Australia's Canberra class LHDs/assault carriers
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
A landlubbers question...."Nuship" A title used prior to commissioning?
Thanks
Larry
Thanks
Larry
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,153
- Points
- 1,160
Larry Strong said:
From what I get from the article "NUSHIP" is actually part of the ships name.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Larry Strong said:
I thought it was another acronym similar to the American acronym PCU (Pre-commissioning Unit) to refer to warships that have not been commissioned? (E.g. PCU Zumwalt)
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Ok, I see. :nod:
Many thanks
Larry
Many thanks
Larry
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
S.M.A. said:
You thought correctly:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Problems already hampering the ship before commissioning...
Brand new $1.5 billion pride of Australia's fleet crippled after electrical meltdown during sea trials
[dailymail.co.uk]
5 June 2014
A source said the first issue occurred when the electric powered pods at the stern of the ship were operated independently in low-speed mode when the ship was travelling at high speed, when they should have been operated in tandem, which caused serious vibrations across the ship.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,274
- Points
- 1,160
Well we had the CCGS Henry Larson down for 6 months after a electric meltdown during sea trials.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hello all,
Been a keen reader of the forum for ages, and finally have something to contribute.
First, the above story about the Canberra being crippled, et al, is a lot of nonsense. There were some issues with the azipods and, as you would expect, she returned to there yard with a list of defects to be corrected before second sea trials. Nothing to get the vapors about.....
On the F-35B front, to date only two articles have appeared by people who have primary knowledge of both the ships and the aircraft. The stories about av fuel bunker and magazine capacity being inadequate are 100 per cent garbage. They have the same capacity as the lead Spanish ship, Juan Carlos Primo. And Hades will be a hockey rink before an F-35B or V-22 melts an LHD flight deck.
Attached in PDF format are pages with a relevant article from the July issue of a reputable Australian av magazine, not otherwise available online. The journalist has excellent sources. Worth reading.
Also, this small but fact-based piece from an Australian think tank is well worth a look. Here - http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/author/steve-george/
Hopefully these two articles mark the beginning of fact based reporting and discussion, and the end of woefully ill-informed armchair expertise by stale and painfully ignorant blowhards. That includes some Australian staff college lecturers who are way too fond of their own voices and unapologetic about their own technical ignorance.
I hope these two articles are of help to those here who are following the story.
Again, it's great forum here - my compliments and respect to all. Please believe me with that, as I run an Oz av forum, and fully appreciate some of the difficulties of keeping a forum going ahead on an even keel. Keep it up.
Been a keen reader of the forum for ages, and finally have something to contribute.
First, the above story about the Canberra being crippled, et al, is a lot of nonsense. There were some issues with the azipods and, as you would expect, she returned to there yard with a list of defects to be corrected before second sea trials. Nothing to get the vapors about.....
On the F-35B front, to date only two articles have appeared by people who have primary knowledge of both the ships and the aircraft. The stories about av fuel bunker and magazine capacity being inadequate are 100 per cent garbage. They have the same capacity as the lead Spanish ship, Juan Carlos Primo. And Hades will be a hockey rink before an F-35B or V-22 melts an LHD flight deck.
Attached in PDF format are pages with a relevant article from the July issue of a reputable Australian av magazine, not otherwise available online. The journalist has excellent sources. Worth reading.
Also, this small but fact-based piece from an Australian think tank is well worth a look. Here - http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/author/steve-george/
Hopefully these two articles mark the beginning of fact based reporting and discussion, and the end of woefully ill-informed armchair expertise by stale and painfully ignorant blowhards. That includes some Australian staff college lecturers who are way too fond of their own voices and unapologetic about their own technical ignorance.
I hope these two articles are of help to those here who are following the story.
Again, it's great forum here - my compliments and respect to all. Please believe me with that, as I run an Oz av forum, and fully appreciate some of the difficulties of keeping a forum going ahead on an even keel. Keep it up.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,274
- Points
- 1,160
Interesting the RAN is growing short on supply ships, maybe we can build you a Berlin Class one after we finish our own.... :nod:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The Oz government have shortlisted the new supply ship to two designs: the Navantia Cantabria-class (approx 20,000 tonnes) and the MARS Aegir 26 (approx 26,000 tonnes). The latter is a smaller version of the new RFAs for the Brits. Canberra recently stated that they will be built in either Spain or South Korea, not Oz. They're expediting this decision. RAN admiral Ray Griggs recently recommneded the brief article at the link as a good summary of how it's going.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Australias-supply-ships-serious-about-success-024674/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Australias-supply-ships-serious-about-success-024674/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
OTR1 said:
Source link please? Unless you're... in an organization that would be privy to that information?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well, SMA, my name appears in the 'thanks' bit at the very end of this Defence White Paper submission. Is that enough?
www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf
Folks here please take note that the linked document is 4,800 words long, so it may be an idea to be caffeinated before having a look. Also note that thanks to the hopeless desk wallah at the Dept of Defence the formatting got stuffed-up, and so page 17 is now blank: just scroll from page 16 to 18 and you'll be OK. It's a detailed account of the F-35B/LHD question.
Fear not, I shan't post any more on that subject here, as this probably marks the end of people's interest and patience.
Some RAN pics attached of the Canberra entering Sydney the other day. Commissions on November 28.
www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf
Folks here please take note that the linked document is 4,800 words long, so it may be an idea to be caffeinated before having a look. Also note that thanks to the hopeless desk wallah at the Dept of Defence the formatting got stuffed-up, and so page 17 is now blank: just scroll from page 16 to 18 and you'll be OK. It's a detailed account of the F-35B/LHD question.
Fear not, I shan't post any more on that subject here, as this probably marks the end of people's interest and patience.
Some RAN pics attached of the Canberra entering Sydney the other day. Commissions on November 28.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
That very document by ASPI is not much of an advertisement for their scholarship.
From beginning to end there's barely a single, easily-ascertained fact they got right.
Easiest example regards ATC: they maintain that the LHDs can't do STOVL ATC.
Um......if you can do helo ATC, then you can do STOVL ATC.
If they mean fighter controllers, they'll be in the Hobart destroyers and Wedgetail AWACS.
Further, the LHDs can actually accommodate embarked fighter controllers if so desired.
As for reduced helo a/c if F-35s are embarked, doing as the USN/MC do with the Wasps do - as in all day, every day, as I write this - with permanent deck parking rotations and only one hangar bay optimised for fast air rather disproves this this nonsense.
That pair really, really, have zero primary knowledge of this, and would have been well served by consulting some UK and US sources before sharing their learned conclusions with the rest of us.
Ho hum.
From beginning to end there's barely a single, easily-ascertained fact they got right.
Easiest example regards ATC: they maintain that the LHDs can't do STOVL ATC.
Um......if you can do helo ATC, then you can do STOVL ATC.
If they mean fighter controllers, they'll be in the Hobart destroyers and Wedgetail AWACS.
Further, the LHDs can actually accommodate embarked fighter controllers if so desired.
As for reduced helo a/c if F-35s are embarked, doing as the USN/MC do with the Wasps do - as in all day, every day, as I write this - with permanent deck parking rotations and only one hangar bay optimised for fast air rather disproves this this nonsense.
That pair really, really, have zero primary knowledge of this, and would have been well served by consulting some UK and US sources before sharing their learned conclusions with the rest of us.
Ho hum.
Similar threads
