HMAS Canberra damaged in sea trials

[bob10]

First I've heard of this, Bob




by: By Ian McPhedran national defence writer
From: News Corp Australia
June 04, 2014 11:30PM





https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1374.jpg
Damaged ... the largest ship ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra, passes through Sydney Heads for the first time. Source: Supplied



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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1375.jpg
Serious errors ... workers at BAE Systems, Williamstown Dockyards fitting out the first of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ships, HMAS Canberra. Source: News Limited




“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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1376.jpg
Trial goes wrong ... on the largest ship ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra. Source: Supplied




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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1377.jpg
The largest ship ... ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra, entered Sydney Harbour for the first time during the contractor sea trials and testing program. Source: Supplied




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.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

which Bob?
the ship or the stuff up?:D

[Pedro_The_Swift]

so, the Air Force will be right for Fighters,
The Navy will be able to fly off Helicopters(and be protected Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) | Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/awd))

what does the Army get?

[Pedro_The_Swift]

are these the type of thing under Canberra?
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1399.jpg

[bob10]

so, the Air Force will be right for Fighters,
The Navy will be able to fly off Helicopters(and be protected Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) | Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/awd))

what does the Army get?


Mud, dust, & hurry up & wait, as usual, Bob
:p

[lyonsy]

actually the army operates 12 or so of its new helicopters off the each of the LHD's so between 24-30 will be committed to the LHD's so the navy doesn't have its entire structure based around the LHD's like it use to with the Melbourne due to the cost of running them and the helicopters.

[bob10]

are these the type of thing under Canberra?
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1399.jpg


I believe so Pedro. I don't know whether it is just me, but I would worry about radical course changes at speed, which naval ships are wont to do, those pods would have to have the very best bearing set up, a lot of weight down there. But, I'm sure they know what their doing. One thing for sure, they wont be able to mask the turn count on that ship. Bob

[Barefoot Dave]

They get Air conditioning, power steering, an automatic transmission, fording mode and lots of rest time as they wait for the technicians to get the bloody thing running again!
:wasntme:

[Phil HH]

To me both of these problems WERE caused by design errors. The very fact that the propulsion pods COULD operate independently at greater than 8 knots is a flaw. Even on a (relatively) cheap Jap car with 4 wheel steering, the 4WS is designed to cancel itself at greater than parking speeds.

The same applies to the stuffup with the electrical power supplies. A proper design would have made provision for a safe (and foolproof) changeover from emergency to main supply. Even a domestic house with an emergency power supply as well as a mains supply must have an interlock that prevents the two supplies being connected in parallel.

A good design would preclude operator error.


Another case of fundamental orifice covering an a grand scale.

[Bigbjorn]

so, the Air Force will be right for Fighters,
The Navy will be able to fly off Helicopters(and be protected Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) | Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/awd))

what does the Army get?

I have heard a rumour of a stock of brand new SMLE .303 rifles being found in an ordnance depot which will be issued to units and thus save millions of dollars. General service wagons and tan boots were also found in quantity and will save even more millions. So no complaints from the brown jobs about not getting any new goodies.

[bob10]

The same applies to the stuffup with the electrical power supplies. A proper design would have made provision for a safe (and foolproof)changeover from emergency to main supply. Even a domestic house with an emergency power supply as well as a mains supply must have an interlock that prevents the two supplies being connected in parallel.

A good design would preclude operator error.


.


I tend to agree, all new ship designs have gremlins, but that seems a major fault. Not knowing the design set up stops me from criticising , but the potential for a major fire ...... scary. Bob

[bob10]

One thing for sure, when the 2 LHD's are operational, this mob will be ready to go, Bob


Navy's 'Fighting Chance' | Navy Daily (http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Jun2014/Fleet/1096/Navy's-'Fighting-Chance'.htm#.U4-5q2e_m1s)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

One thing for sure, when the 2 LHD's are operational, this mob will be ready to go, Bob

Much rather have the floor remain steady when you're doing that stuff.

The patient looks rather well to me, does he have a tag saying patient just like Megan has?

