Wonder if it frees up any topweight.
But at least sensor wise they are top notch.
But at least sensor wise they are top notch.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I believe only the Zumwalt has the composite deckhouse, the two sister ships have steel deckhouses.
I will post this here since I think it is of some relevance to the RAN
Early report blames confused watchstanders, possible design flaws for Norway’s sunken frigate
There would seem to be some question not only of potential design flaws but also the build quality of these ships. In Australia's case the Hobarts were Australian built ... but we do have other ships that were built in Spain. Obviously we should wait for the final report but eyewitness accounts of what sounds like bulkheads failing is a little concerning.
It sounds like water was entering the bulkheads through the propeller shaft seals.
It seems that the initial flooding should have been contained but instead just started leaking into other compartments via the propeller shaft.
Early report blames confused watchstanders, possible design flaws for Norway’s sunken frigate
There would seem to be some question not only of potential design flaws but also the build quality of these ships. In Australia's case the Hobarts were Australian built ... but we do have other ships that were built in Spain. Obviously we should wait for the final report but eyewitness accounts of what sounds like bulkheads failing is a little concerning.
It sounds like water was entering the bulkheads through the propeller shaft seals.
It seems that the initial flooding should have been contained but instead just started leaking into other compartments via the propeller shaft.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Obviously we have to wait for the reports, but I’m not sure if the are talking about the total collapse of the internal bulk heads or more about the stuffing boxes where the prop shafts runthru the bulkheads
Just another bleat from me about the paucity of publicity from DoD and Navy .... it this case surrounding the launch of NUSHIP Supply. I have held of suggesting the government and Navy PR remain on holiday in the expectation there would be a little more forthcoming than a 30 to 40 second official glimps of the ship sliding down the ramp. There are one or two slightly longer videos but none are official.
It really is beyond belief that the DDG and now the AOR progress have been so poorly documented.
It really is beyond belief that the DDG and now the AOR progress have been so poorly documented.
Actually my understanding is they are exactly the same below the flight deck. The issue is how many sorties they can maintain and how many aircraft they can support. ........ And the fact we are not planning to operate them that way under our current structure .... at this time.
It's worse than that, it's insanely stupid. Even an unsubstantiated and unlikely rumour of something going *wrong* can be guaranteed air time and column inches without Government or DoD input at all. I know that good news is probably a hard sell to those media voices who'd rather die in the ditch than give positive publicity to Defence, but *someone* must have a minute or two of empty airspace
oldsig
IIRC, and I will see if I can find it again, was some time ago that GF mentioned that fact that certain rather critical changes had been made to the Canberra's below the flight deck ?
The internal changes to the island have been pretty well documented by Navy and DOD, with a few basic diagrams being out at the time giving general changes to Ops, Comms C&C and briefing room layout changes.
Pretty sure GF had said, without going into too much detail, that critical changes had been made to both fuel bunkerage arrangements and also magazine capabilities/standards on what could be carried.
Could take some time to find, it could have been in one of 6 or so threads
Cheers, happy to be corrected
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Found some on the Juan Carlos/Canberra thread, I have put them up there.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I recall something similar, that there was only limited provision for aviation fuel and/or space/displacement available in a magazine which aircraft could be loaded from.
As a side note, the RAS gear fitted to the JC1 was deleted from the Canberra-class LHD design, which would suggest that the plumbing for fuel lines and bunkerage is different between the Spanish and Australian vessels. If they were both still otherwise the same, why delete the capability for RAN LHD's to replenish escorting vessels?
I
If I recall correctly, one comment was the reason for deleting the RASgear was so the pollies could not use that as an excuse not to renew our AOR vessels.
It was suggested that there marked differences but then information was provided indicating that the bunkerage and weapons stowage are precisely the same. This make senses as messing about with fuel tanks is no small matter.
Certainly the superstructure is quite different.
I recalled this being clarified several years ago. Basically removal of RAS gear, bulkhead in the magazine, etc.
With regards to completeness isn't there some Accommodation differences between the JC1 and the Canberras, however I don't think these are structural changes, more like difference furnishings, the Canberras have more potential accommodation (by packing more into rooms?). I guess like anything quoted, context is important.
But neither Aus nor Spain intends to use the LHD as a full blown carrier. Neither are operating F-35's off them, currently. They don't have the massive stores of Jp5 something like the US carriers or UK carriers (or even USMC LHD's or even spains old PDA). The F-35 takes on a lot more Jp5 than the Harrier. So even with the standard design it is something to be considered particularly regarding the number of embarked aircraft and sortie rate. So without a decent set of AOR's it would be pointless to even talk about embarking anything more than helicopters at this stage. Which is a whole different thing, we need to sort out the helicopters. What are we doing with the Tigers for instance... UAV's etc. We are only now really getting in to the networked battlespace aspect.
The F-35B equation is also changing, with the UK bringing its carriers and planes into service and Japan ordering possibly 100, we could be on the cusp of a wave of nations placing F-35B's orders. Singapore was looking at them as well (Commentary: The Republic of Singapore Air Force's likely new fighter jet - Story dated from 2018 Oct). If both of those acquired F-35b's then that would significantly change the outlook for Australia.
