Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
Opps, i always forget that little bit of info, she always Navy to me.
I suppose the RFA blokes get the cranks when they are referred to RN as opposed to RFA.
The Boys over at Fotosdebarcos have finally got around to posting their photos of Canberra's launch (I'm surprised it took them this long).
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - HMAS 02 Canberra
Some very good pic's there but god she looks very weird without her super structure!. I would be interested to see a picture from above to see what the current top side arrangement is.
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - HMAS 02 Canberra
Some very good pic's there but god she looks very weird without her super structure!. I would be interested to see a picture from above to see what the current top side arrangement is.
Trackmaster
Member
Link deleted, do not post a link to another forum without your own commentary.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, great job from Navantia...
Blas de Lezo
Member
Looking at the pictures from "fotosdebarcos" I have to say that I am a bit puzzled.
Here is my puzzle,
She seems to be perfectly leveled seating pretty on the water, but the starboard superstructure is missing and is a pretty big one. I do not know the weight of the superstructure but has to be big.
The pictures of JCI´s launch also show her leveled and it was the same hull but with the superstructure so.....question..... Did they launch Canberra with the port ballast tanks full? how do they do it?. Something has to balance the missing weight of the superstructure.
Here is my puzzle,
She seems to be perfectly leveled seating pretty on the water, but the starboard superstructure is missing and is a pretty big one. I do not know the weight of the superstructure but has to be big.
The pictures of JCI´s launch also show her leveled and it was the same hull but with the superstructure so.....question..... Did they launch Canberra with the port ballast tanks full? how do they do it?. Something has to balance the missing weight of the superstructure.
Interesting post mate, Not only do your ship builders know how to to put together a MASSIVE ship (and put our own builders to shame) they do it ridiculously quickly and under budget!) AND they can launch it perfectly level without it's super structure!
That is an interesting point, I imagine there must be some ballast or something in her to keep her level. Otherwise I would imagine she would be a complete pain to tow, or lift all the way to australia. Your right she should be in all sorts of awkward in the water, something so big and so high up.
Maybe they just converted all the underbudget savings into gold and put that in her hull as ballast?
I still think we should get three. 3 months ahead, impressive, I would assume the superstructure/fiotout will be somewhat awkward to fit as a first time, still 3 months means things might actually go right!
Maybe they just converted all the underbudget savings into gold and put that in her hull as ballast?
I still think we should get three. 3 months ahead, impressive, I would assume the superstructure/fiotout will be somewhat awkward to fit as a first time, still 3 months means things might actually go right!
Dont forget that they have the experience of the first LHD so the work in this one has gone easier and the work on the third will go even faster and easier! I can tell you that there is probably more people begging for a third aussie LHD in the spanish shipyards than in the whole Australia
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed. Now no doubt the superstructures will take another 5 years for Australia defence industry to produce and the software integration another 7 years on top of that and then delivered in a less than contracted for state, whilst the hulls are rusting away in Melbourne...
I expect we shall see these ships in about 2024, with "limited operational capability"....
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
The project will then be canceled for cost saving measures.
What I do not understand is why with so many of these projects there are not penalties stiffly built into these contracts, it is so rare that these seem to be included, it is like there is a different set of rules, the Commercial world and commercial Defense.
i went to google the one that capsized on launching that i knew about and found two, you would think one was enough
red faces all round
On July 3, 1883, the SS Daphne (5,000 tonnes and 175 feet in length) was launched from Govan shipyard on the Clyde. Within minutes she went under, and 124 people lost their lives. Apart from the obvious horror, this brought about legislation that only essential personnel should be allowed on board during a launch.
James Hanlon, Glasgow.
ONE such sinking was the Swedish battleship Vasa in 1628. Huge for its time, it carried 64 cannon on two gun decks, designed to outgun any opposing ship.
With insufficient ballast to counteract the very high centre of gravity resulting from this armament, upon its launch into Stockholm harbour, the great ship keeled over to such an extent that the water flooded into the lower gunports, causing the whole ship to capsize and sink.
We will have to see what pops out of ASC with the AWD and the new subs. Hopefully they float the right way up..
I wonder how much we could get a third ship for, compared to buying a Bay (which seems to be getting more expensive)..
I wonder how much we could get a third ship for, compared to buying a Bay (which seems to be getting more expensive)..
A third Canberra would probably run between A$1 billion to A$1.5 billion, possibly more, no where near as much as the British Largs Bay, with reports suggesting a price of A$300 million, maybe less... This is in general terms as the Bay's final price hasn't been negotiated yet...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.../]Canberra Contract Costs, Armament Clarified
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/new...ews - National - General - The Canberra Times
i brought the 300m figure up before, Swerve put in how the BAE ships cost ~60m pounds new
if the Bay is gonna cost us 300m we should turn it down, we could buy a new one from BAE for less ~60m pounds?
- Status