[Gerokent]

I find it odd that these ships were/are built in Spain!
Doesn't Australia have the capability to do this kind of work anymore?
Not good, some polly must be getting pretty heafty kickbacks

[AndyG]

It went to Tender, they won, an existing design with mods.

Our capability, based on current efforts , no !
We need a rolling 20 year plan, to get some long term competencies in place.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I find it odd that these ships were/are built in Spain!
Doesn't Australia have the capability to do this kind of work anymore?
Not good, some polly must be getting pretty heafty kickbacksPut simply no. We retain some capacity but are generally too expensive, too slow and always over budget.

[bob10]

Put simply no. We retain some capacity but are generally too expensive, too slow and always over budget.


Unfortunately, true. I think the only ship construction on time & budget was the Patrol boats built at N.Q.E.A., Cairns. I served on a Daring Class Destroyer Vampire. You could not complain about the build quality, our Darings were a step above the Brit built ones, IMO. Bob

Vampire was built at Cockatoo Dockyard, Sydney

The Royal Australian Navy initially ordered four Daring-class destroyers, which were to be named after the ships of the "Scrap Iron Flotilla of World War II. The ships were modified during construction: most changes were made to improve habitability, including the installation of air-conditioning.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1949)#cite_note-Coop167-4) The Darings were also the first all-welded ships to be constructed in Australia.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1949)#cite_note-Coop168-5)
The first Australian Daring was laid down in 1949.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1949)#cite_note-Coop168-5) By 1950, it was already apparent that the Australian Darings would not be completed on time, as the Australian dockyards were experiencing difficulty in keeping up with the construction schedule.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1949)#cite_note-Coop167-4) To compensate for this, the RAN unsuccessfully attempted to purchase two of the Darings under construction in the United Kingdom, and considered acquiring ships from the United States Navy despite the logistical difficulties in supplying and maintaining American vessels in a predominately British-designed fleet.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1949)#cite_note-Coop167-4) Only three ships were completed; Voyager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Voyager_(D04)), Vendetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Vendetta_(D08)), and Vampire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Vampire_(D11)) were commissioned between 1957 and 1959.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daring-class_destroyer_(1949)#cite_note-Coop168-5) By the time they were commissioned, the cost of each ship had increased from Australian pound 2.6 million to A£7 million

[AndyG]

I was fortunate to visit the Vampire in March at the maritime museum, would recommend it to everyone.

Bob, were you on it when the bridge had a. Soft top ? What was the idea behind that, to spot the ZEros?
I think the only vessel built on time on budget was a whaler in 1789:p

[AndyG]

I have heard a rumour of a stock of brand new SMLE .303 rifles being found in an ordnance depot which will be issued to units and thus save millions of dollars. General service wagons and tan boots were also found in quantity and will save even more millions. So no complaints from the brown jobs about not getting any new goodies.

At least the 303 might stop the bugger with one shot:o

[bob10]

I was fortunate to visit the Vampire in March at the maritime museum, would recommend it to everyone.

Bob, were you on it when the bridge had a. Soft top ? What was the idea behind that, to spot the ZEros?
I think the only vessel built on time on budget was a whaler in 1789:p


The old Vamps went to Williamstown, they took B turret off, prior to the major refit, she still had the torpedo tubes, we did the last 21 inch torpedo firing in the RAN off Singapore, against HMS London. London did a gunnery shoot against Vampire , I think they call it off shoot? or something. They off set the system a few degrees so they are not actually firing at you [ obviously practise rounds] . The gunnery from London was spot on. A mate & I were off watch [ B Boiler] and were perched up in the spud locker behind the aft funnel.


Old Vamps. shook & shuddered, I swear I've never seen her go so fast. If I were a romantic, I would have said she knew it was the last hurrah, before being reborn. But I'm not, so I wont . The London sent a signal, after the torpedo was released. " Congratulations , Vampire, your torpedo passed under our bow. " I think you may be correct, having an open bridge meant you could see aircraft approaching. One RAN skipper, in the Med. [ navy talk] may have been Waller, [ hard over Hec] it is said used to lay down on the bridge deck, and con his ship during air raids like that. However, stokers used to say it was the only way to keep dozy seamen awake. :angel: Bob


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1372.jpg

[bob10]

Hard over Hec, a legend. Bob


http://defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Submission-106-Dr-Tom-Lewis.pdf

[Epic pooh]

Choules (amphib ship / ute) has a similar propulsion system which appears to work well. This is a very common setup on commercial ships and increasingly popular on Naval units. It gives insane manouverability / control at low speed and the ability to command the vessel to 'maintain position' in most conditions - basically 'hands off' - the computers and the pods do the work and the ship hovers very precisely in a position. Very cool stuff.

