Future Carrier (Including Costs)
"The bolt heads originally came off due to over-tightening."
Not that MoD is in any position to make adverse comment....
RIP Flt Lt Sean Cunningham.
The following 2 users liked this post by tucumseh:
MOD absolutely has the right to be pissed about this
Last edited by rattman; 1st Feb 2023 at 21:01.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 1st Feb 2023 at 21:24.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
UK Royal Navy ‘confident’ a starboard propeller problem on aircraft carrier not a class-wide issue 01 Feb 2023 Tim Martin
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/...ss-wide-issue/
"Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, a UK defense committee heard.... Based on “appropriate checks” on starboard and port shafts from sister ship, the Queen Elizabeth, “we’re confident that there is not a class issue with the carriers,” said Rear Admiral Paul Marshall,... The Prince of Wales port shaft is also undergoing repair, in conjunction with the carrier’s starboard fault, said Marshall, during a Jan. 31 UK defense committee hearing. Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, he said...."
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/...ss-wide-issue/
"Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, a UK defense committee heard.... Based on “appropriate checks” on starboard and port shafts from sister ship, the Queen Elizabeth, “we’re confident that there is not a class issue with the carriers,” said Rear Admiral Paul Marshall,... The Prince of Wales port shaft is also undergoing repair, in conjunction with the carrier’s starboard fault, said Marshall, during a Jan. 31 UK defense committee hearing. Once the repairs conclude, the 72,000-ton ship will return to base in Portsmouth to undergo planned maintenance and “re-join operations” in fall 2023, he said...."
Both shafts being repaired - I'm glad it doesn't affect all the other members of the class..............
You misconstrue.
Yes, it is right that MoD be annoyed over the bolt being overtightened, the head snapped off, and glued back on.
My point, that you missed, was that MoD directed, permitted and defended far worse in the Cunningham case.
The technicians who worked on his ejection seat were not trained to the necessary standards. They were given an illegal instruction to (a) ignore mandated air publications, (b) ignore Martin-Baker instructions, and (c) invalidate previous certification and then falsely declare its renewal. Having been provided with the correct tools by Martin-Baker, they chose not to use them, and this was permitted. Using the wrong tools, incorrectly, rendered both nut and bolt scrap, but they did not declare this.
The Health and Safety Executive declared all this ‘irrelevant’ to the Judge. MoD did not demur.
MoD is calling for a full investigation in the submarine case. Quite right, but this also exposes double standards. At the moment, there is one obvious difference between the cases. Both involved intent, but at the operator level on the sub, and at a very senior level in the RAF/MoD. Both involved safety critical systems. One resulted in a death, and a root cause of the accident had happened before when killing another Red Arrows pilot. Oddly, there has been no call by MoD for a full investigation in the Cunningham case.
Thank you NAB.
The following 2 users liked this post by tucumseh:
Someone help me out here.....since when does gluing a Bolt Head to a sheared bolt shank constitute an acceptable engineering practice in the UK....in ANY APPLICATION?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
The following users liked this post:
Someone help me out here.....since when does gluing a Bolt Head to a sheared bolt shank constitute an acceptable engineering practice in the UK....in ANY APPLICATION?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
As it involved a nuclear power plant on a Boomer.....a national asset worth Billions included a major part of the Nuclear Deterrent of Great Britain.....not to mention the Lives of the Crew.....why is there but a single unified outcry for some Heads on a Pikes?
Tecumseh knows what he is talking about but even that is a whole different kettle of fish compared to the Submarine debacle.
Tragic as losing a single Life is due to shoddy maintenance.....potentially losing a Boomer and causing a nuclear disaster to include the loss of its nuclear tipped missiles and over a hundred Lives of the Crew alone.....the two incidents are orders of magnitude apart in the potential for loss.
Or am I missing something here?
A Life was lost in the Cunningham Tragedy because the failure was not caught or was caught and covered up. Was any punishment meted out as a result?
The Submarine fault was found and acted upon thus preventing a very serious situation from happening. Shall there be any punishment meted out?
From what I've seen - while not condoning what had been done - this is a tertiary element of the system, not subject to pressure, so not a direct safety risk. I'd bet it was executed by a sub-contractor firm to Babcock who probably won't be on the approved supplier list much longer......
SASLess - Concur. The company took the hit despite the Judge listing eight reasons why they were not guilty of the charge. To my knowledge, no action taken against MoD participants.
I agree with the sentiment - no more contracts for the company involved. Unfortunately these days that's likely to be a political decision. The example I think of is the 2006 total recall and destruction of HF radio batteries (lack of which caused deaths), and the directive to contract the same company for the replacements. That MIGHT have been something to do with an ex-Minister non-executive Director, but I couldn't possibly comment.
