the lower readiness carrier. This transition has already started but think weeks not days. The Navy will be pushing hard to make this as fast as possible.
Why do complex multi-billion pound warships break? The first thing to do is shed the notion that they are in any way like your car or your phone which you expect to work every time (but of course it doesn’t). These products are a) vastly less complex, b) not immersed in saltwater and c) have been product tested thousands of times before launch, more after launch. QE and PoW were product-tested twice. Issues are inevitable.
And all new ships are thus afflicted, particularly if there is a gap between when they are built and when the relevant shipyard last built a ship of this type.
The first two Bay Class Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are a good example. Swan Hunter took the build on in the noughties having not built anything since the 80s. The programme was so beset with difficulties that completion of the first two and build for the latter two was moved to BAE’s shipyard in Govan.
Before that, the Upholder class submarines, built at Cammell Laird in the 80s were the first diesel-electric submarines built there since the Oberon class, the last of which was launched in the early 60s. The result was a submarine so plagued with technical difficulties that the torpedo tubes had to be filled with cement because they discovered during trials that the doors at the back and front could be opened at the same time.
Even the Type 23 frigate, now the workhorse of the fleet, had early issues. They spent the first five years of their life without a working command system and the Merlin helicopter didn’t fit in the hangar in the first of class. Meme generators and bloggers had they existed back then would have had a field day.
HMS Queen Elizabeth pushed the boundaries in many respects, both in terms of size and construction techniques – problems are inevitable.
Most ships lose their ‘character’ traits over time as equipment is improved or replaced. The Type 45 Destroyer's ongoing propulsion upgrade is a good example. So are the new engines fitted to Hunt class minehunters, changing out the ones that caught fire if you idled them for too long.
Sometimes the ship’s company just learn to deal with it as part and parcel of living with a warship. Type 42 destroyers were known for having an interesting aroma that pervaded much of the back end (ironic) of the ship. This was not a design feature. In one of my frigates, the main engines each had names (not uncommon – engineers are like that) but one of them was most unflattering because it was less than reliable.
And this is not just a UK problem. Every navy I ever worked with had ships that had issues. Even Newport News Shipbuilding, the yard that built the Nimitz class Carriers – without doubt some of the best ships ever built – had a lot of problems with the first-of-class USS Ford that followed the Nimitz's.
The electromagnetic launch system for the aircraft caught most of the headlines which is harsh as that really was novel, but they also had reliability issues with some relatively basic kit such as the weapons lift system. This all combined to delay delivery by nearly two years. The Ford still has a sewage management problem which I won’t go into in case you’re eating. Elsewhere, the US Navy built an entire class of littoral combat ship which is so overrun with issues that they stopped the build run and are paying them off early.
The French Carrier Charles de Gaulle has also been plagued by problems over the years, including vibration on their propellor shafts. That they only have one carrier, and the ship’s company, once trained, are therefore largely unable to move between ships causes them huge issues as well. Their politicians love her (when she is working), their navy find it a (very expensive) fight to keep her running.
The Russian Carrier, Kuznetsov, has often had issues too and she is typically accompanied by a powerful ocean-going tug in case of trouble.
So teething issues, and this is still early in a 50 year life, are common. What is clear in this case is that whoever in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) that had responsibility for the shaft line didn’t do a very good job. We’ve seen shaft seal leaks, the alignment issue leading to PoW nearly losing an entire propellor and now this corrosion. This is galling because whilst the configuration of the QEC shaft line is bespoke, the basic elements within it are not and are run successfully in ships the world over.
With the ACA between BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales now dissolved, there will be some ‘interesting’ conversations going on just now as to where liability for this ongoing issue lies.
HMS Prince of Wales will do what’s needed to get to sea and take over QE’s duties quickly, of that I am sure. How long it takes to repair QE will be more interesting. A commercial shipping friend of mine suggested that a ship of her size with a shaft issue that needs a dry dock to resolve should be out of the water for no more than two weeks. This will not be the case, but ‘complexity’ and ‘ammunition’ can only be blamed for so much.
Clearly comparing commercial enterprises to a publicly funded single dockyard with a carefully crafted schedule of work is unfair, but if I was senior navy just now – and there are many reasons I am not – I would be leaning on both the purse string holder and the maintenance infrastructure to see how fast this can be done. The Secretary of State for Defence recently said that we are in a 'pre war' phase. I would use this issue to test that.
