Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[derekwarner]

HMAS Adelaide LO1 - is one of two vessels purchased from Spain have been fraught with defects and an inability to provide service in the RAN as Commissioned [in 2015], and since the warranty expired ...a Political stalemate over numerous gross defect faults

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-31/hmas-adelaide-loses-power-tonga-mission-volcano/100793112


HMAS Adelaide is in Tonga providing emergency relief following an earthquake event......


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Adelaide_(L01)


Derek

[Circlip]

Probably a good reason naval based nations don't go to war. Can't rely on the equipment.  Engines, gearboxes, electrics, leaky propshafts etc..


  Regards   Ian.

[derekwarner]

Yes. .....if you read the technical specification as listed in the WIKI paper, it appears to of the highest and technically advanced mainframe machinery by World renown manufacturers, the assemblers of the equipments are equally highly credentialed


General Electric LM2500 turbines/MAN diesel generators Seimens control systems gear ........then we see  BAE Systems' .....??

An unbelievably high score in Defence embarrassment for the 2022 Federal election, however a Defence Paper probably due for Public release in 2046 , by then both our Flagship HMAS Canberra LO2,  & sister HMAS Adelaide LO1 will probably be razor blades


Derek

[derekwarner]

With over 100 views, I was hoping for some feedback on others ideas of what has changed?


In another thread by Colin Bishop is a reference to a Publication on the RN's new Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier, with a warts & all detail of all design or and operational faults


So this is the area I am trying to understand simply if our 24/7 - 365 News sensationalism under the microscope is the symptom of our daily life that we didn't experience in previous decades?


Just as the RN's QE Carrier experienced a leaking shaft seal, and a Class on new RN Destroyers have insufficient electrical power to enable all 4 slice toasters to be turned on in every Ward Room, then also our HMAS Adelaide blew a circuit breaker but with no spares onboard........


So is the incidence of fault increasing in current nautical or Military builds?, or is the ferocity of reporting level the changing and distorting element?


Derek   

[Circlip]

Sadly Derek it's a sign of the times when a serviceman has the ability to leak (sic) and instantly communicate to the world his bad day due to whatever. Couple that with accountants, incompetence, lack of interest and the myriad of everyday "Issues" which some judge to be of greater importance than dedication loyalty and efficiency.
 Possibly the same reasons and excuses apply to  why it's the old farts that MAKE toy boats, aircraft etc. and not so many of todays Youfs.


  Regards  Ian.

[Colin Bishop]

One of the interesting comments in the QE book is that when developing a new car it goes through a rigorous design and testing process covering all the conditions it is likely to be driven under. Only then is the design signed off and put into production. With a 70,000 ton state of the art aircraft carrier you can only design so much before the ship is built and then you have to fix the unforseen problems as you go along as part of the working up process. Nothing new about this. The quad 14 inch turrets of the King George V class battleships suffered all sorts of 'teething problems', many of which were due to the loss of expertise in making gun mountings after WW1 when the Navy was cut back and there was a 'battleship holiday'. Before that, it was years before the 16 inch gun mountings of Nelson & Rodney could be relied upon to shoot consistently as the interlocks and other features were just so complex. And even after the problems had been fixed all three guns had to be loaded together which slowed down salvo firing.

Warships have traditionally suffered from two major hazards in development. The first is that the 'customer' keeps changing the specification to accommodate new ideas and new weapon systems which can cause the costs to soar. The muddle over whether QE should be completed with cats & traps or be configured for the F35B STOVL fighter and incorporate a ski jump is a classic example.

The other problem is good old cost cutting. It was known in advance that the Daring class destroyers would be marginal in tems of generating sufficient power in hot climates but the extra capacity was designed out to save money in the hope that 'it would be alright on the night'. It wasn't and now the ships are undergoing major surgery with their hulls cut open to restore the capacity that could have been provided at a fraction of the cost at the outset.

The old Mk1 type 42 destroyers were built down to a budget and consequently too small to accommodate weapons upgrades which shortened their service lives. TheType 23 frigates have been better bargains in this respect.

And then there are the things we don't know much about such as 'fitted for but not with'. Just how many of those silos on the frigates and destroyers actually have missiles in them?

None of this is new really, in the days of the sailing Navy ships were built of green timber and rotted away after a few years.

Colin

[kinmel]

post deleted

[dodes]

I think one of the problems with design of R N warships is besides money problems is the lack of experienced design staff and other backup services such as specialised research and trials departments, which all disappeared over the last 20 odd years to save money. One time all new first of class ships would be secured over the shock trials moorings in the Solent, but they dare not put the Q E on it because all her computer monitors etc are not mounted on resilient mountings as previous warships to save money, the excuse is these vessels are not supposed to be within 1300miles of any hot spot.!!

[Colin Bishop]

Do you actually mean 1300 miles Dodes?

Presumably all monitors on QE are flat screens which are more resilient tht the old CRT ones.

The USA reently put their latest carrier Gerald Ford through a shock test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0eyP4nO20

I doubt if you's be allowed to do that in the Solent!

Colin

[Circlip]

"computer monitors etc are not mounted on resilient mountings as previous warships to save money"


  Years ago, was asked to quote for the res mounts for a series of our warships (Tees). Despite putting on a ridiculously high profit margin, we were informed we couldn't manufacture them so cheaply.


 Regards Ian.


 Forum System going daft again

[dodes]

Yes the figure was given to me, by someone who should have not but what ever it is not envisage these carriers coming in range of a hot war, thier AA/Am protection is quite small relying instead of a support force. Also yes the last major vessel which underwent the shock trials was Invincible, but the new carriers are cheap and nasty builds, you can see that just looking at them. I would imagine as a retired professional seaman that, in a mid ocean storm they would be very uncomfortable especially when the waves smash under the square out hanging of the hull. But now the Russians and Chinese have no need to get within range of the F35's, their new supersonic missiles would take them out quite easily, as their kinetic energy as such would have the effect of a small nuclear weapon. Plus China has for several years had a anti ship missile of 7.5 tons which has a range of 1600 miles , it goes out to the outer atmosphere and then hurtles vertically downwards at considerable speed, it was designed to take out the USA large nuk carriers.

[dodes]

I meant to say the shock trials moorings was opposite Spithead anchorage, and all first of class used to be subject to these trials. Remember working on the moorings in the late 1970's with the Goldeneye, but they were eventually recovered in the mid 1990's, the cost of maintenance and the trials with a fast falling spend budget brought it all to a end. They were deep and because of it very heavy to work, a standard 1st class single trot mooring with two outlying beam  moorings.