I've been on both Bath and 'Gula built Burkes, the differences are rather obvious when you start looking. It is amazing actually.
Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN) News and Discussion
- Thread starter Systems Adict
- Start date
BIW is almost certainly the best surface combatant builder in the US (out of 2, setting aside the LCS yards); but there are equally good and competent builders elsewhere in the world. They were engaged early in the AWD Program to advise ASC, who after all had never really built a surface combatant before. Their involvement was undoubtedly beneficial although differing build strategies made them less useful than they would probably have been had the alternative, "mini Burke", design been chosen by the Howard government
Last edited:
As I recall there were some quality issues with these original Norwegian frigates as well as propulsion issues.
A lot of navies don't actually deploy and operate their ships particularly hard or frequently. I guess that creates a bit of culture of lighter build? I wonder how long before the RAN DDG's have the most time at sea out of all the F-100 variants. Norway I think might rank quite highly on that, because I think this ship will be at sea permanently.
A lot of navies don't actually deploy and operate their ships particularly hard or frequently. I guess that creates a bit of culture of lighter build? I wonder how long before the RAN DDG's have the most time at sea out of all the F-100 variants. Norway I think might rank quite highly on that, because I think this ship will be at sea permanently.
Their involvement was quite valuable as they were able to point out issues and solutions to them before they were encountered in the build. Contrary to popular belief, Navantia were involved extensively as well, though it was often more like an audit or investigation where we had to read between the lines and ask the right questions to extract the required information. Sometimes it was the heads up from BIW, contracted American Breuro of Ships(ABS) or even technicians or engineers doing acceptance testing or witnessing Navantia operations and trials, that let us know what Navantia and their supplliers weren't telling us.
I would be very surprised if it were a tonnage issue light building ships. I always thought of Spanish ships been comparative speaking on the cheaper end of the international warship market(western, NATO compliant excluding Russian, Chinese ect).
Why would you think that? Have you any data for such a suggestion?
The Spaniards have built many ships including OHP FFGs and the currently serving ships and AFAIK there haven’t been any suggestions that their ships are “lightly” constructed in comparison to other similar Naval ships. Granted there have been some build quality remarks made about both the LHDs and the Norwegian frigates but that is balanced by some positive comments about the quality of the Australian built ships.
There are members on this forum who were intimately involved in the DDG construction at Osborne who could make a better informed comment on that topic.
I think it might be more related to the contract in building them.. Were these fixed price design and construct ships? While commonly used in the commercial sector, everyone knows the output you get is typically lesser. I don't think the Norwegians cared that much, they didn't even have the crew to crew all the ships anyway, so it was probably envisioned these would have a pretty easy life.
That being said, so far it doesn't seem there were any build or design flaws really, it sank because of poor operations, possibly assisted by other maintenance or operation issues. From all accounts it was a pretty epic collision which resulted in heavy damage to the frigate. If your clients wants a lighter build, that is what they want. As long as it meets regulations, it is often pretty hard to talk them out of it.
I think I've heard Volk talk about the FFG's being a bit more heavy duty, but again context in regard to life of the ship or survivability of the ship I am not sure.
That being said, so far it doesn't seem there were any build or design flaws really, it sank because of poor operations, possibly assisted by other maintenance or operation issues. From all accounts it was a pretty epic collision which resulted in heavy damage to the frigate. If your clients wants a lighter build, that is what they want. As long as it meets regulations, it is often pretty hard to talk them out of it.
I think I've heard Volk talk about the FFG's being a bit more heavy duty, but again context in regard to life of the ship or survivability of the ship I am not sure.
I always imagined the FFGs were pretty tough ships. The Samuel B Roberts hit a mine that caused so much structural damage that probably should have sunk. The blast broke the keel and sailors had to use cables to hold the two halves of the ship together. In spite being almost literally torn in half the ship never even lost its combat capability. Thirteen months later it was back in service.
The USS Stark was struck by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi fighter. It managed to limp back to port and after some temporary repairs it was able to sail back to the US under its own power.
It was more in response to the earlier comments about Hobarts build issue compared with what was though of US design practice. No idea on Spanish OHP compared with Aus or US built ones. The F100/F110 are the first non license built design in the that class the that was domestically developed it would be understandable if there were quirks or issues with areas that would be more reinforced in a more mature design. Also the differences in sea state requirements might have also lead the design down a certain route. It was a query rather than statement.
regarding data vis lightness not much other than both F100 is light for its class, the carrier Principe de Asturias was light as well, a few others in the fleet seem light for there size.
Sorry .... what do you mean ‘light for their class’. Care needs to be take when suggesting a lack of mass and these were designed as a frigate. Until recently (with the advent fo the T26 and the new German frigates) anything over 5000 tonnes was a big frigate. The F100 in its Spanish form is 5800 to 6400 (or there about). The Hobart is a bit heavier.
So I am curious.... just what to you mean by light.
I was comparing to AEGIS or similar, Iver Hudevelt, De Zeven Providence ect. The Nansens in particular are light at 5,200, while everything from FREMM's to other Euro air defence frigate designs are 6,000+. The tonnage is as you said quite similar to the older classes. When comparing to Japanese, US and Korean AEGIS vessels the size difference is much more pronounced 5,200-5,800 compared with 8-10,000.