These new electric propulsion ships are a bit of trouble for old sailors not used to the electrickery and computers and reading the manual ... some may recall the "small expense" fixing Choules transformers shortly after purchase ... a bit like Defender drivers getting into new Disco's ... I'd think :twisted:

[PAT303]

I have heard a rumour of a stock of brand new SMLE .303 rifles being found in an ordnance depot which will be issued to units and thus save millions of dollars. General service wagons and tan boots were also found in quantity and will save even more millions. So no complaints from the brown jobs about not getting any new goodies.

At least SMLE's work,rain,hail and shine. Pat

[PAT303]

The old Vamps went to Williamstown, they took B turret off, prior to the major refit, she still had the torpedo tubes, we did the last 21 inch torpedo firing in the RAN off Singapore, against HMS London. London did a gunnery shoot against Vampire , I think they call it off shoot? or something. They off set the system a few degrees so they are not actually firing at you [ obviously practise rounds] . The gunnery from London was spot on. A mate & I were off watch [ B Boiler] and were perched up in the spud locker behind the aft funnel.


Old Vamps. shook & shuddered, I swear I've never seen her go so fast. If I were a romantic, I would have said she knew it was the last hurrah, before being reborn. But I'm not, so I wont . The London sent a signal, after the torpedo was released. " Congratulations , Vampire, your torpedo passed under our bow. " I think you may be correct, having an open bridge meant you could see aircraft approaching. One RAN skipper, in the Med. [ navy talk] may have been Waller, [ hard over Hec] it is said used to lay down on the bridge deck, and con his ship during air raids like that. However, stokers used to say it was the only way to keep dozy seamen awake. :angel: Bob


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1372.jpg

Bob,there's a two gun turret like that on Rockingham's foreshore,I walked my dogs past it this afternoon. Pat

[Phil HH]

Bob, regarding the RAN skipper lying on the bridge, my father told me of the captain of the destroyer that took him off Crete lying on his back with binoculars, spotting Stukas and calling the evasive manoeuvres. That's my recollection, however it may also have been on the Greece-Crete leg of his holiday.

[bob10]

Bob, regarding the RAN skipper lying on the bridge, my father told me of the captain of the destroyer that took him off Crete lying on his back with binoculars, spotting Stukas and calling the evasive manoeuvres. That's my recollection, however it may also have been on the Greece-Crete leg of his holiday.


Hard over Hec, for sure, Bob

[AndyG]

I made my earlier comment tongue in cheek, but there you go.

It would probably not work with Chinese ballistic ship killer missiles. We have to hope for usual Chinese quality.

[Hoges]

First I've heard of this, Bob




by: By Ian McPhedran national defence writer
From: News Corp Australia
June 04, 2014 11:30PM





https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1374.jpg
Damaged ... the largest ship ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra, passes through Sydney Heads for the first time. Source: Supplied



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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1375.jpg
Serious errors ... workers at BAE Systems, Williamstown Dockyards fitting out the first of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ships, HMAS Canberra. Source: News Limited




“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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1376.jpg
Trial goes wrong ... on the largest ship ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra. Source: Supplied




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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1377.jpg
The largest ship ... ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra, entered Sydney Harbour for the first time during the contractor sea trials and testing program. Source: Supplied




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.

I didn't realise that they had the sloped flight deck... wondering if is this for the "navy" version of the JSF acquisition which has been announced, to be able to launch like the Harrier?

