Subscribe
Notify of
guest
55 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rick

Daily Express should print this article in their newspaper and stop being irresponsible!

Captain

DE likes these types of stories. The damage is done.

Captain

So this defence ‘blog’ is playing catch up? I see you are defending the indefensible. The carrier has a major defect and yet this is being put forward as ‘nothing major, nothing nusual’.
I find it funny that defence bloggers who don’t have a clue about military matters make it into well read newspapers.
There is a major problem with the carriers and it will be problem after problem for the next 10 years. Type 45 issues x 10.

Rick

How do you know it’s a major problem? Post your credentials and lets have a look.

Captain

“The owners of the site are informed and interested civilians”
I think the site should do that first, don’t you?

Rick

Your making comments that you claim are fact without having done any investigative analysis.

Mark

A leaking stern seal on a propeller shaft hardly constitutes a major defect! it is about as much of a major defect as having a slow puncture on a tyre on your car
That’s why it is on sea trials so these minor issues can be sorted.
you state that there is a major problem with the carriers, how do you know this? we have one minor issue with the first of class the other one is still being built so how can it have a fault?

Captain

Where did you read that, from a certain blogger?

Mark

No I didn’t! but please point me in the right direction as we must be on the same wavelength
It is there in the article what the defect is and it is not hard to put this in to context.
You have failed to enlighten the rest of us on what you think the faults are?
Is this going to be based on fact or just your assumptions that because the Type 45 has had issues (which are replicated around the world in nearly every complex new warship look at the issues the US are having with the Ford Class carriers, the Zumwalt Destroyers, the French have had major issues with the Charles de Gaulle etc) the QE Class will be flawed as well

David

What a dramatic load of pig swill. If you think the Daily Express or The Sun are reputable papers you’re willing to hang your hat on I suggest you go and submerge yourself in the 200 litres of salt water on the QE, you can then experience how quick you’ll be pumped out to sea and we can get some rest from your drivel.

Captain

I apologize for upsetting you David, you seem like a delicate chap.

David Stephen

And you sir, seem like a twat.

Danny

I was on a certain H.M. Ship in the 70s at sea whilst off the south coast of England when there was an almighty bang and the ship juddered from one end to the other. We limped into Falmouth bay and sent the ships divers down to investigate. It was found that one of the (A) brackets supporting one of the prop shafts had broken free and the prop shaft was just dangling free. That is what I call a major defect. So put that in your pipe and smoke it Popeye.

David Stephen

Can you not read? Captain of what? Not a ship if you think this is a major problem. Captain underpants perhaps?

Levers_Aligned

It isn’t a major defect. Are you aware of the navy’s Operational Defect reporting system, of have vision of it’s details? Do you have full understanding about the Type 45 over and above what you read on the internet and in newspapers? I’d wager ‘no’ to both. Take it from me (who is ‘yes’ to both) you are wrong.

MOBI57

Captain……..of the heads
It seems apparent by your comments that you must have spent many years at sea as a marine engineer……….NOT
Well I have and about 4 of those years I spent on an aircraft carrier and I can assure you that this is “par for the course” for a a new ship, particularly it being first of the class……and the problem can apply to ALL ships, whether merchant ships or warships
……..amd that is both new and old ships

Ronald Lockley

It seems to me that the media have no idea on issues of defence especially when it comes to ships and the Royal Navy. It is my opinion that there should be a defence newspaper, not the official ones such as the Navy News for the Royal Navy but an independent one that can get to the bottom of issues and represent the men and women of the armed forces without having their name or number published.
As for the problem of water in the carrier. First is HMS Queen Elizabeth is a prototype, I know that sounds strange but any new ship when going on trials is going through that testing phase that aircraft, cars etc do behind the scenes and before they go into production. Second, it is expected that during trials there will be faults, that is what the trials are for. The big problem that we have is the media, it makes mountains out of mole hills undermining the confidence and moral of the Royal Navy. Also it seems that the public and media want defence on the cheap, but at the same time they want every type of the latest equipment now.
Possibly if the public was willing to have there taxes increased to pay for the equipment that the armed forces need then more ships would be built, giving more experience to the ship designers and builders meaning that the overall cost would come down whilst increasing the reliability in the initial phases of the ships life.

Captain

I agree with you on the media, tabloid newspapers being tabloid newspapers, they need a story to sell, however defence blogs – some of which are secretly run or influenced by industry – cloud the water and many seem to come out on the defensive, suspiciously hard. “Don’t say a bad word about the navy or the ships.”
Ssssshhh! The ships are fine.

Captain

Forgive me but I was not suggesting that your site is one of those, but there are a few and a large number of bloggers as well.

