Trials and Tribulations

The headline news across much of the UK media today was that HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH has reportedly sprung a leak during sea trials and will require repairs. This is the cause of woe, despair and misery and is apparently a huge embarrassment for the Royal Navy.

Sea trials are an integral part of a ships life, they are designed to take a complex mechanical creation, built from millions of parts and make sure it all works together as expected without any major problems. The purpose of sea trials is akin to not only testing things work, but also working through the ‘snagging list’ that identifies issues that perhaps didn’t quite work as expected, or where minor issues need tweaking. It also occasionally identifies more serious issues too.

Every warship in modern history has undergone some form of sea trials, and without fail every warship will have identified some form of problem as a result. That HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH has experienced a very minor issue is not remotely unusual or unexpected.

This problem is not particularly serious, the MOD has already explained that it will not impact on her wider programme, and that she will sail as planned. There is no need to dry dock her either, which implies it is an easily fixable issue. The suggestion of a ‘leaking ship’ sounds serious to laymen – after all, hulls are supposed to be watertight, aren’t they? In reality leaking propeller glands are a fairly regular occurrence, and not particularly worrying or serious (a good explanation of how they work and why can be found HERE). 

Already Humphrey has spoken to retired naval officers whose view on this issue is simple – if something as minor as a leak, and one with a very low rate of inflow (apparently less than a power shower produces per hour and which can be drained by a type of pump used in a fishpond costing £6 ), is the worst thing encountered during trials, then the trials are going very well indeed. 

One only has to look back at recent years to see that other ships have had far more unhappy trials periods. For instance, Admiral Woodward wrote during ‘One Hundred Days’ of the tribulations he experienced with HMS SHEFFIELD back in the 1970s, or during WW2 when HMS PRINCE OF WALE went into action with the builders still onboard fixing fundamental problems with her main armament. Every ship has issues, and it sounds like QUEEN ELIZABETHs is extremely minor.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

There will be many who roll their eyes and wonder why Britain is seemingly no longer capable of building warships without them breaking. In fact a quick google highlights a litany of problems – the Australian CANBERRA class experienced issues on initial sea trials which made the Daily Mail (HERE) and yet they are now in service with those problems rectified.

The US Navy ZUMWALT class is also experiencing trials challenges, only last week major electrical problems forced the abandonment of sea trials to resolve electrical issues (HERE), while the USS ZUMWALT experienced mechanical failure just after delivery while in the Panama canal (HERE). The French navy experienced major problems with the CHARLES DE GAULLE, including discovering the flight deck was 4m too short, and experiencing the loss of a propeller too (lengthy account of her trials problems HERE).

Finally, to avoid suggestion that it is merely the West who have problems, the Russians too experienced issues when the post refit trials of the former ADMIRAL GORSHKOV carrier, refitted for India led to major problems as well (HERE) which required extensive rectification and repairs.

The key point here is that these ships all experienced problems, but went on to rectify them and enter service as planned. The issue affecting QUEEN ELIZABETH seems extremely minor, easily fixable and not remotely in the same league of problems that other ships have had. It is a testament to the quality of British shipbuilding skill, and the strength of the CVF design that she has come through trials with only very minor problems.

The battle for the Royal Navy though is pushing this narrative against a media determined to make a minor technical problem into a major PR disaster for the Navy. In the public mindset the front page news today will help set the narrative for the ships early life, regardless of how utterly untrue it is.

Part of this stems from a lack of understanding on the purpose of sea trials, or that faults will occur, but that they are easily fixable. It also stems from the problem that as papers have scrapped their specialist journalists, the days when deep experts like Desmond Wettern could be relied on to provide deep knowledge and understanding, spotting when an issue was a non-event, or equally when what the RN wanted to make out was a non-event was actually a scoop are long gone.

There are some very good journalists writing on Defence issues on Fleet Street today, but it is fair to say that many of them probably didn’t enter journalism to become a defence journalist. Nor, in an era when the bottom line is increasingly important, do they have time to become deep experts on their subjects.

This problem is exacerbated further by the recent culture in the MOD, which appears to have adopted an increasingly fortress like mentality towards journalists, in turn making those who want a story rely on finding sources to give sensationalist headlines. It is hard to escape the sense that the whole structure is broken, there are neither many expert journalists in specialist areas on most papers these days, nor does the MOD cover itself in glory in being accessible or explaining its activity and actions in a manner which helps the public realise what is going on.

Consequently, we have reached a state of affairs where the public think that the QUEEN ELIZABETH is a late, leaking and broken white elephant without any planes. To challenge this assumption, to point out that she is an astonishingly capable warship, a testament to the sheer ability of UK industry and will be a world beating asset that is the envy of nations and navies around the world for decades to come is to invite ridicule on social media.

As the year of the Navy draws to a close, it is frustrating to see a self inflicted wound like this grace the front page of the papers. A very minor issue, which highlights how well trials have gone, suddenly catapulted to national prominence as part of a narrative of national decline. This then adds to the wider perspective of completely unrelated issues like the Type 45 propulsion issue to make people question what we have a Navy for.

The thing is though that other Navies will look to the RN and think ‘bloody hell, a 65k tonne carrier and the worst they’ve got is a minor leak on the propeller seal – why can’t we be as good as the Royal Navy when it comes to building our ships?’ It is a shame that the British population are unable to see things in the same way.