But assuming the person, or perhaps the team /shift he/she was a member of, can be identified, what to do? The obvious answer is to, at least, inspect every single bolt, and everything else that person/team has worked on. Who's going to sign-off on anything less? A well-known ploy here is for the company to work out how long that will take, suggest to MoD an unrelated design change (software update is a favourite) that will take slightly longer, agree the contract amendment for that (meaning MoD is liable for delay), and then announce the delay caused by the original problem ('but it's okay, the programme doesn't slip').
They'd probably got some people in from the Araldite mafia on the Clyde - who have form for this sort of thing.
From what I've seen - while not condoning what had been done - this is a tertiary element of the system, not subject to pressure, so not a direct safety risk. I'd bet it was executed by a sub-contractor firm to Babcock who probably won't be on the approved supplier list much longer......
From what I've seen - while not condoning what had been done - this is a tertiary element of the system, not subject to pressure, so not a direct safety risk. I'd bet it was executed by a sub-contractor firm to Babcock who probably won't be on the approved supplier list much longer......
But assuming the person, or perhaps the team /shift he/she was a member of, can be identified, what to do? The obvious answer is to, at least, inspect every single bolt, and everything else that person/team has worked on. Who's going to sign-off on anything less? A well-known ploy here is for the company to work out how long that will take, suggest to MoD an unrelated design change (software update is a favourite) that will take slightly longer, agree the contract amendment for that (meaning MoD is liable for delay), and then announce the delay caused by the original problem ('but it's okay, the programme doesn't slip').
problem is once one contractor starts doing short-cuts................. the standard is broken and gradually the whole operation descends to the shoddy
"Someone help me out here.....since when does gluing a Bolt Head to a sheared bolt shank constitute an acceptable engineering practice in the UK....in ANY APPLICATION?""
I think is absolutely correct - I'd be p***** off if someone did it on my old Ford never mind a submarine
"Someone help me out here.....since when does gluing a Bolt Head to a sheared bolt shank constitute an acceptable engineering practice in the UK....in ANY APPLICATION?""
I think is absolutely correct - I'd be p***** off if someone did it on my old Ford never mind a submarine
As a self-taught DIY-er in my retirement, modestly competent except that I will not touch electrics, I read the glue-bolt saga and decided that I knew nothing about it, life on Mars, perhaps normal practice somewhere somehow.
Thus I am glad that others are dumbfounded.
Surely the spec. called for correct torque and specified the bolt material and strength?
Thus I am glad that others are dumbfounded.
Surely the spec. called for correct torque and specified the bolt material and strength?
one would hope so.................... 
As an actual occurence the bolts probably have a standard that >x psi so it doesn't and <y so you dont shear the bolt. To me its not that they sheared bolts, people with power tools can be dumb. Its the intentional coverup, have they covered up anything if so what
The following 2 users liked this post by rattman:
They'd probably got some people in from the Araldite mafia on the Clyde - who have form for this sort of thing.
Swan Hunters on the Tyne were also practitioners of this technique as well. It was found on a major warship now scrapped, that the Geordies had employed someone to guillotine the heads off screws, so they could be glued on. It would likely have saved more time and effort just drilling the pilot holes in the first place.
Fortunately I joined MoD in a period when the warime ethos [WW II] lingered on, 1950s to 1970s, and the quality of checking and inspection and supervision was exacting.
Quotes from supervisors, directed at me:
when the wind reported is 270/10, you plot 270, not 290 or 250.
A milliabar error is 30 feet and that could kill an aircrew
You don't even think of knocking off until the last one has taxied in]
You don't even think of knocking off until relieved
Never ever be late for briefing. Ever.
If you want to be 10% better at your job, you need 100% more effort.
Check and be checked.
Simple stuff, called integrity
Most people unwilling or unable to meet these standards were moved to an HQ day job, where they could do less harm.
I think LB has identified the problem throughout the UK at the moment. Leaders / managers / supervisors are not prepared to make themselves unpopular by enforcing those sort of standards. Maybe it’s something to do with social media but I am sure that’s part of what’s wrong at the top of the RAF and I suspect it may be the case elsewhere as well.
The following 2 users liked this post by Timelord:
I think it's only fair to point out parallels in aviation.
Chinook ZA721, 7 killed, 1987. Hole not drilled in actuator during manufacture to receive split pin that would prevent it unwinding, leading to loss of control.
Chinook ZD576, 29 killed, 1994. Two holes drilled in related actuator, for one split pin, weakening structure.
Evidence presented by RAF 1 Star (with integrity) that no action was taken, in order to protect Boeing. Later confirmed by MoD, although saying 'to preserve UK/US relations'. I wonder if the same will happen to preserve Babcock relations?
langleybaston - "Quality of checking and inspection and supervision". Spot on (and in the correct order!). Seemingly, MoD no longer requires any of them. Certainly, the concept of gaining qualifications in the first two (against both MoD and civil regs), followed by experience of the third, is an alien concept in today's definition of a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person.
Chinook ZA721, 7 killed, 1987. Hole not drilled in actuator during manufacture to receive split pin that would prevent it unwinding, leading to loss of control.