With a significant base at Lombrum, there are also changing security requirements.
I think at this stage, its more about keeping options open than actually selection the F-35B.
With regards to completeness isn't there some Accommodation differences between the JC1 and the Canberras, however I don't think these are structural changes, more like difference furnishings, the Canberras have more potential accommodation (by packing more into rooms?). I guess like anything quoted, context is important.
But neither Aus nor Spain intends to use the LHD as a full blown carrier. Neither are operating F-35's off them, currently. They don't have the massive stores of Jp5 something like the US carriers or UK carriers (or even USMC LHD's or even spains old PDA). The F-35 takes on a lot more Jp5 than the Harrier. So even with the standard design it is something to be considered particularly regarding the number of embarked aircraft and sortie rate. So without a decent set of AOR's it would be pointless to even talk about embarking anything more than helicopters at this stage. Which is a whole different thing, we need to sort out the helicopters. What are we doing with the Tigers for instance... UAV's etc. We are only now really getting in to the networked battlespace aspect.
The F-35B equation is also changing, with the UK bringing its carriers and planes into service and Japan ordering possibly 100, we could be on the cusp of a wave of nations placing F-35B's orders. Singapore was looking at them as well (Commentary: The Republic of Singapore Air Force's likely new fighter jet - Story dated from 2018 Oct). If both of those acquired F-35b's then that would significantly change the outlook for Australia.
With a significant base at Lombrum, there are also changing security requirements.
I think at this stage, its more about keeping options open than actually selection the F-35B.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Would there be a significant issue in altering the size or quantity of specific fuels carried, if the total space and volume/displacement utilized for fuel bunkerage was left fundamentally the same?
As an example, reducing the amount of JP5 carried/or spaced for aboard the RAN LHD's from 800 tonnes to perhaps 400 tonnes, while increasing the quantity of fuel suitable for Army vehicles by 400 tonnes.
In general term, provided they were all high flashpoint fuels, then the tankage can be interchangeable although if you were going from F76 to F44 you would probably want to do a tank clean. However, not all tanks are necessarily easily interconnected, and of course the distribution system is somewhat function specific. Any Diesel engine can run on F76, btw, so most Army can use that. Carriage of low flashpoint fuels (eg ULP or land based aviation fuels) is not permitted in warships other than in easily ditched upper deck stowages.
Afraid I’m not sure of LHD specifics wrt their tankage arrangements.
Afraid I’m not sure of LHD specifics wrt their tankage arrangements.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I was thinking less in terms of changing the fuel stores between deployments, and more about where or how the ADF could have specified different bunkerage requirements than Spain without triggering significant design issues.
It comes down to delivery pipework. Fiddling with pipe work is not a small issue. If you were going to add fueling arrangements for vehicles (noting 400 tonnes is quite a bit) then you need to factor that into the process as well as you would need a delivery arrangement from these tanks to the vehicle decks including pumps and hoses.
You would be unlikely to mix fuels either so tanks would not be interchangeable. Finally reducing the aviation fuel would also reduce your ability to support rotary wing which seems to detract from the prime purpose of the LHD even in its current role.
F44 which is below standard for aviation use is often dropped into F76 tanks where it makes perfectly good ship propulsion fuel. Ships can use ADO (which is of course normal diesel) or MGO, which is similar, as well as F76 whose advantage is being a cut (rather than cracked) fuel, so more certainly of higher quality with a longer life, and in having fuserium inhibitor added. It’s more expensive than ADO but the difference might not be as important as versatility, particularly if the fuel is being transported into a different climate.
While I don’t know the LHDs’ arrangements, I would not be surprised to find that cargo vehicles are fuelled from the ship’s general stocks - after all, a hundred cz is a lot of fuel for land vehicles but not much for a large ship.
In fact there have been attempts over the years, not particularly successful to get to a single fuel - where either ships and land vehicles use aviation fuels or aircraft use diesel. While a desirable state of affairs if achieved, there have been various problems with doing this (cost, quality, availability and others) but it is possible, and might be tried again.
While I don’t know the LHDs’ arrangements, I would not be surprised to find that cargo vehicles are fuelled from the ship’s general stocks - after all, a hundred cz is a lot of fuel for land vehicles but not much for a large ship.
In fact there have been attempts over the years, not particularly successful to get to a single fuel - where either ships and land vehicles use aviation fuels or aircraft use diesel. While a desirable state of affairs if achieved, there have been various problems with doing this (cost, quality, availability and others) but it is possible, and might be tried again.
Mark_Evans
Member
First two are composite, third is steel -found this on usni. Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002).
Navy’s Steel Deckhouse Decision for Final Zumwalt is a Blow to HII - USNI News
The composite design was initially required to meet weight requirements. Subsequent to the award of DDG-1000 and 1001 superstructures, sufficient weight removal allowed for the opportunity to provide a steel superstructure, which is a less costly alternative,” NAVSEA officials said in a Monday statement to USNI News.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Wonder what the cost saving was going with steel? Don’t think it would have put much of a dent in the 4 billion price tag.
- Status