The two ships’ companies will need to be carefully managed. Rightly or wrongly, the good/bad old days of ‘that’s life in a blue suit shipmate’ and ‘if you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have joined’ are on the wane. Being bounced to the Red Sea to conduct strike operations is one thing. Being bounced to go on an exercise because your sister ship is broken is another. Those who care about these things, and really it should be everyone, will be very busy just now.
It was clear last week that the Armed Forces Minister did not want to send one of these ships to the Red Sea yet. For now, at least that conundrum has been resolved, albeit in the wrong way. To those who thought that she should already be heading that way, this is frustrating. Again, searching for positives in all this, at least the defect was identified alongside and not on operations in a high-threat environment. The option to send PoW there has not been removed, it’s just had the likelihood reduced.
Looking further forward, HMS Prince of Wales will be coming to the end of Steadfast Defender at roughly the same time QE will be fixed. Who goes where at that point will be interesting. QE was due to handover flagship duties later this year anyway and go into a longer period of planned maintenance. Depending on whether the ‘pre-war’ test works or not, this maintenance period could be bought forward now. PoW was then set to take the lead on next year’s global deployment. Lots of unknowns here but I bring it up to show the intertwined and longer term nature of ship planning means that fleet planning is never as simple as ‘that one is broken, send the other one’. This is the case even in frigate, destroyer and submarine classes where there are more options.
No matter how sanguine the Admiralty is over ‘stuff happens’, they will be deeply annoyed by this as once again they are being made to foot the bill, probably in every sense, for a problem not of their making. They will want accountability but are unlikely to get it. in the meantime, they have to manage getting QE repaired and PoW online as quickly as possible, both of which will cause pain to the most valuable asset they have, people.
Importantly, the decision to build two of these strategic assets means the Navy are still able to offer political options, which is the whole point of the service."
A very good summary and analysis.
Well worth the read(as transcribed below) and puts to shame any other recent and no doubt on-going media posted nonsense.
"On Friday night, a pre-sailing inspection on HMS Queen Elizabeth revealed corrosion on a shaft coupling. Pending the fine detail, we know she will now not be sailing for Exercise Steadfast Defender. Instead, she will be heading to Rosyth for a docking period to repair the defect.
The first and most obvious point is this is why two Carriers were built. If this had happened to the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle for example, France would now be without Carrier strike options for the duration of the repair. Twice now redundancy has proved its worth. ‘Should it have to?’ is something I’ll look at later.
The general metric for warships is that you need (just over) three to guarantee one on task. Clearly we couldn’t afford that and there are many who don’t think we could, or should, afford any. Those inside the services or Ministry of Defence who despised the Carriers through their design and build phase, and there were many, often lobbied to reduce the class down to one ship. That this was resisted at each stage has proven to be a good example of strategic decision making.
Right now, getting HMS Prince of Wales to a position where she can take on QEs programme is not like flicking a switch. She is in a maintenance period that needs to be accelerated. She will then need to be trained, assured, and provided with the equipment, ammunition and people that she didn’t need as the lower readiness carrier. This transition has already started but think weeks not days. The Navy will be pushing hard to make this as fast as possible.
Why do complex multi-billion pound warships break? The first thing to do is shed the notion that they are in any way like your car or your phone which you expect to work every time (but of course it doesn’t). These products are a) vastly less complex, b) not immersed in saltwater and c) have been product tested thousands of times before launch, more after launch. QE and PoW were product-tested twice. Issues are inevitable.
And all new ships are thus afflicted, particularly if there is a gap between when they are built and when the relevant shipyard last built a ship of this type.
The first two Bay Class Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are a good example. Swan Hunter took the build on in the noughties having not built anything since the 80s. The programme was so beset with difficulties that completion of the first two and build for the latter two was moved to BAE’s shipyard in Govan.
Before that, the Upholder class submarines, built at Cammell Laird in the 80s were the first diesel-electric submarines built there since the Oberon class, the last of which was launched in the early 60s. The result was a submarine so plagued with technical difficulties that the torpedo tubes had to be filled with cement because they discovered during trials that the doors at the back and front could be opened at the same time.
Even the Type 23 frigate, now the workhorse of the fleet, had early issues. They spent the first five years of their life without a working command system and the Merlin helicopter didn’t fit in the hangar in the first of class. Meme generators and bloggers had they existed back then would have had a field day.
HMS Queen Elizabeth pushed the boundaries in many respects, both in terms of size and construction techniques – problems are inevitable.
Most ships lose their ‘character’ traits over time as equipment is improved or replaced. The Type 45 Destroyer's ongoing propulsion upgrade is a good example. So are the new engines fitted to Hunt class minehunters, changing out the ones that caught fire if you idled them for too long.
