FILE IMAGE: royalnavy.mod.uk
The Royal Navy’s brand new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, has been taking on up to 200 liters of seawater every hour due to a problem with one of its propeller shafts, according to media reports.
The leak developed by the future flagship of the Royal Navy about two weeks after it was officially commissioned by the Queen. According to The Telegraph, the problem is so serious that the aircraft carrier may need to go back into dry dock and cost millions to repair.
“An issue with a shaft seal has been identified during HMS Queen Elizabeth’s sea trials; this is scheduled for repair while she is alongside at Portsmouth,” a Navy spokesman said adding that the fault does not prevent it from sailing again early next year.
The £3.1 billion ($4.1 billion) carrier is 280-meter-long. It weighs 65,000 tons and has a top speed of 25 knots. This is the biggest ship in the Royal Navy.
Import cheap labor, produce cheap products.
Cheap labor, expensive price, cheap products.
And they thought that Russian carrier is a joke.
The Kuznetsov is a joke, the UK carrier will just be fixed.
In Soviet Russia jokes are seaworthy and have fighter planes.
The Kuznetsov cannot conduct carrier operations, dude, it is an “aircraft ferry”. It brought the aircraft to Syria and could not fo much else.
Now you won’t see it active again for a long time, probably.
And this royal joke can’t even manage to top that.
Now you won’t see it active a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶ for a long time, probably.
To those that are saying that the Kuznetsov can’t run carrier operations, what pray tell were they doing in Syria? They did have problems with their arresting cable, which caused the Russians to transfer their planes to their airbase in Syria. But to say that this is not a functioning AC is inaccurate and disingenuous, as they do fly missions from it. The Kuznetsov has it’s issues, but they do not compare to the issues that the US and UK have been having with their equipment. The Kuznetsov is more of a floating test-bed, a vision of the future of naval aircraft, dedicated to be more agile and strategically offensive than todays western counterparts, not a dying monolith, which requires it’s own dedicated navy for survival. The roles are very different for both types of carriers. One is for massive long term engagements and air superiority, requiring a VERY large contingent of support ($$$), the other is more tactical, providing protection of convoys as well as land attack capability from it’s aircraft and Kalibr missiles for even more strategic and quicker response. It also has a much smaller footprint, as it were, and a much smaller operational cost. Comparing these two is almost an apples/oranges argument, as the roles are so different. The Russian approach is more tilted towards the needs of the future. Strategic attack ability vs over-whelming occupying force.
Facts never stopped various “patriots” from praising their own turd and looking down on the rest of the world. Making fun of them won’t either, but it’s worths doing just for laughs.
I am a big fan of British humor and this whole ordeal looks like Monty Python’s sketch to me.
Based on it’s appearance the UK Elizabeth have no adequate anti air defense means they’d need to be escorted all the time. Sure such is Aircraft carrier since all big ships would need escort anyway the question is would the UK got enough money to support such expensive cost per it’s deployment ? Not to mention soon to be employed queen hangars F35 ? UK didn’t have USA, China, and Russia landmass and natural resources to generate sufficient wealth for it’s service.
Then again the ship can just be made a tag along ships.
Proper aircraft carriers operate within a carrier strike group. That’s why the Kuznetsov is just an aircraft-carrying cruiser and not a proper carrier.
My point exactly. Say can you find just what’s really wrong in moving all assets in one big group and possibly just to get at one objective ? Did you really think the warplanes alone can get all the things done ? What about the enemies warplanes ?
The UK’s problem is that it has a large appetite, but is not willing to pay for it. It wants to be a major player on the globe, have aircraft carriers and all, but no UK government, Tory or Labour for that matter, seems willing to pay for it. So they disband some units here, sell some equipment there, cut some corners overall and the UK’s armed forces keep muddling through.
It probably wouldn’t be half as bad if only the UK had a defense procurement system as broken as that of the US. Only difference is, the US MOD has got cash to burn, the UK MOD has to operate on peanuts.
On a sidenote, isn’t it sad that the country that invented the aircraft carrier, and all its major innovations, like the landing mirror and the angled deck, and then the VTOL carrier, seems to have such bad luck ordering and operating them?
As for the comparisons with the Kuznetsov, yeah, the Russian navy did not exactly cover itself in glory in its recent deployment. But that is to be expected after 25 years of neglecting the damn thing. The Russian navy just had a million other things to fix, and other then an object of prestige the Kuznetsov just does not warrant shifting funding priorities for it. It’s an old vessel, far better for the RuN to invest in new assets that can bring more bang for the buck. At least the QE’s problems can be fixed for a reasonable amount. Those are probably the easiest problems to fix. Considering the QE does not have catapults, which will be expensive to install, it will now by bound to using the F-35B for a long time to come. Which will probably not be a cheap aircraft to operate. So the RN can expect high operating costs for the floating and the flying lemon.
joke + tragedy together
Joke yes, tragedy no.
It is a tragedy that the UK wastes so much badly needed cash and a 700 crew on a ‘toy’ that will likely only see action against ‘ tribes with bows and arrows’. Most developed nations have rather accurate and fast missiles now that can readily hit a massive carrier :)
There is so much old infrastructure that needs developing in the UK rather than weapons of the 20th century.
ypu fpcus better on russia, you primitive commie! you have 6 commodities, what yu are able to produce. Uk has 6 thousand. shw me world-wide famous russian cars, electronics, etc. 3rd world country is russia, dying, declining, without furute. :( and do you know why? because 9 of 10 russians are so stupid like you, jesus, tuodr. who take every lie, what tall liliputin.
..and still no planes for it to carry. Never mind. Someone must have made a fortune!
The UK is an arch nemesis of all different people groups throughout the world!
All must unite to unravel the Empire from within where ever the UK is encountered.
200 litres/hour isn’t much. I’d like to know how much leakage there was expected to be because no ship has perfectly sealed propellor shafts. 200 litres minus whatever the ship was expected to leak and there you have the extent of the problem. In any case for a ship this size, it’s minimal.
This isn’t really a technical issue (sea trials are ment to discover problems), but more of a political/financial/reputation one. This ship is primarily a show off of power and might.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42406138
“The Royal Navy is trying to play down the problem, after first trying to hide it. It is clearly embarrassing. They have known about the problem for some time but they did not want it to get in the way of the commissioning ceremony in front of the Queen.”
Is it a U-boat !
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabeth-a-large-and-convenient-media-target/
Routine teething problems for a new ship… nothing to see here… move on!