Chinook ZD576, 29 killed, 1994. Two holes drilled in related actuator, for one split pin, weakening structure.
Evidence presented by RAF 1 Star (with integrity) that no action was taken, in order to protect Boeing. Later confirmed by MoD, although saying 'to preserve UK/US relations'. I wonder if the same will happen to preserve Babcock relations?
langleybaston - "Quality of checking and inspection and supervision". Spot on (and in the correct order!). Seemingly, MoD no longer requires any of them. Certainly, the concept of gaining qualifications in the first two (against both MoD and civil regs), followed by experience of the third, is an alien concept in today's definition of a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person.
Swan Hunters on the Tyne were also practitioners of this technique as well. It was found on a major warship now scrapped, that the Geordies had employed someone to guillotine the heads off screws, so they could be glued on. It would likely have saved more time and effort just drilling the pilot holes in the first place.
I presume we're talking the "Bristol" maybe
Anyway - do you have source for this story as it s news to me.............................
Oh! No!
Come on people, get your arse in gear.
D Tel:The drinking water on board a Royal Navy ship has become contaminated, with at least one sailor hospitalised.
HMS Portland, a Type 23 frigate, was diverted to Portsmouth on Friday after "an issue with one of the ship's fresh water systems", the Royal Navy said.
At least one sailor has been taken to Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth presenting symptoms, The Telegraph understands.
A Navy source confirmed that the "poisoning" of the water happened after the wrong chemicals were put into it.
The mistake was quickly flagged by the individual involved and sources last night praised them for their "integrity" in coming forwards which "undoubtedly reduced the consequences".
A source told The Telegraph: "The individual made a mistake and informed their chain of command. It's really unfortunate, and their integrity should be acknowledged."
A Royal Navy spokesman said: "We can confirm that HMS Portland has returned to HMNB Portsmouth as a precautionary measure, following an issue with one of the ship’s fresh water systems.
Come on people, get your arse in gear.
D Tel:The drinking water on board a Royal Navy ship has become contaminated, with at least one sailor hospitalised.
HMS Portland, a Type 23 frigate, was diverted to Portsmouth on Friday after "an issue with one of the ship's fresh water systems", the Royal Navy said.
At least one sailor has been taken to Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth presenting symptoms, The Telegraph understands.
A Navy source confirmed that the "poisoning" of the water happened after the wrong chemicals were put into it.
The mistake was quickly flagged by the individual involved and sources last night praised them for their "integrity" in coming forwards which "undoubtedly reduced the consequences".
A source told The Telegraph: "The individual made a mistake and informed their chain of command. It's really unfortunate, and their integrity should be acknowledged."
A Royal Navy spokesman said: "We can confirm that HMS Portland has returned to HMNB Portsmouth as a precautionary measure, following an issue with one of the ship’s fresh water systems.
Thread Starter
The BBC are currently showing a six part documentary based aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth during the CSG21 deployment - which included the embarkation of USMC jets as well as the RN/RAF ones. Like all naval documentaries it has included things such as people working in the galley, the watchkeepers on the bridge, firefighting and first aid training, close range gunnery, and sailors having to deal with gash.
Like many documentaries I have seen about US Navy carriers, it has included aircraft launches and recoveries, the aircraft being marshalled on deck, and replenishment at sea - the nuclear powered carriers still need supplying with aviation fuel, weapons, and provisions.
The second episode was shown on BBC2 on Sunday 29 January, and featured things such as F-35B Lightnings being launched on missions against terrorists in Syria and into the Black Sea, jets being launched in response to approaching Russian aircraft under the control of one of the destroyers, and Merlins being launched for surface search and for ASW - presumably cued by one of the frigates. The talk (by the Strike Group staff types) was of 'protecting the force', as opposed to the over simplified 'protecting the carrier'.
The fourth episode (Sunday 12 February) featured ASW.
The detection of a possible submarine by HMS Richmond and the use of sonobuoys by the Merlin reminds me of comment by a former USN aviator that a surface warship going active on sonar (particularly LFAS) gives the game away to the submarine looking for the task group. Whilst going active with your towed array allows you to cue the ASW helicopter with dipping sonar, passive detection means a larger search area, so dipping sonar is less useful.
Like many documentaries I have seen about US Navy carriers, it has included aircraft launches and recoveries, the aircraft being marshalled on deck, and replenishment at sea - the nuclear powered carriers still need supplying with aviation fuel, weapons, and provisions.
The second episode was shown on BBC2 on Sunday 29 January, and featured things such as F-35B Lightnings being launched on missions against terrorists in Syria and into the Black Sea, jets being launched in response to approaching Russian aircraft under the control of one of the destroyers, and Merlins being launched for surface search and for ASW - presumably cued by one of the frigates. The talk (by the Strike Group staff types) was of 'protecting the force', as opposed to the over simplified 'protecting the carrier'.
The fourth episode (Sunday 12 February) featured ASW.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Feb 2023 at 23:08.