David Stephen

So go bother them then.

Alan

There isn’t any ship in the world that doesn’t suffer from water ingress in some fashion, that’s what bilges and bilge pumps are for, and before you spout off on my credentials i am ex RN. Get racked off with all the leftie snowflake negativity

Captain

Where is this ‘snowflake’ negativity?
Most of what is out there is from center right newspapers. The fact the MoD need to use defence bloggers is also an issue.

Nath

Easy on the leftie comments. I’m a labour voter but a huge supporter of our military, being ex military. I ain’t no snowflake either.

Captain

The ‘snowflake’ label is overused by uneducated people I feel.

Peter O\'Toole

“How can we be rid of this meddlesome priest”

Nath

I agree. Also typical of our glorious uneducated press. This so called leak really is a storm in a tea cup.

GFOR

As is the title Captain it seems.
You are clearly rather clueless about maritime matters if you believe that 200 litres per hour of water ingress through a shaft seal is a major problem.
And yes, before you ask, I do know what I’m talking about.

James Craig

Here here Alan.i concur.over 27 yrs in RN.7 ships ALL had them leaks…zulu. antrim
Plymouth cleopatra bildeston.Hermes. Antrimx2.all different ships as You know all same probs

David Stephen

The ship in question is fine you fool. Criticism is fine when justified but in this case it is unwarranted. You sound paranoid.

Mark

Fully agree, I found the following on line which is a report showing that the current Queen Elizabeth isnt the first ship in the RN to have a few issues when brand new, this is from 1915 and is for the last HMS Queen Elizabeth which served this country very well during 2 world wars.
A few issues should not be taken out of context or dramatised!
“Passage to Mediterranean after Acceptance Trials
Took part in bombardment of Turkish shore targets during Dardanelles operations. Sank enemy transport.
Returned to UK for repair of defective turbine and joined Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow.”
NO ONE WAS JUMPING UP AND DOWN SAYING HER ENGINES WERE RUBBISH

4thwatch

Not sure when she completed trials but by June 1916 she was back in dockyard hands and so missed the Battle of Jutland. She was Beatty’s flagship and if she had been with the fleet it is possible she would have led the battle cruisers and history would probably have been entirely different.

Jim

Top quality article here that gives all the answers to those who moan and complain. This is a new ship, of a new type, in a new age of Naval warfare, and, for whatever reason, we haven’t built a Fleet Carrier for more than a generation. Sea trials are undertaken to resolve issues before operational service. That is their function and that is what is happening.

Don

The Media reaction is like Corporal Jones From Dad’s Army . The Volume of water equivalent from someone leaving a tap running is apparently a major issue.
A little perspective is needed. This is what bilges are for.
Perhaps a headline like
SEAL OPERATES AT INCREASED LEVEL OF OPERATING SPECIFICATION . PUMP EASILY REMOVE 3 LITRES OF WATER.
Wouldn’t sell many copies.

Sam

This leak is minor in the extreme. The Type 45s problems are far more deserving of attention as they have been loosing power and have had to be towed home 🙁 My qualms with the QE class stem from its lack of armaments…with a dwindling escort fleet I believe the QE should have had some VLS cells and maybe some 76mm DP guns (Oto Melara Strales?) So she could defend herself to some extent. 3 CIWS Phalanx isnt going to cut it these days…even the Invincibles had Sea Dart

Mark

I agree the Type 45 problems could be resolved easily if the government funded the repairs properly, we have state of the art warships which when they work are highly regarded (they could do with increase in there firepower though) and are left languishing in port because of lack of crews and the engine problems (as I stated above this is not unique the to RN, lots of warships are struggling with electrical power issues)
I have to disagree on the lack of armament on the QE, no carrier should be reliant on its own armaments for defence, like the US this ship should be operated in carrier battle group with appropriate escorts for the mission in hand, given the criminal lack of funding by this and previous governments from both sides of the commons I suspect we will be dependent on ships from our allies to bolster the protection of QE
Just one further point the Sea Dart system was removed for the Invincible class in the 1990’s

Sam

In regards to the carriers weapons I was suggesting supplimental weapons to add more layers to the onion of layered defence 🙂 Also a Carrier with VLS could reload its own missiles at sea which unfortunately Destroyers cannot (As the US Navy has found). Also with VLS the Carriers could help deal with Air threats and Carry ASROC. The Gerald Ford class supercarrier carrys her own ESSM RIM67 and SeaRAM RIM 116 missiles

Mark

Sam good point, I stand corrected. sadly I doubt any funds will be found for this though

Sam

No problem 🙂 Money saving is a priority over protecting expensive assets these days….the crew then the ship arethe assets in question and in that order. I would rather loose a ship than loose 1000 sailors…ships can be replaced 😉

