Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SouthernSky

Junior Member
I wouldn't be reading too much into the comments of Hugh White. A technology transfer is highly possible, a complete vessel, well let's wait and see.

Nuship Canberra, yes she is not quite HMAS just yet, has been back in Melbourne for some time. Unfortunately builders trials weren't without incident, hopefully next month will see her commence final trials before acceptance into the Royal Australian Navy.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Thanks, SouthernSky.

I realize that Canberra is not commissioned yet...what we would call a PCU (Pre-comission Unit). but, what the heck...she will be soon enough so might as well get used to the name.

Anyhow, here's more about the troubles you spoke of:

The following was posted by bd popeye on the Aricraft Carrier thread:

--------------------------------------------------------

Just a small touch of bad news for the Aussies also..:(

Damage to the ship was minimal.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A CIVILIAN contract crew made two serious errors during sea trials for the navy’s biggest ever ship, damaging its hull and melting down electrical systems.

The first of two $1.5 billion 27,000-tonne Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs), to be known as HMAS Canberra, suffered excessive vibration in May during her first “shakedown cruise” between Melbourne and Sydney.

The fault was traced to the brand-new vessel’s two German-built Siemens propulsion pods — or azimuth thrusters — which were out of alignment.

Each thruster, fitted at the stern of the ship, has two propellers mounted on large electric powered pods that can be rotated to any angle, eliminating the need for a rudder. And just like the wheels of a car, poor pod alignment causes vibration.
A crew from Teekay Shipping Corporation was hired by prime contractor BAE Systems and was apparently unaware that the pods must be operated in tandem above eight knots.

They ran them independently in low-speed mode at high speed, causing serious vibration throughout the ship.

“Once the pods were back in the correct mode the vibration ceased,” a project source said.

“It was an operator error and the return journey was much smoother.”

The vibration was generated by cavitation and the bounce produced at the stern rolled across the ship with decks trembling and panels vibrating.

“It was like the shaking floor in an amusement park house of fun,” a source said.

Damage was minimal, but vibration caused paint to be stripped from the ship’s hull directly above the pods.

The crew’s woes continued when Canberra returned to Port Phillip Bay and was forced to drop anchor for four hours after losing steerage following an electrical power failure.

Unfortunately the operators forgot to disconnect the emergency power and when the main power kicked back in the circuit breakers melted.

“There were no major design errors during the trials and both issues were operator errors,” the source said.

“The trial didn’t go as well as hoped, but it was better than expected.”

In addition to the serious errors, excessive corrosion was detected in propeller nuts and a small crack was discovered in the hull of the ship that was caused during its long journey on a barge from the builder in Spain.

The Canberra will be back at sea in July for the next round of trials before she is handed to the Navy later this year.

News of the botched sea trials comes as the government announced it would insert an “experienced shipbuilding management team” into taxpayer-owned shipbuilder ASC in Adelaide to fix the troubled $8.5 billion Air Warfare Destroyer program.

Defence Minister David Johnston and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the team would target productivity and production schedules in a bid to get the controversial three-ship alliance project back on track.

--------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Operator error of this nature...not knowing that the pods had to be run in tandem at high speed, and then forgetting to stop the backup power when going back to normal power have to be pretty embarassing.

Thank goodness no major damage occurred.
 

SouthernSky

Junior Member
What is a navy without tradition Jeff. :)

It is staggering that such a simple error has occurred and questions are no doubt being asked at the highest levels. One can only wonder what was going through the minds of navy personnel on board as they watched a civilian crew shaking their new ship to bits.

In other news, the Australian Government has called for a competitive tender process to replace the navy's replenishment fleet. There's also info in there on the future frigate program which is good to see.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
They have never build a vessel like this before...so I am not surprised that there are some slippages and surprises.

However, in the end, it will be well worth it to the Australian Navy and people.

Having the two Canberras and three of these will allow them to protect their interests in a much more capable way. I just wish they were building four of them.

I personally believe, after spending so much money to do it, that they should keep the four remaining modernized Adelaide frigates and have them augment the Hobarts. I know they plan to decommission them as the Hobarts come online...but IMHO, they should keep them until the new frigate class starts coming out, and then build twelve of the new frigates to replace all of the Adelaides and Anzacs.

That would leave a force (if they followed this advise) of 4 Hobarts, 4 Adelaides, and 8 Anzacs (the last twelve to be replaced by the new frigate), or sixteen major surface combatants.

As it is, the Australian Navy is planning on a total force of eleven...3 Hobarts and 8 Anzacs (to be replaced by 8 new frigates).
 
Last edited:
They have never build a vessel like this before...so I am not surprised that there are some slippages and surprises.

However, in the end, it will be well worth it to the Australian Navy and people.

Having the two Canberras and three of these will allow them to protect their interests in a much more capable way. I just wish they were building four of them.

I personally believe, after spending so much money to do it, that they should keep the four remaining modernized Adelaide frigates and have them augment the Hobarts. I know they plan to decommission them as the Hobarts come online...but IMHO, they should keep them until the new frigate class starts coming out, and then build twelve of the new frigates to replace all of the Adelaides and Anzacs.

That would leave a force (if they followed this advise) of 4 Hobarts, 4 Adelaides, and 8 Anzacs (the last twelve to be replaced by the new frigate), or sixteen major surface combatants.

As it is, the Australian Navy is planning on a total force of eleven...3 Hobarts and 8 Anzacs (to be replaced by 8 new frigates).

Jeff, I like your plan :)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I noticed the Australian Government Debt is relatively very low: if I didn't overlook something here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it would the lowest among major-Western countries (but I don't know if this isn't just some game of numbers or something)
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff, I like your plan :)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Thank you, Jura.

My dream team Navy for the Aussies would be:

02 x Canberra LHDs each with a squadron of eight F-35Bs
04 x Hobart AEGIS destroyers
04 x Adelaide FFGs (to be replaced by four future frigates)
08 x Anzac FFGs (to be replaced by eight future frigates)
06 x Collins SSK (To be replaced by eight Advanced Soryu design derivative AIP SSKs)
06 x Future Heavy Landing Craft (Modern LSM Type)
14 x Armidale class patrol boats
08 x Huon Class MCM vessels
02 x Sirius AOR
01 x Ocean Shield ADV

That's a total future inventory of 57 vessels.

So, SouthernSky, Brumby, and others...what do you think of that? Thjs old Ami is thinking good thoughts about the Australian Navy!
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
These two Charles will do the Aussies well and give them the capability of a Marine Expeditionary unit not the strike component obviously but certainly a huge step forward Australia is really going down under now

Japan and Australia are getting closer and closer and I can envisage a joint marine landing excercise in the future

JMSDF has a huge power and potential they are already modelling a 3,000 marine landing force like the USN Marine Amphibious Assault force to retake islands this means V-22 and F35B

Well decks flat deck and all other decks give much needed capability, V-22 allows motherships to stay further away from the shore hence reducing the anti ship shore based missile threat and is like the long arm to drop troops

Now with F35B they can do SEAD/DEAD and deep strike missions basically no needing a full blown carrier

JMSDF and RAN are two to watch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top