Jump to content

2 yr dispute??? Are they kidding???


wheels

Recommended Posts

The Navy's new ship, HMNZS Otago, has delayed its New Zealand arrival after engine problems hit it over the weekend off Australia.

HMNZS Otago, an offshore patrol ship (OPV), was to have arrived in Auckland on Friday.

Instead it is back at Williamstown in Melbourne where it has been tied up for two years in a financial dispute with its builders.

Navy spokesman Commander Phil Bradshaw said Otago was doing sea trials off Melbourne when they had a fuel injection problem on one engine. They were fixing it when an alarm went off on the other engine.

"They felt it prudent to return to dock to ensure the engines were perfect before they left," he said.

He said the ship is under-warranty.

The ship returned under its own power and there was no danger.

The first engine has been fixed but the second engine needs a new manifold gasket.

It has to be obtained from MAN Engines in Germany but Commander Bradshaw said it was possible that one could be found in Australia.

"If that is so then Otago could be heading for home by the end of the week."

Otago, part of Project Protector, had been caught in a dispute with Australian shipbuilder BAE Systems.

It has agreed to pay nearly $85 million to fix problems with the navy's fleet of seven new ships.

There's more

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3488865 ... reaks-down

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knot kidding. They have been drama filled from day one of the project.

 

Aren't we lucky Fiji decided knot to attack. We could all be off our knuts on Kava by now :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We surrender!! Bula!!! :thumbup:

 

Seriously, with the bullshit boats our navy's been lumbered with over the years and the blundering decision making I despair a little wondering what would happen if the sh*t hit the fan for real :wtf:

 

I saw these new patrol boats announced in the paper many (now) years ago I thought we'd have a good seakeeping fleet for offshore patrols but since then....... buggered if I know?

 

Anyone here got the real info?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knot down and dirty info but we got what we got as it was a bulk deal and we can't go upsetting the Aussies apparently.

 

Personally I think we should have taken the same coin and built, from scratch, a fleet of 150ft good tuff seagoing Patrol boat sort of things. All in glass working on the theory that one of our Frigates has a life expectancy* of less than an hour in a hot war zone so steel, alloy or glass it's toast anyway. Make them fast and seaworthy.

 

We'd have 100's employed and a fleet of 30 odd by the end of it rather than a couple of semi-lemons. I think that would be far better for what our Navy generally does and just think of the income from selling big fishing boats caught in our waters doing the dodge.

 

It's knot like we don't have the skills or know how to build boats like that here. Alloy Yachts alone could probably bang out 2 or 3 a year. BBW's done a few fast fizzers and I'm sure would love to have a crack at something like that.

 

* - something I read somewhere about just how useless warships can be if it all does hit the fan big time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a similar level apparently a tank and crew are expected to last 30 seconds from first contact with enemy tanks. Most won't even get a shot off. :shock:

1 hour sounds good for a frigate!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Blackadder and the "20 minute'ers". Blackadder was joining the WW1 airforce because that was what they called the flyboys. He thought it was because they flew for twenty minutes and was back home having Tea and scones. Turned out the 20 minutes was the life expectancy of the Pilots.

 

Glass could be a great idea KM. A missle or shell might just pass right through without exploding :D

Actually Ally was found to be the wrong thing to build a Warship out of when an exocete hit the British ship in the Faulklands War. They found the ship went into spontaneuos combustion due to hot Ally burning making it an almost impossible fire to put out.

 

We certainly have the expertese to biuld a ship here in NZ. It was Cuddon Engineering here in Blenheim that built the Gun Turrets. The first one was built and then sent off to Oz to have a Shell shot through it for testing. Then they built the rest. They were really thick heavy solid Steel housings. Very impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first ANZAC frigate to arrive here had turbine problems. At revs the turbine blads were hitting the outer cowling. A mate of mine was an Air NZ engineer on the case. They had to take the whole shebang out of the frigate. Uh Oh they hadn't thought of that! They had to cut a hole in the side of the ship to get it out? :wtf: :eh: :shock: :thumbdown:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To many people, that comes at a surprise, but it is infact quite normal for all large vessels. I even know of many smaller launches where major terring apart of parts of the boat is required to remove the engine. Even my yacht would require that if the engine were to come out in one piece. As foir ships though, very common to just gas axe a large "door" in the side of the ship and then weld her up again afterward.

