t68
Well-Known Member
yes saw that on the news didn't look good.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Not sure that this will affect the timetable for a replacement, but it is a timely reminder that aluminium burns very nicely and that any future replacements will need to be steel.
MB
What transpires will be an interesting sideshow. Will the govt. demand either a replacement or compensation for the loss of capability? Is the loss Austal's or Navy's? etc.
Time for Navy to hand the lot over to Customs Marine unit and start again with a true offshore capable hull
Depends who had material control, likely to have still been the RAN, now if there is negligence involved it could actually fall to the shipyard or even the particular contractor concerned.
Saw the footage on the tv news and cannot see her being repaired. The bridge, upper accommodation, galley and emergency generator at a minimum are trashed and the un-melted sections of the superstructure would be warped by the heat of the fire. If the fire went lower down the hull will also be warped. She will likely be a structural loss.
The thing that really concerns me is how quickly the flames took hold even with the fire fighting measures that the shipyard would have had in place. Imagine if the fire had happened at sea, remember these platforms are commercially classed and don't have the same level of firefighting capability as a warship. Our sailors deserve better.
Just read the whole story with the fire starting in the generator room that means the generators, propulsion diesels, majority of auxiliary systems and most of the hull will be unsalvageable. An aluminium hulled PB should never have been ordered for the RAN.
Yes but the work that was being carried and caused the fire out wouldn't happen at sea. That's not to say that fires don't happen, but this incident shouldn't be considered indicative of any particular fire hazard problem.
Most importantly it sounds like nobody was harmed, and this will mostly be an issue for somebodies bank balance and ego.
Most importantly it sounds like nobody was harmed, and this will mostly be an issue for somebodies bank balance and ego.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think he was referring to how an out of control fire can easily burn thru the structure not actually how it started, similar to the HMS Sheffield
There are plenty of sources of ignition in an operational patrol boat at sea, the big difference is at sea the halon system would be in operation for the machinery spaces. What surprised me was how quickly the accommodation spaces and bridge seemed to go up.
Risk is a combination of not only the result of something like this occurring but also the likelihood. I think it's fair to say that the likelihood was significantly higher than normal in this instance.
We also don't yet know whether procedures were being followed re: fire safety. So ultimately this doesn't tell us much at all at this stage.
Just for clarification we need to be careful how we use the term 'commercial rules'; here. These vessels are a hybrid set of rules (established as part of the project and under the governance Naval Flag Administration) and are not reflective of commercial structural fire protection.
These vessels would not comply with the rules that apply to a cargo vessel of 500 gross tonnage (which is the equivalent) in that they cannot provide the same A-60, A-30, A-0, B-15 etc subdivision. For A Class bulkheads this generally involves insulated steel construction where the surface temperature on the other side of the fire cannot exceed 180 degrees for 30 minutes or an hour depending on the rating (so A-60 is 60 minutes). It has been achieved with aluminium but requires a hell of a lot of impressive insulation with a significantd weight and cost penalty.
Basically where warships are concerned the word commercial is used to link to rules developed by commercial entities for warship or naval vessel construction (Classification Societies) as warship rules. The F100 frigate is also built to commerical (warship) rules but would not be acceptable for the comparable cargo ship construction.
I was surprised at how quickly the fire appears to have taken hold, having worked on the class it was quite disconcerting. An interesting thing with them is the sprinkler system is normally dry, as a weight saving measure, and as such has to be charged prior to use, delaying response time to fires. This is highly unlikely to have been a fabricator in this fire but would be at sea.
True the ACPBs are classed but the F-100 while built to some sections Lloyds rules and the AWD is fabricated in accordance with procedures jointly developed with Lloyds. There are ongoing arguments as to whether the AWD should be classed or not, non shipbuilders in the alliance seem enamoured with the idea while the shipbuilders and ex navy don't want a bar of it. The ANZACs I believe are classed by GL but I am not sure how successful this has been.
On the fire insulation I have heard a major cost driver on the USS Independance was the need to retrofit the insulation after it was left off during earlier phases of construction. Interestingly the AWD also uses insulation on some steel bulkheads.
Yep and GL have some involvement with ANZAC as you note. No problem with that as it is Navy's call and has nothing to do with the civilian regulator. To be clear for other readers 'classed' does not mean the vessel is complaint to cargo ship requirements adopted by IMO, rather they are 'in class' for the purpose of the rules selected.
Trackmaster
Member
In relation to the Bundaberg...why are we still getting these comments about aluminium burning.
Aluminium does not burn...it melts. And as Alexsa pointed out, HMS Sheffield was an all steel ship.
Aluminium does not burn...it melts. And as Alexsa pointed out, HMS Sheffield was an all steel ship.
Lots of flammables onboard, the issue with aluminium is it melts at a significantly lower temperature than steel, hence my comments on structural damage. That said an intense enough fire will also damage a steel structure.
Absolutely agree, aluminium is light but more brittle and loses strength at about 500 degrees C. Given fuel fires go up to 1800 degrees C structural failure occurs quickly if there is nothing to protect the material (insulation and fire systms).
It come down to the weight conudrum, Aluminium is light but if you want the fire protection rating you are going to add a lot of weight in insulation and other systems.
Looking at the images of Bundaberg (noting they are poor) it looks like complete destruction of the superstructure and hull damage aft. It looked like paint discolouration at the bow but that may have been water from fire fighting...... either way I suspect she is a write off.
Last edited:
weegee
Active Member
I saw on BAE Facebook that she was going for her final trials to southern nsw and that the trials would take a couple of weeks.
Considering Australia is "looking" into potentially having ships in the future to carry the interceptor missile, is there a chance we should look at building a ships on the current AWD gap proposal with the relevant systems.
Seems that the cost converting the Current Hobart destroyers would be enourmous.
Maybe with the possibilty of BAE coming into the mix in Australia we could look at 2-3 Type 45 - ASAP(and reduce the Future frigate to 6)
Seems that the cost converting the Current Hobart destroyers would be enourmous.
Maybe with the possibilty of BAE coming into the mix in Australia we could look at 2-3 Type 45 - ASAP(and reduce the Future frigate to 6)
US bombers to use Northern Territory air weapons range | News.com.au
- Status