[AndyG]

I believe choppers are more efficient if they can get a running start

[Epic pooh]

It has a ski ramp to minimise production costs as it is a minimum change version of the Spanish LHD. There has been word in the media of interest in obtaining f-35b (the harrier replacement) to operate from them but that will be expensive and require complex mods to the ship as the aviation facilities are focused on helo ops.

[boa]

I find it odd that these ships were/are built in Spain!
Doesn't Australia have the capability to do this kind of work anymore?
Not good, some polly must be getting pretty heafty kickbacks

We did but the people employed in like the ship building site in Williamstown Vic. Did not do the right thing. I was friends with people who would organize people to clock them on and off while they had the day off. This happened a lot back then also in the railways. Same thing worker's and lower management killed there own jobs. And people wonder why things were over budget and late. It was there own selfishness. They are the people to blame.

[bob10]

The F35b is an impressive aircraft, if it all works. I have been told the heat on the flight deck given out when landing is tremendous, so much so that there is a time limit on landings. Bob


F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing Variant · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html)


F-35 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E)

[Hay Ewe]

I get REALLY annoyed with crappy news articles like this.
Was it really botched?
Was it part of the test scheme?

I do a fair bit of work with modifications to helicopters and some of the systems that we install we hae to test to see if there is interference with other systems. Its part of the planned testing. If there is interference and we capture it at the test phase it is a succsess! :) we can then deal with it.

Much better to find this problem during testing and acceptance phase rather then when it is handed over and operational.

Articlies like this is why I rarely watch any news any more, its all rubbish by idiots in front of a camera with make up on

Hay Ewe



First I've heard of this, Bob




by: By Ian McPhedran national defence writer
From: News Corp Australia
June 04, 2014 11:30PM





https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1374.jpg
Damaged ... the largest ship ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra, passes through Sydney Heads for the first time. Source: Supplied



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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1375.jpg
Serious errors ... workers at BAE Systems, Williamstown Dockyards fitting out the first of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ships, HMAS Canberra. Source: News Limited




“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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1376.jpg
Trial goes wrong ... on the largest ship ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra. Source: Supplied




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.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1377.jpg
The largest ship ... ever built for the Royal Australian Navy, Landing Helicopter Dock Canberra, entered Sydney Harbour for the first time during the contractor sea trials and testing program. Source: Supplied




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.

[bob10]

These new electric propulsion ships are a bit of trouble for old sailors not used to the electrickery and computers and reading the manual ... some may recall the "small expense" fixing Choules transformers shortly after purchase ... a bit like Defender drivers getting into new Disco's ... I'd think :twisted:


This was definitely the 'defender ' of the warship world. They had character, along with their crews, Bob




https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/06/1372.jpg

[bob10]

I get REALLY annoyed with crappy news articles like this.
Was it really botched?
Was it part of the test scheme?

I do a fair bit of work with modifications to helicopters and some of the systems that we install we hae to test to see if there is interference with other systems. Its part of the planned testing. If there is interference and we capture it at the test phase it is a succsess! :) we can then deal with it.

Much better to find this problem during testing and acceptance phase rather then when it is handed over and operational.

Articlies like this is why I rarely watch any news any more, its all rubbish by idiots in front of a camera with make up on

Hay Ewe


I think you will find it was caused by the trials team not understanding the limits of the propulsion system, in the first case, and in the second, if you were not involved with the ship, you can not say whether it was finger trouble, or a design fault. Either way, that's what trials are for, but an expensive lesson. Could have been worse. Bob

[Epic pooh]

They sure don't make them like that any more Bob :)

F-35B does appear to have some flight deck (and frankly Tarmac from what I've read) heat issues that need addressing. Certainly won't be as versatile as the harrier in terms of austere field operations. I'm sure the key users will address this with another expensive work around - the LHD has been designed with F-35B in mind (as that is what the Spanish will operate) so it will be interesting to see which direction we take (intention is likely to be announced in the next defence white paper).