Knotty Ash

”the RN’s biggest concern is over the source of a leak to the press, rather than a routine, repairable leak on a ship.”
This part of the article is the point that I was contemplating yesterday. I know that the modern RN needs to allow personal communications unlike any that I was used to in my day (79 – 85). To be honest I find it incomprehensible that so much communication technology is allowed to be used by those in the forces but there is no turning the clocks back and I can’t see young lads and lasses joining up if they know that their mobiles will be taken from them.
However, surely all personnel sign the ‘Official Secrets Act’ and would be due a good keel hauling if it was found that a serving sailor leaked this either to their family or the press!
I know that this is not a major defect but the sailors aboard H.M. Ship QE have a responsibility to the RN in ensuring that negative news articles such as this never see the light of day.

For St George

To put this in perspective, my garden pond pump can pump 6000 litres per hour . The QE leaks 200 per hour!!!!!!!

Iqbal Ahmed

Technical issues a for such a complex and large vessel will be ongoing. As long as they don’t impinge on operations, these problems have to be tolerated.

Rick

Your knowledge of marine engineering equals my knowledge of flying a spaceship, . . . ZERO!

Iqbal Ahmed

There are no experts on this site. Only armchair admirals and hobbyists.

David Stephen

That is a bold and sweeping statement Iqbal. Are you sure?

Levers_Aligned

*draws up deckchair*
Oh boy. Really? I mean, really?
I’m willing to trade you hard cash I know more than you about the specific equipment, it’s operating envelope and limitations, how it was fitted, who fitted it and what the cause of this defect is and how it is gonna be fixed.

Levers_Aligned

Or rectified. Engineers do this.

Steve

ohhhh…thanks for that….excellent knowledge displayed!!!?

Levers_Aligned

Great article. Well written. Just as an aside, note that any ‘news’ report starts with ‘£3.1bn’. The inference is of course that a. it is a waste of money, b. ACA are coining it in from the taxpayer, c. HMG are an unknowing, incompetent bunch, d. the money spent has come straight from the (i) NHS, (ii) schools (iii) police (iv) some other poor unfortunate. There’s never much mention that both ships will increase our capability in Strike, LitM and Humanitarian theatres. No hint that it came in on time (with planned delays, courtesy of the financial crisis) on budget (despite numerous dog-legs) and provided thousands … and I mean thousands of skilled workers the opportunity to earn and return by taxation and other means their capital back into the economy of south east Scotland in particular. No mention either that the (budgeted from Defence Spending) cost of £6n spent over thirty, forty even fifty years will be money well spent. Noting about the marvels of a fifth generation warship, a truly amazing feat of mechanical, electrical, electronic and aviation engineering to match the much discredited HS2 or London’s own Crossrail. But, that’s journalists though, isn’t it. Corn fed, university led and safe in their own comfy existence whilst someone else watches their six o’clock. And that’s all I have to say about this, for now. Thanks, Save the Royal Navy. I thought you lot were saving it from it’s own paymasters but it seems the real enemy is sometimes elsewhere than Whitehall.

Rick

Absolutely bang on, couldn’t have said it better myself.
!

Marcus Gibson

‘An irresistible target for media criticism’? Yes, I’m ex-FT, etc, and I fear it is fully merited. First, the two giant carriers were ordered in the dying weeks of Gordon Brown’s disastrous, luckless premiership – to be built in his own constituency, under a contract that was deliberately written so it was too expensive to cancel. And, as my Nigerian friends tell me – ‘and you think we are corrupt!’
With long-range strike aircraft, missiles and drones now available, ships of this size are little more than ‘missile bait’, and wouldn’t survive a concerted attack in coastal waters. It would be the Battle of Midway all over again. Today, small size and manoeuvrability are beautiful. The funding required to maintain and fund operations of these vessels will suck out all of the tiny remaining RN funding for other warships. Similarly, HS2 costs will bankrupt the rail budget for a generation.
And all of this – on borrowed money.

Marcus Gibson

Our new carriers have not one but two command ‘islands’. Why, no one seems to know. Jokers in the builder’s dockyard, looking at HMS Prince of Wales, have nicknamed them ‘Diana’ and ‘Camilla’. Which one is the foremost? Opinions differ..

Rick

Everyone knows the forward island is for ship navigation and the aft island is for flight operations control.
Are you daft?

Jeff

Are you saying it doesn’t have a stuffing box on the shaft along with a split coupling ? Wow ! I ran many a shaft, the vacuum draft from the wheels pull the water out of the bilge. You can take the caps off while your running at 1200 rpm !