I was comparing to AAW not the more GP/ASW defined vessels. The F100 is much closer in size to the previous generation AAW vessels(destroyers or large frigate) where the previous generation of vessels was in the mid 5K tonnage mark T42B3 5,8K, Cassard 5K, Durand La Penn 5,6K. While most of the new generation start at 6k and significantly larger. Meaning I see a deficit of 250 tons on a ship that shares similar length and beam compared with the next smallest vessel(de zeven, and Iver). If 5,800 is accurate and everyone is using the same metric ton. If true full weight is 6,400 I withdraw the issue of light build. Plus they were all built around the same time so there is no generational issues.
Arn't the F110s which are replacing the Spanish OHP's in the mid 6K tonnage wise anyway.
You seem to be comparing various classes of frigate but based on what? Length is only one dimension, eg the FREMM is roughly the same length as the Nansens but it is also much wider and deeper.
Also displacement tonnage is effected by fitted equipment so ships of similar dimensions may vary considerably in weight therefor I suggest your 250 tonne/ton “shortfall is simply variance in detail, fuel, water, magazine capacity, weaponry etc.
The other possibility is that you think the construction detail, thickness of plate, number of scantlings etc is light? I think others have clarified that for you.
This sort of goes to crux of the definition of naval ship classes today. Are the class definitions still valid where the class is defined by size or should we go back to the days of sail when the class was defined by mission of a particular class?
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
I'll admit, as I quickly glanced at/half read this tweet (it includes an image of the water spout), I was shocked thinking they had blown up the ship. Good thing I reread it.
Video appears to show multiple viewpoints of the detonations
Chris Cavas on Twitter
Video appears to show multiple viewpoints of the detonations
Chris Cavas on Twitter
Dropbox - Torpedo-detonering - Simplify your life
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Norway awaits arrival of new LSV | Jane's 360
The arrival of their largest ever vessel should give the Norvegian navy a timely boost.
I was surprised that New Zealand didn't order a ship tanker to this design, as DSME already had orders in hand for 4 x MARS variants (RN) and the smaller Queen Maude (Norway). Buying off an established production line is almost always safer than buying a one-off design. Given the challenges the Queen Maude has experienced, perhaps that was a better call than it appeared at the time.
Of course, Aotearoa is still months from launch let lone beginning sea trials, so there is still plenty of scope for problems to arise!
The arrival of their largest ever vessel should give the Norvegian navy a timely boost.
I was surprised that New Zealand didn't order a ship tanker to this design, as DSME already had orders in hand for 4 x MARS variants (RN) and the smaller Queen Maude (Norway). Buying off an established production line is almost always safer than buying a one-off design. Given the challenges the Queen Maude has experienced, perhaps that was a better call than it appeared at the time.
Of course, Aotearoa is still months from launch let lone beginning sea trials, so there is still plenty of scope for problems to arise!
Sorry missed much of this discussion until recently. Can't go into too much detail but lets just say that experienced shipbuilders were surprised at the thickness of material specified in the F-100 base design. As I understand it not so much an issue with structural integrity as built, but rather one of material condition in a decade or two, let alone at the proposed thirty year service life, or for that mater resilience permitting repair after major damage.
That said, some changes were made to the Australian ships, build quality was outstanding and makes a difference to service life and a lot of work went into coating (paint) to ensure corrosion protection etc. as well as other changes to ensure better draining of bilges etc. Not sure what happened after the foxes took over the hen house but things were being done beforehand to ensure the RAN got the ships they needed. An example of the different strategies to design can be seen in the greatly extended service lives achieved by for example the FFG 7 and Type 23 frigates from those intended when they were initially designed. There were intended to fight in the North Atlantic and as such were structurally able to serve much longer when used predominantly in milder conditions.
An example of the sort of issues the original Navantia design data could have led to is seen in the Armidale class PBs, they were lightly built to just meet the requirements on delivery (though its debatable they even achieved that) but very rapidly started costing a lot of money to maintain as they simply were not materially up to the job they had been bought for. Once the boats scare started there was no hope, but even without that there is no way they could have made it through life of type without major remediation due to being designed to a price with no thought to the future.
That said, some changes were made to the Australian ships, build quality was outstanding and makes a difference to service life and a lot of work went into coating (paint) to ensure corrosion protection etc. as well as other changes to ensure better draining of bilges etc. Not sure what happened after the foxes took over the hen house but things were being done beforehand to ensure the RAN got the ships they needed. An example of the different strategies to design can be seen in the greatly extended service lives achieved by for example the FFG 7 and Type 23 frigates from those intended when they were initially designed. There were intended to fight in the North Atlantic and as such were structurally able to serve much longer when used predominantly in milder conditions.
An example of the sort of issues the original Navantia design data could have led to is seen in the Armidale class PBs, they were lightly built to just meet the requirements on delivery (though its debatable they even achieved that) but very rapidly started costing a lot of money to maintain as they simply were not materially up to the job they had been bought for. Once the boats scare started there was no hope, but even without that there is no way they could have made it through life of type without major remediation due to being designed to a price with no thought to the future.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #59
I have to say that having worked in shipbuilding for over 25 years I wan't impressed by the quality of finish on the bulkheads / the issues with the door design that are apparent as they gently try to open a watertight door that has a wall of water behind it.
Finish is 'commercial build quality' at best & the old saying is that you get what you pay for is apparent.
Is it any wonder that many navies look at UK ships that have had 25+ years service & think " that hull would suit our navy" ??