[PAT303]

The F35b is an impressive aircraft, if it all works. I have been told the heat on the flight deck given out when landing is tremendous, so much so that there is a time limit on landings. Bob


F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing Variant · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html)


F-35 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E)

It's a piece of crap Bob,trouble is it is made to do ten different rolls with the same airframe so instead of doing one thing excellent it does ten things ordinary,we should have bought Eurofighters,they work and totally outclass the super hornets we got as a stop gap.Nothing but a big waste of tax payers money. Pat

[bob10]

This report is illuminating, Bob


June 2014 Breaking News REUTERS F35 fighter jet to make first transAtlantic flight July - YouTube (http://youtu.be/T5u1WSag0A0)

[THE BOOGER]

While we do have an option on the VSTOL F35 the official reason for the ski jump is so allied nations aircraft can operate with us and use our facilities:( I haven't given up hope yet but 3 sqns of the VSTOL version is probably more expensive than the 75 we have ordered for the RAAF:eek:

[THE BOOGER]

I would not be surprised if we don't already have a deal for the yanks to base a sqn or 2 in Darwin and embark them as required:)

[carjunkieanon]

From Sept 2013. Vanity Fair on the F-35b.
I have no idea how accurate their reporting is etc, but it's a gloomy read.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin

[bob10]

From Sept 2013. Vanity Fair on the F-35b.
I have no idea how accurate their reporting is etc, but it's a gloomy read.

Will the F-35, the U.S. Military’s Flaw-Filled, Years-Overdue Joint Strike Fighter, Ever Actually Fly? | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin)


All that is true, but I like the cut of the new Generals Jib[ vanity fair get it? . OK , sorry] I think the US government has decided enough is enough. They have appointed a hard headed General , he will , hopefully, stop the corruption, [ big call, but that is how I see it, ] from Lockheed. Now, they have to produce the goods, or they don't get paid. And, money talks, with these companies. If Lockheed don't produce, they can forget about any more government contracts, is the message. Big call. Bob

[Epic pooh]

Read Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority" by any chance ? A prescient (sci-fi) warning about the consequences of programs like this Short Story - Superiority - by Arthur C. Clarke (http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html)

But, ultimately, there is so much invested in this aircraft that it will be made to work and like the F-111 and Collins, it will be capable and useful ... but the cost ...

[lyonsy]

the f35 is differant to what we are use to seeing as an aircraft ie a fighter plane or a fighter bomber etc the way iam seeing the f35 is basicly as flying weapons platforms using its look down radar to find targets fire the missiles then have the hornets protect it out of there with the superhornets running as the air supority fighter to keep other fighters off the f35's and growlers clearing the way of radar sam sites and and 4th and 5th gen stealth planes (rember the superhornet growler is the only plane to have downed a f22)

at a guess they will be using the flight deck for running uav's

can we build these types of ships yes we can but only in a time of war would it be effective and on time and budget basicly the same as building aircraft here.

eurofighter wont work in australia as in times of war our closest allie doesent operate them so getting replacements and spares is much harder esp when you really do need them, its basicly the same story for all the euro planes its fine to have them but within 3months of war they would effectivly be grounded due to lack of spares or planes, at the end of the day the jsf was selected cause the us wouldent sell the f22 to anyone so the only other gen 5 plane they have is the jsf

[RR P38]

I think you will find it was caused by the trials team not understanding the limits of the propulsion system, in the first case, and in the second, if you were not involved with the ship, you can not say whether it was finger trouble, or a design fault. Either way, that's what trials are for, but an expensive lesson. Could have been worse. Bob

Many of these problems emanate from things as simple as not reading operations manuals and lack of awareness.
Warranty claims can go on for years with these sorts of vessel systems.
A ship I have recently worked on has had ongoing main engine issues within a diesel electric propulsion system for 4 years. With 37,000 BHP on tap via 6 main engines there is plenty of redundancy that allows the ship to remain mobile.
Looking at the azimuth thrusters on the this ship I would be very suprised if she is not Dynamically positioned capable.
We can and should be building his sort of ship in Australia. But I fear our Govt is hell bent on destruction of every aspect of ship crewing and large scale construction on this Island continent of ours.

