Sea trials, LHD (JCI)

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Im assumming it passed sea trials. I haven seen any news reports of being stranded or catching fire or sinking... :p: Assuming it did then being fully operational by next year seems to be pretty quick.

Im assuming that it means that Australia did pick a winner that will meet its build date, cost and capabilities and that there are not major calls for revisions on the Australian build.
 
Well Stingray, sea trials have been successful, JC1 has surpassed max speed of 21 Knots but this sea trials are just part of a much wider trial program. 340 Armada personnel + 220 Navantía personnel were involved in the trials.
The advantage of having units 2 and 3 being built for you means that there will be no teething problems on your units.
Propulsion seems to be the only area where slight changes where needed. The first problem happened when one of the Man diesel engines had to be replaced due to design failure. The engine was replaced and the second engine modified, the design failure corrected.
Then on previous sea trials a vibration was detected on the pods ( The Schottel 11 MW azipods). There aren´t many units built of this very powerful pod so engineers got to work very fast on the problem. A month ago JC1 went on dry dock The solution has been a new careening in the form of a water drop around the pod´s sockets.
So far max speed has been achieved and passed but as far as I know in September goes back to dry-dock to get the forward facing props replaced by a new and specific Schottel prop design (some minor cavitations problems).
I guess that is what sea trials are for, all problems detected and all solutions on their way. Non of this problems affect the construction of the Camberras since the socket modifications will be done during construction.
 
Is in Spanish but i am sure you are all familiar with the google translators......, ;)




Talking about size, there is a small picture taken from the deck.

Regards
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Is in Spanish but i am sure you are all familiar with the google translators......, ;)




Talking about size, there is a small picture taken from the deck.

Regards
Thankyou very much for the post, fantastic info on JC, I see what you mean about the picture with two people on the flight deck, it looks huge
 

agc33e

Banned Member
I have looking the video in youtube, and i see the ship bouncing like in high sea state, using the tanks with water, i think it will be great ship for launching jets of helos. It has a great speed filling or emptying with water the side tanks, for finding a balance and compensate the direction of the waves in the sea.
I see what you mean, we can see in the video as the water expulsed with pressure falls at like 60 mts away from the ship, in a curtain of water falling in the sea, from the ship.
The sea state was little, we have to see how the ship goes with high state, if it moves too much with the wide bottom, then it wont be specially good for launching, despite having a good ballast system and the retractyle fins. the thing is that with just moving the ballast and rotating the ship, probably using the fore propeller also, the ship inclined quite.
They have the reference of the Galicia-Rotterdam, that at the bottom is similar to the JCI, "squared".
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Im assuming that it means that Australia did pick a winner that will meet its build date, cost and capabilities and that there are not major calls for revisions on the Australian build.
It is a winner that loosed the russian "contest", but the canberra as far as i read was the capability king in the contest and was expected being a winner for the aus contest, i mean that it was having better scores in many things. Did the russians make the same type of assesment?
A fact is that navantia is close partner with usa companies, also using usa gas turbines, the lm2500, but i think just that, maybe they dont want to "depend" at all on usa equipment, just in case...

I would say the 3 issues encountered in the sea trials should be fully solved, the 11 mwatts pod issue should be ok because there quite a few installed in big ships working well, and biggers ships.

Actually the building of the canberra is ahead of schedule, a few weeks, i recall that they mounted the jci in less than 6 months, but maybe with many blocks already done, while with the canberra the mounting has already began but with many blocks not done yet. Still i would not be surprised the ships is ready before schedule, well it is expected to be launched in march 2011, plus the time saved with the jci problems.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well Stingray, sea trials have been successful, JC1 has surpassed max speed of 21 Knots but this sea trials are just part of a much wider trial program. 340 Armada personnel + 220 Navantía personnel were involved in the trials.
The advantage of having units 2 and 3 being built for you means that there will be no teething problems on your units.
I guess that is what sea trials are for, all problems detected and all solutions on their way. Non of this problems affect the construction of the Camberras since the socket modifications will be done during construction.
Well that all sounds good. I was curious because the JC1 is a fairly new design with several modern and somewhat untested features. But it sounds as if it has proven itself. Weight, balance and speed seem to be very positive. The strongest argument the mistals had was that they were already in the water so were more "proven" and hence lower risk.

Actually hearing about small minor issues makes it a more credable report and seatrial. With the Australian build still in the early stages there seems to be little that needs to be modified.

Australia is still concidering a 3rd sealift ship and a 4th AWD. Have a program that is kicking arse and meeting deadlines, costs and goals bodes well for the future. I would really like to see a 3rd LHD and a 4th AWD as each would add important addtions, as we would then be able to properly escort our own fleet and CEC within our fleet (AWD), and we would always be ready with a LHD and be far more able to operate 2 at all times which is what the origional capability called for and we could sustain deployment for more than just a few weeks.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I would think the fourth AWD is a bit more important than a third LHD, as a smaller cheaper LPD/LSD could be acquired to fill much of the role for a third LHD... Its the flat top carrier advocates that want a third LHD...
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes, a 4th AWD is more important than a 3rd LHD. .