 

Bit of a worry for a turbine to "rub" though. Could you imagine the noise. I suppose some Ozy engineer would say "oh thaat? Naaah mate, shee'll soon loosen up weth a bit of weeer mate. Jaast runnin in is all mate. Heeer, ave another Fosters an I'll throw anarther sossy on the Heat sheeld for ya mate".

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAN belly up? gee I hope not. They are one of the biggest in the world and probably the Biggest in Europe. Their Earnings are like 10 or 12 Bilion Euro's/yr. They make big stuff from larger Launch application right upto huge Ship engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The first ANZAC frigate to arrive here had turbine problems. At revs the turbine blads were hitting the outer cowling. A mate of mine was an Air NZ engineer on the case. They had to take the whole shebang out of the frigate. Uh Oh they hadn't thought of that! They had to cut a hole in the side of the ship to get it out? :wtf: :eh: :shock: :thumbdown:

 

Funny thing is the ANZAC frigates, with their Jet Turbines, actually have a lower top speed that the Steam Turbine Leander frigates they replaced. :roll: :roll:

 

The Leanders could do something like 14 knots in reverse! :twisted: :twisted:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will be Gas Turbine as against Jet Turbine. Simlar beast, slightly different way of going about it. Jet Turbine has thrust from the exhaust, Gas Turbine is all about putting power into the rotation to power say the Blades on a Turboprop aircraft engine, or in this case, the propellor of the ship.

Are Gas Turbines something common in fast ships?? (Not talking Nuclear which is Steam Turbine).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rocket

Pretty standard to have to cut a hole in the side of a ship to get a turbine out. - ya think they would install a trapdoor?

 

Quite common to have blade touching surrounds issues as well. The wayto get increased efficiency is to go hotter and higher compression. Higher compression requires tighter tolerances. Most big GTs experienece a bit of "rubbing" pre-commissioning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new tug that is being commissioned in Whangarei for the West Ausies had a big hole in the side to allow access directly into the engine room rather than having to climb up and then down if it wasn't there. All welded up now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of the idea of a fleet of fast coastal patrol vessels that are smaller in size, but very seaworthy boats. That just seems to make a lot of sense to me, particularly when our Navy is tasked with patrolling our coastlines to intercept foreign fishing vessels, conduct search and rescue operations, etc, etc. I'm thinking along the lines of the Vosper Motor Torpedo Boats (MTBs) or similar. Even in strictly military operations the likes of the German E-Boats were very effective and against opponents like submarines a pair or more of MTBs could detect and attack a sub while presenting a fast moving, difficult to hit target in return.

 

Keep the frigates if you wish, but a fleet of high speed coastal patrol boats would be of tremendous benefit to our military capabilites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that include Torpedos and depth charges :wink: :lol:

 

I do think they need to be a little bigger than that. They need a certain amount of "presence" and i am stuffed if i would want to be cooped up in a Tub in big blow way down in the Southern Ocean.

Plus carrying out a rescue is a little easier having a good size boat protecting the smaller rescuee from the elements while the rescue is taking place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Keep the frigates if you wish, but a fleet of high speed coastal patrol boats would be of tremendous benefit to our military capabilites."

 

But I thought that's what we were getting?

 

2 big ones and more smaller ones? Might have to get on the Navy website for a squiz

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 frigates, 4 patrol boats, one tanker and a huge shoebox called a multi-purpose vessel, 3 Chico 40's (had 4 sold one), a fleet of 17ft Crown dingys, and a few weird arsed 29er looking things.

 

Assuming they all work at the same time and the slack arse Aussies can get one frigate to actually work :?

 

Err... Wheels, a 150ft patrol boat should have just enough room for you to be knot cooped up :)

 

If you want 'presence' try shagging your missus on deck with a joint hanging out of your mouth when Deodar comes around the headland at 30kts. It's got enough presence to trigger another bodily function, one which smells :)

 

Should ask Steve P, I believe he's had 'presence' issues with some Governmint craft. Maybe they need to get him in as a 'Presence Consultant' :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...