[juddy]

While we do have an option on the VSTOL F35 the official reason for the ski jump is so allied nations aircraft can operate with us and use our facilities:( I haven't given up hope yet but 3 sqns of the VSTOL version is probably more expensive than the 75 we have ordered for the RAAF:eek:

Other nations ie the Uk, who will have 2 new carriers, but no planes flying from them for at least 2 years, and more alarming they seem to be stalling a little on Crowsnest. Buying ex RAAF Seakings for spares to keep the AEW Seakings flying a few more years.

What aircraft is covering the AEW requirement on these new ships?

[PAT303]

the f35 is differant to what we are use to seeing as an aircraft ie a fighter plane or a fighter bomber etc the way iam seeing the f35 is basicly as flying weapons platforms using its look down radar to find targets fire the missiles then have the hornets protect it out of there with the superhornets running as the air supority fighter to keep other fighters off the f35's and growlers clearing the way of radar sam sites and and 4th and 5th gen stealth planes (rember the superhornet growler is the only plane to have downed a f22)

at a guess they will be using the flight deck for running uav's

can we build these types of ships yes we can but only in a time of war would it be effective and on time and budget basicly the same as building aircraft here.

eurofighter wont work in australia as in times of war our closest allie doesent operate them so getting replacements and spares is much harder esp when you really do need them, its basicly the same story for all the euro planes its fine to have them but within 3months of war they would effectivly be grounded due to lack of spares or planes, at the end of the day the jsf was selected cause the us wouldent sell the f22 to anyone so the only other gen 5 plane they have is the jsf

In times of war every nation would run out of spares regardless of what they have,it's happened every single time,the British and Americans dropped cement filled practice bombs onto tanks in Iraq as they ran out of real ones.If we had bought cheaper less capable planes we could have more of them,we spend 25 million dollars training RAAF pilots that then leave because they can't get enough flight time because of cost and lack of aircraft,if we had bought 70 or 80 Eurofighters five years ago and then bought another 30 with the money they spent on outdated superhornets we would have a very effective air force with very well trained pilots. Pat

[bob10]

One mans view, Bob


There's No Way The F-35 Will Ever Match The Eurofighter In Aerial Combat | Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-f-35-will-never-beat-the-eurofighter-2013-2)

[bob10]

The debate continues, Bob


The Aviationist » Farnborough 2012: "Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch" Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska (http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/)

[THE BOOGER]

Sounds a lot like kids, "my plane is better than your plane" the Libyans tried that with mig 23,s against f14,s

I like one of those articles Bob it basically says if you can slow the f22 down and if you can get within Visual range then the euro fighter is as good as the raptor:)

[lyonsy]

pat using your argument we would be better of with the saab jas 39 gripen over the eurofighter due to its cheapness to buy and low running/maintenance cost's and is a very capable plane with the advantage low down time between flights compared to modern rivals.
this is only one article and i havent confirmed anything or looked further but other then saying how cheap the gripen is they aso go one with the cost of other jets and est the cost of the euro to be more expensive to run then the superhornet.
Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane (http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes)

yes there is allways shortages in times of war but with the us ordering 2500 jsf on top of what any other nation orders there will be a lot more spares and planes avilable then a low production run plane the saab or eurofighter.

as for my jet is better then your jet we all know the f15 are the best :twisted: with none lost to enemy fire (104-0) and extream survivability (they have flown back to base missing a wing due to mid air collision that downed a f16) and survived and flown back to base after 40g pull up from a disorinated pilot who had ocean and sky mixed up not many planes are tough enough to do ether.
but the f14 gets the sexy plane vote

[bob10]

as for my jet is better then your jet we all know the f15 are the best :twisted: with none lost to enemy fire (104-0) and extream survivability (they have flown back to base missing a wing due to mid air collision that downed a f16) and survived and flown back to base after 40g pull up from a disorinated pilot who had ocean and sky mixed up not many planes are tough enough to do ether.
but the f14 gets the sexy plane vote


The USAAF got a shock when their F15's came up against the Indian A.F. in an exercise recently, Bob


USAF: Indian Exercises Showed Need For Changes In Training - Vayu Sena (http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-iaf-usaf-su30-f15-article01.html)

[bob10]

Interesting lecture, Bob


Exercise Red Flag 2008-4 / Su-30MKI vs F-15, F-16, F-22 (http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml)