dieseltaylor Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 And apparently it just does not stop with people: http://www.theage.com.au/national/biggest-losers-nz-rejects-our-fat-frigates-20090502-aqur.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Weren't there any NZ officials monitoring the project? If not, it would be astoundingly lax of them. And if there were, what were they doing? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 I would imagine that: a] not many nZ staff have the experience b] knowing how deeply the boat will float must be quite a trick - I suggest impossible until launched 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Few too many shrimp on the barbey, eh mate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 I just can't believe it. An Australian naval project running over spec and requiring expensive retro-fitting? Unheard of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I can't believe we actually rejected them before (apparently) forking out the dosh.....usually we have to have stuff in service for ages before deciding not to bother with the expensive refit required to make it actually useful! Sea trials are normally where everything is proved - displacement, seaworthiness, speed, etc. & any "officials" overseeing construction can only go on what the constructor tells them anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I can't believe we found a country dumb enough to buy this stuff off us! For a country that is surrounded by oceans, Australia is crap at building ships. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 b] knowing how deeply the boat will float must be quite a trick - I suggest impossible until launched Actually, I would think it would be a standard part of the business. Not necessarily down to the last centimeter, mind you, but pretty close. After all, it must be known with fair accuracy how much the materials of its construction and equipping weigh, and the dimensions and contours of the hull are known. So from those two data it can be calculated how much water must be displaced and how deeply it would settle in order to do so. That said, I admit I am not a naval architect. However, I have a friend who is and if I can get ahold of him in the next few days I will sound him on this issue. A couple of years ago he was demonstrating to me some software that allows him to compute all sorts of interesting things about how a ship or boat will behave in the water under various loadings and sea states. I should think compared to that, merely calculating draft would be a snap. [Added: Perhaps the problem arose due to NZ sailors being a trifle chubbier than their Aussie brethren?] Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Of course displacement and freeboard are calculable. It would be pretty useless if you are putting portholes into a hull and they turn out to be below the waterline! You also need to be able to get the thing into your ports/wharves etc and address compatability with your oilers for RAS, other vessels that you may interact with and so forth. It seems like this is a fairly regualr example of a defence platform that has gotten burdened down with extra gear. There is probably a tendency not to watch total weight as closely on a ship project as say on a UAV, but everything adds up eventually.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Somebody else had to believe your hype sooner or later... And while displacment is indeed be designed, the trials are to PROVE that the design was accurate and that the boat was actually built to it.......and you got nabbed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 And while displacment is indeed be designed, the trials are to PROVE that the design was accurate and that the boat was actually built to it.......and you got nabbed No. We got the usual. See Collins class subs and SeaSprite helicopters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 The bit about the extra ice protection sitting below the water line is pretty funny. If they wanted something seaworthy they should have gone with the Aussie Cattle Dog. At least we know of one that swam 5 miles and then lived on a deserted isle for four months. Scrappy little pooch! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 No. We got the usual. See Collins class subs and SeaSprite helicopters. Our Seasprites are fine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Well you actually bought new ones. We did the equivalent of finding a derelict FJ Holden frame in somebody's back shed and trying to fit a BMW motor and some Honda electronics into it. We would have been better off waiting for Peter Jackson to finish his film and strapping motors onto his Lancaster replicas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Must be something about NZ navy vessels...there was a bit of problems with their 4 IPVs as well (which were being built in NZ). http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3797377&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection= According to A&NZ Defender are subject to a number of warrantee claims which the NZDF is insisting are rectified before acceptance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Obviously the NZDF are fairly amateur in their project management and scoping. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 That's a conclusion that appears to be impossible to avoid. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 As opposed to all the great purchases professionals make all around the world? We're a small country - we screw up - we're used to it - I suggest you get used to it too. But it's still fun to poke borax at the Aussies when we do get it right and they don't, or it's their fault 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I don't think you're the only ones...IIRC, the rebuild of the US carrier Coral Sea apparently added blisters that actually made her less seaworthy and impaired her stability, greatly lessening her future service life, wasting funds and leading to an early retirement - oops! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 As opposed to all the great purchases professionals make all around the world? We're a small country - we screw up - we're used to it - I suggest you get used to it too. But it's still fun to poke borax at the Aussies when we do get it right and they don't, or it's their fault All of which or course I have cheerfully admitted in various posts above. NZ is a small and backward country, so nobody is really surprised when they mess this stuff up. (Like someone expecting the banjo kid from Deliverance to solve cold fusion.) Australia is at a more dangerous level of size: we're big enough to believe that we should be able to do stuff like build submarines, but we only know just enough to get ourselves into trouble. Like the mid-range computer user who knows enough to open the registry files and fiddle with them, but then ends up in strife when things don't turn out the way he expects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Was speaking to my b-i-l yesterday. He's career RAN as an engineer and project manager. (Not associated with these NZ ships.) He says that the patrol vessels in question have been built to an NZ design that was tendered out and won by Tenix. The original design was queried at the time, particularly its capacity to handle Antarctic sea states, but went ahead as what the customer ordered. I guess that's why this is locked in legal arbitration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 It's not a New Zealand design - ships of this class are in service with the Mauritanean coast Guard & Irish navy sine the mid 90's. AFAIK the modifications for light ice resistance (0.4m of broken early season ice!) are not a problem. the delivery problem is not the ships themselves (a opposed to the weight problem which is the ships), but something to do with the sea boats they carry - 2 were deployed on HMNZS Canterbury & 1 was destroyed & the other damaged by high seas. then a seaman was killed when a boat overturned during deployment. AFAIK the argument is whether these problems are intrinsic to the design or a fault of the builder - ie who has to pay for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Jaysus. You're looking to Mauritania to proof your designs!! And the grand old Irish navy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 On a related note, the b-i-l in question was on one of the testing voyages that put the nail in the coffin of the Super Sea Sprites. They went down into the Antarctic Ocean and looked for the very worst weather and sea states they could find to try the choppers out. Not much fun working in front of a PC screen whilst pitching through waves of 7 – 10 metres. There was point where the ship (Oliver Hazzard Perry frigate) dug into a wave and was submerged up to the superstructure for several seconds. The officer on the bridge thought it wasn’t coming up again and was at the point of initiating an abandon alarm when it slowly crawled back out to the surface. Apparently the stresses of the trip accounted to about 50% of the lifetime wear in terms of keel flex on that frigate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Lesson: When the weather gets really heavy, look for shelter. Duh. (And yes, I know the Navy feels like they should be able to go anywhere, any time. But really...) Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.