But if the AWD build is problematic, and the LHD build is painless, who knows. Governments have made odd decisions before. Some might see the LHD ability to help out in a regional collapse, natural disaster as being more critical and more valuable.

Despite the fact that the Australian Army and the Navy couldn't fully effectively sustain deployment of the 3rd LHD as a purely amphibious operation due to lack of personel. However as part of a multinational effort it makes a bit more sense. Or the purchase of several F-35B's would soak up free space.

Ideally we would get a 4th AWD and a capable LPD. To properly escort, protect and use the LHD we need that 4th AWD, otherwise we are effectively dependant on allied support. An not many allies have those sort of ships lying around.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
JC video

Here is a link to a new video on youtube of the JC, enjoy
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdXhNxY-EWQ[/nomedia]
Sorry same video as above, link did not work when I first tried
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Youtube video works for me where as other one didn't.

It would be nice to see some high res pictures.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
I have to rectify the problems with the jci, it was the fore propeller of the main pods (each pod has two propellers), not the fore propeller of the ship, the ones that had vibrations, you know in forums....
Sorry.
:ban
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Harrier Carrier Comparison

Been a bit quiet, so I thought I would ad this link to a "Harrier Carrier" Comparison. It contains some really good graphic comparisons of the JCI/Canberra and other similar Ships. Sorry if you have seen this before
*THE* Harrier Carrier Thread

Not sure if these have been posted before ?
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCwofuxmuAo[/nomedia]
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaPobpOHCJw[/nomedia]
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvtsvKlQKiI&feature=related[/nomedia]
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTzPce1TV0M&feature=related[/nomedia]
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1_x5mlzjY&feature=related[/nomedia]
 
Last edited:

agc33e

Banned Member
Been a bit quiet, so I thought I would ad this link to a "Harrier Carrier" Comparison. It contains some really good graphic comparisons of the JCI/Canberra and other similar Ships. Sorry if you have seen this before
*THE* Harrier Carrier Thread

Not sure if these have been posted before ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCwofuxmuAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaPobpOHCJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvtsvKlQKiI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTzPce1TV0M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1_x5mlzjY&feature=related
Thanks very much, very good info and pictures, all in one hand. But i think we should transform it into the f35b carrier thread : )
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Thanks very much, very good info and pictures, all in one hand. But i think we should transform it into the f35b carrier thread : )
The ship Australia missed the most lately, and especially during the East Timor crisis, was the former Sydney, not the Melbourne. Australia requires sealift and amphibious capability to send its troops abroad, the Canberra LHDs will fit the billing. Building a light carrier version of the Canberra would NOT provide the sealift capabilities required. Furthermore, the Canberra LHD is not designed with the proper fuel and armament bunkerage. The more one attempts to get a light carrier out of the Canberra LHD, the more one loses her vital sealift capability.

Australia isn't buying an American Wasp, they are buying a smaller LHD...
 

agc33e

Banned Member
The ship Australia missed the most lately, and especially during the East Timor crisis, was the former Sydney, not the Melbourne. Australia requires sealift and amphibious capability to send its troops abroad, the Canberra LHDs will fit the billing. Building a light carrier version of the Canberra would NOT provide the sealift capabilities required. Furthermore, the Canberra LHD is not designed with the proper fuel and armament bunkerage. The more one attempts to get a light carrier out of the Canberra LHD, the more one loses her vital sealift capability.

Australia isn't buying an American Wasp, they are buying a smaller LHD...
I dont want to make heavy counts on the lhd, it is a fact that if you want to use it as f35b carrier as much (numbers of jets) as possible we are left only with the lower deck for vehicles, that is 46 leopards or 32 apart from the dock.
In the case of australia they are fitting it for other role, but the spanish are using it as a carrier, proper carrier, that means it has bunkerage and fuelage (just by its own) for some things, for ex it has for 100 f35b´s "full" trips (6 tonne per trip) plus 200 tonnes of jp5 for the gas turbine (?), and recall the range for 6 tonnes is 1700 kms, i put again that is 600 sq meters of weaponry..
About the canberras, they are pure lhd, but enough compatible already to use f35b´s for many things useful for any navy (multiple jets attack with harpoons to an hostile ship...) or supporting the army in land (paveway´s...).
From a first sight i would say that with the proper hanger and fligth deck back parking places they have enough for the chinoks and mhr60r normally asigned for a canberra. So you have to share the rest of the space in the light load deck and the flight deck fore parking places for the tigers, f35b´s and vehicles. Space for a tiger: 14 mts long, f35b: 15 mts, one thing very important for carrying tigers is if the can fit like the mrh60r that you can put 12 squezed in very little space.
To resume: you can park 2 f35b´s in the flight deck fore parking places (impossible to put tigers there), and one f35b in the maintenance space next to the fore lift, and you almost dont notice the sealift and amphibious capability as wanted by the ran (and you can launch attacks of 6 harpoons at 700 kms range)...But i understand the ran as well, they have well traced the line of actions and capabilities and want to concentrate on that. But we can point the ran fleet fronted an hostile fleet, what weapons has the ran? 2 four harpoon launchers from the ship position (awd), and collins.
We can almost have the missed sydney and melbourne all together now in one canberra, imagine 2 canberras...:flash

Best regards.
 
Top