Sometimes the ship’s company just learn to deal with it as part and parcel of living with a warship. Type 42 destroyers were known for having an interesting aroma that pervaded much of the back end (ironic) of the ship. This was not a design feature. In one of my frigates, the main engines each had names (not uncommon – engineers are like that) but one of them was most unflattering because it was less than reliable.
And this is not just a UK problem. Every navy I ever worked with had ships that had issues. Even Newport News Shipbuilding, the yard that built the Nimitz class Carriers – without doubt some of the best ships ever built – had a lot of problems with the first-of-class USS Ford that followed the Nimitz's.
The electromagnetic launch system for the aircraft caught most of the headlines which is harsh as that really was novel, but they also had reliability issues with some relatively basic kit such as the weapons lift system. This all combined to delay delivery by nearly two years. The Ford still has a sewage management problem which I won’t go into in case you’re eating. Elsewhere, the US Navy built an entire class of littoral combat ship which is so overrun with issues that they stopped the build run and are paying them off early.
The French Carrier Charles de Gaulle has also been plagued by problems over the years, including vibration on their propellor shafts. That they only have one carrier, and the ship’s company, once trained, are therefore largely unable to move between ships causes them huge issues as well. Their politicians love her (when she is working), their navy find it a (very expensive) fight to keep her running.
The Russian Carrier, Kuznetsov, has often had issues too and she is typically accompanied by a powerful ocean-going tug in case of trouble.
So teething issues, and this is still early in a 50 year life, are common. What is clear in this case is that whoever in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) that had responsibility for the shaft line didn’t do a very good job. We’ve seen shaft seal leaks, the alignment issue leading to PoW nearly losing an entire propellor and now this corrosion. This is galling because whilst the configuration of the QEC shaft line is bespoke, the basic elements within it are not and are run successfully in ships the world over.
With the ACA between BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales now dissolved, there will be some ‘interesting’ conversations going on just now as to where liability for this ongoing issue lies.
HMS Prince of Wales will do what’s needed to get to sea and take over QE’s duties quickly, of that I am sure. How long it takes to repair QE will be more interesting. A commercial shipping friend of mine suggested that a ship of her size with a shaft issue that needs a dry dock to resolve should be out of the water for no more than two weeks. This will not be the case, but ‘complexity’ and ‘ammunition’ can only be blamed for so much.
Clearly comparing commercial enterprises to a publicly funded single dockyard with a carefully crafted schedule of work is unfair, but if I was senior navy just now – and there are many reasons I am not – I would be leaning on both the purse string holder and the maintenance infrastructure to see how fast this can be done. The Secretary of State for Defence recently said that we are in a 'pre war' phase. I would use this issue to test that.
The two ships’ companies will need to be carefully managed. Rightly or wrongly, the good/bad old days of ‘that’s life in a blue suit shipmate’ and ‘if you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have joined’ are on the wane. Being bounced to the Red Sea to conduct strike operations is one thing. Being bounced to go on an exercise because your sister ship is broken is another. Those who care about these things, and really it should be everyone, will be very busy just now.
It was clear last week that the Armed Forces Minister did not want to send one of these ships to the Red Sea yet. For now, at least that conundrum has been resolved, albeit in the wrong way. To those who thought that she should already be heading that way, this is frustrating. Again, searching for positives in all this, at least the defect was identified alongside and not on operations in a high-threat environment. The option to send PoW there has not been removed, it’s just had the likelihood reduced.
Looking further forward, HMS Prince of Wales will be coming to the end of Steadfast Defender at roughly the same time QE will be fixed. Who goes where at that point will be interesting. QE was due to handover flagship duties later this year anyway and go into a longer period of planned maintenance. Depending on whether the ‘pre-war’ test works or not, this maintenance period could be bought forward now. PoW was then set to take the lead on next year’s global deployment. Lots of unknowns here but I bring it up to show the intertwined and longer term nature of ship planning means that fleet planning is never as simple as ‘that one is broken, send the other one’. This is the case even in frigate, destroyer and submarine classes where there are more options.
No matter how sanguine the Admiralty is over ‘stuff happens’, they will be deeply annoyed by this as once again they are being made to foot the bill, probably in every sense, for a problem not of their making. They will want accountability but are unlikely to get it. in the meantime, they have to manage getting QE repaired and PoW online as quickly as possible, both of which will cause pain to the most valuable asset they have, people.
Importantly, the decision to build two of these strategic assets means the Navy are still able to offer political options, which is the whole point of the service."
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
ivorthediver
- Posts: 3662
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:42 pm
- Location: Cambridge Shore Battery
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Well said David and well put .
