Ron5 wrote: ↑05 Feb 2024, 15:07
new guy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2024, 13:58
Ron5 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2024, 13:51
potential SRB was highlighted.
SRB??
From what I have heard it's a corrosion issue
The way it was explained in the now deleted comments on Navy Lookout, was that some time ago a routine pre-deployment underwater inspection revealed that a cover (fiber glass) on one of the couplings was not seated correctly and seawater had entered the coupling. Maybe the cover had not been reattached correctly after the earlier inspections done as a result of the POW problems. The divers removed the cover and visually inspected underneath. Some pitting was observed but not enough for concern. So they applied the standard fix of painting the corroded parts with heavy anti-corrosion paint and the cover was re-attached. So far so good.
However, since the Afghanistan Nimrod crash, new rules meant that somebody well up the food chain had to be identified as the risk owner and to sign off before the ship could sail. This person, presumably an Admiral, was finally briefed a couple of days ago and he/she pulled the plug on the grounds that a visual inspection was not sufficient to determine if there was catastrophic damage beneath the surface of the coupling e.g. done by Sulfate Reducing Bacteria (SRB).
The NL commentator added a few more inflammatory statements. One was that the coupling "only" had a 10% margin for safety and was not the standard coupling used by the Royal Navy but a new type from Voith. He speculated they were chosen on the basis of lower cost.
Please remember this was all from an anonymous poster and subject to my less than perfect memory.
It does make me think that investing in a QE capable dry dock at Portsmouth would be a great idea. Could also use it for my giant T83 trimarans!
That is very interesting Brings up a couple of questions.
1) If the ship can't sail until agreed by the senior officer, assumed Admiral, has signed off then why was the inspection not carried out sooner. No point in inspecting D-2 if you'll only get the go ahead due to 'paperwork' delays if done on D-14.
2) If there is now this lead time to a go/no go then surely the PR has to also follow the same timeline.
3) Ditto the upkeep\workup required on POW. If she is down as backup then she needs to be ready at the same timeline. What happens in say a week when POW i ready gets a final inspection and is failed too. How will that play in the Daily Wail?
4) If the visual inspec\paint repair isn't good enough why is it being carried out? Where are the procedures so that the risk can be properly dealt with.
5) Why the need to throw VOITH under the bus they're a very successful company making various very robust drivetrain products in various domains.