Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The ships are designed to run hard. All RAN ships are required to complete periodic Full Power Trials, usually quarterly or before a docking, so that if problems are found they can be rectified.
As others have stated the whole point of operational testing and evaluation (OT&E), and Initial and Final Operating Capabilities is to find any shortfalls in equipment and procedures before accepting the ship to be available for operations. The LHDs have not been accepted as fully operational yet.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep it's a warranty job anyway, the only real cost to the ADF is stuffing up the training schedule
So Siemens and others build these for the majority of modern cruise ships so why would they become a continuing problem? The commercial sector are far more sensitive to cost than the RAN.
Any new equipment being introduced to replace legacy shafts and props, jet v diesel, turbine v reciprocating, any quantum change brings challenges and takes time to understand the intracies of both operation and maintenance.
Leave the hand wringing until proper assessments have been made and the results promulgated.
Sky News is reporting Lemons the ABC is on the bandwagon and we're well on the way to repeating the atrocious and ill informed "dud subs" saga.
Yep and its all ASCs fault, we should have listened to Johnston when he said he wouldn't trust them to build a canoe. All would be well is BAE were the prime and an existing design was used.
My thoughts are two LHD's are always going to get a hammering in terms of operations. Just as the two Kanimbla's got hammered.
Schedules are so tight and these will be the ships the media runs too every storm, every cyclone, every earth quake and every civil unrest. I am sure opportunities have been knocked back for friendly visits and what not. They also have a significant burden just with training and regular operations.
I am sure the current problem will get fixed, and I am sure this is related to just being new ships, and working out the gremlins.The timing just happens to be unfortunate.
But part of me thinks 3 LHD ships would allow more frequent maintenance, a whole other hull to wear, tear, repair and flexibility regarding deployment, certification and training. It would certainly help with the availability of ARG capability.
Of course I know that would likely mean 3 ships would currently be tied up dockside. But the 3 ships would have less hr on each and one would be nearly new.
I am somewhat cynical of the new tech and lower maintenance and higher availability and such promises.
Schedules are so tight and these will be the ships the media runs too every storm, every cyclone, every earth quake and every civil unrest. I am sure opportunities have been knocked back for friendly visits and what not. They also have a significant burden just with training and regular operations.
I am sure the current problem will get fixed, and I am sure this is related to just being new ships, and working out the gremlins.The timing just happens to be unfortunate.
But part of me thinks 3 LHD ships would allow more frequent maintenance, a whole other hull to wear, tear, repair and flexibility regarding deployment, certification and training. It would certainly help with the availability of ARG capability.
Of course I know that would likely mean 3 ships would currently be tied up dockside. But the 3 ships would have less hr on each and one would be nearly new.
I am somewhat cynical of the new tech and lower maintenance and higher availability and such promises.
Hang on a minute - I can understand that there might be issues relating to a first of class RAN ship - teething problems if you will - but the problem has occurred in both ships at virtually the same time.
Yes there is no reason that if there are so many of these on modern cruise ships that there should be continuing problems - I agree.
But the fact of the matter is that they both clapped at the same time. There is one dry dock to accommodate repairs and the other ship must wait until there is space for it
MB
Reference for you post ? this is rubbish, it has been clearly stated that Canberra had an issue and when inspected that Adelaide had an "Emergent" issue of the same type, anything other than that is pure speculation and conjecture, so unless you have firm references or you are working on the actual problem first hand, how about you show some respect to a member of the forum who has a wealth of knowledge and experience !
So just as a reminder, because people seem to either forget, do not know, or just plain choose to ignore, but the members on this forum with blue tags are vetted defence professionals, that means they have to supply service records and other proof of service or relevant qualifications in defence or defence related matters. So some might want to re think their approach and engagement style on this site
Food for thought
I'll just add to aussienscale's post.
Assail probably has more sea time than most currently serving in the RAN and is highly respected in his field. He knows his ships and naval knowledge, so unless you have a wealth of maritime engineering knowledge and a long lifetime of experience at sea don't come the raw prawn with him.
The only possibility I see for a third LHD would be as a replacement for the Choules sometime around the mid 30's.
Given the high usage rate of the Canberra's and a strategic situation that may continue to deteriorate over the next decade I think a reasonable case could be made for a third LHD.
its not new tech though. its tried and tested commercially - the main difference is around tempo and hours per journey between commercial and military utility
besides, its v early days on even trying to establish what the problem is and which is why all ships are IOC and not FOC
the only way that there will be a 3rd in class is for RAN to lose an equiv capital asset to allow for the shift in requirements
ie one for one replacement against another asset. and thats unlikely as the next decay date for a large asset is mid 2020's (optimistic)
unless the balloon goes up in the SCS earlier than expected, a 3rd phatship is a pipedream - and even then I could not see it happening
HMAS Adelaide has been pulled from TalSaber
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...cPzC99ORUo35GNLsg&sig2=H5o1eGeWf42JmFpBn6XlbQ
It looks like the problem was faulty engine seals.
The repairs have been completed on Canberra and she is currently conducting sea trials to confirm whether the repairs have been successful.
It looks like the problem was faulty engine seals.
The repairs have been completed on Canberra and she is currently conducting sea trials to confirm whether the repairs have been successful.
protoplasm
Active Member
Hoping the Canberra sea trials were successful today. Any idea when we'll know if Canberra is definitely OK for TalSaber?
Choules I don't think will be around forever and would be the logical asset to give up. I would assume the Navy could handle a swap, crewing wouldn't be identical, but may be workable. If another regional navy was very interested in Choules it might even happen before it's shagged. While mid 2020's sounded far off in the future back in 2006/7 it now only a few years away.
While SCS is the main focus, I could also see a regional development in Oceania pushing things. But it is even harder to predict things there than in the SCS.
Someone would have to want it. I would agree it unlikely, even highly unlikely.
How wedded are we to Amphibious operations and forming a full ARG (and possibly ESG)? Pushing it into the future doesn't feel like it will make it much easier.
Hyuga & Ise have limited amphibious capability. No space for troops, not designed for easy offloading of heavy equipment anywhere except in a proper port.
They're also expensive compared to ships designed as amphibs. The high speed, sensors & weapons don't come free.
And where would Australia get the helicopters to fill them? Two sets, as well: one for amphibious ops, one for ASW.
They're also expensive compared to ships designed as amphibs. The high speed, sensors & weapons don't come free.
And where would Australia get the helicopters to fill them? Two sets, as well: one for amphibious ops, one for ASW.
- Status