Like all our defence assets they will be muttering "there but for the grace of God go I " I suspect
Like all our defence assets they will be muttering "there but for the grace of God go I " I suspect
"What Ever Floats your Boat"
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Suggest "Well posted David" or "Well said Tom" Ivor - credit where its due?ivorthediver wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:24 pm Well said David and well put .
Like all our defence assets they will be muttering "there but for the grace of God go I " I suspect
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Royal Navy [Tweet]
1h ~ 1 Hour ago:
The cause of the issue with HMS Queen Elizabeth is wear and tear of her starboard propeller shaft coupling.
1h ~ 1 Hour ago:
The cause of the issue with HMS Queen Elizabeth is wear and tear of her starboard propeller shaft coupling.
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
The Navy says: “The cause of the issue with HMS Queen Elizabeth is wear and tear of her starboard propeller shaft coupling. On completion of initial investigations, HMS Queen Elizabeth will sail for Rosyth so any necessary repairs can be carried out in due course.” The propellor shaft coupling repair should be considerably simpler than rectifying the damage caused by the misalignment issues with PWLS’ shaft. QNLZ was due to begin her first major refit in 2025 but it is unclear at this stage if she will just have the shaft coupling issue fixed and return to operations or stay in Rosyth and effectively start the refit earlier than planned.
Source Navy Lookout
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Queen Elizabeth heading to Scotland for repairs
After inspections uncovered a defect with her starboard propeller shaft coupling, the decision was made for HMS Queen Elizabeth to head to Rosyth for repair work.
According to a statement by Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, The Earl of Minto:
“My Lords, the Royal Navy continues to meet its operational commitments, both at home and abroad. Having two aircraft carriers means that HMS “Prince of Wales” has quickly prepared to deploy in place of HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. She has sailed from Portsmouth this afternoon to join the NATO exercise Steadfast Defender.
Following initial investigations, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will be required to sail for Rosyth in Scotland to undergo repairs for an issue with her starboard propeller shaft coupling, which will be carried out in due course. Her issue is not the same as that experienced by HMS “Prince of Wales” back in 2022.”
Source UKDJ
After inspections uncovered a defect with her starboard propeller shaft coupling, the decision was made for HMS Queen Elizabeth to head to Rosyth for repair work.
According to a statement by Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, The Earl of Minto:
“My Lords, the Royal Navy continues to meet its operational commitments, both at home and abroad. Having two aircraft carriers means that HMS “Prince of Wales” has quickly prepared to deploy in place of HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. She has sailed from Portsmouth this afternoon to join the NATO exercise Steadfast Defender.
Following initial investigations, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will be required to sail for Rosyth in Scotland to undergo repairs for an issue with her starboard propeller shaft coupling, which will be carried out in due course. Her issue is not the same as that experienced by HMS “Prince of Wales” back in 2022.”
Source UKDJ
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Navy Lookout
HMS QNLZ sails from Portsmouth tomorrow evening around 1800.
Will head to Glen Mallan to unload ammunition before going to Rosyth for dry docking.
HMS QNLZ sails from Portsmouth tomorrow evening around 1800.
Will head to Glen Mallan to unload ammunition before going to Rosyth for dry docking.
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Navy Lookout
HMS QNLZ departure from Portsmouth this evening has been postponed due to high winds.
Please note: the aircraft carriers could be sailed from Portsmouth in high winds if really needed.
However, it is pointless taking unnecessary risk (even if quite small) when there is no urgent reason to sail (HMS Queen Elizabeth is heading for maintenance in Scotland).
HMS QNLZ departure from Portsmouth this evening has been postponed due to high winds.
Please note: the aircraft carriers could be sailed from Portsmouth in high winds if really needed.
However, it is pointless taking unnecessary risk (even if quite small) when there is no urgent reason to sail (HMS Queen Elizabeth is heading for maintenance in Scotland).
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.
-
Pelican
- Posts: 10058
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Re: RN Aircraft Carriers: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Current info is that she is due to sail around now.Pelican wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:11 pm Navy Lookout
HMS QNLZ departure from Portsmouth this evening has been postponed due to high winds.
Please note: the aircraft carriers could be sailed from Portsmouth in high winds if really needed.
However, it is pointless taking unnecessary risk (even if quite small) when there is no urgent reason to sail (HMS Queen Elizabeth is heading for maintenance in Scotland).
HMS Pelican 1938 - 1958 GGCV L86 U86 F86 What I Have I Hold ~ A wonderful bird is the Pelican its beak can hold more than its belly can.