Sea trials, LHD (JCI)

aussienscale said:
Thanks for reminding me, I had forgoten to check and see. Some fantastic pics, cant wait to see more from other members
Click to expand...

Excellent photo's, very interfering to see the the internal one's......for some reason for me they are MUCH more interesting than boring old external shot's.

I have been checking that web site out for new photo's since JC1 commissioned but most of the photo's where unviewable, Very glad they have sorted that problem out. :smokie
 
ThePuss said:
Excellent photo's, very interfering to see the the internal one's......for some reason for me they are MUCH more interesting than boring old external shot's.

I have been checking that web site out for new photo's since JC1 commissioned but most of the photo's where unviewable, Very glad they have sorted that problem out. :smokie
Click to expand...

Agree, I am the same much more interested in the internal's, although love the flight deck pics with the final surfacing on it. Will be interesting to see the difference in the Canberra Class, as I understand it the Canberra are being built to Loyd's Naval Standards. Would this make a difference to the internal look to the ship ? Did 8 years in the Puss but was always on warships anyway so I would really not know what the difference is to be honest ?
 
aussienscale said:
Agree, I am the same much more interested in the internal's, although love the flight deck pics with the final surfacing on it. Will be interesting to see the difference in the Canberra Class, as I understand it the Canberra are being built to Loyd's Naval Standards. Would this make a difference to the internal look to the ship ? Did 8 years in the Puss but was always on warships anyway so I would really not know what the difference is to be honest ?
Click to expand...

It was the Minstral's that are/would be civ spec, JC1/Canberra are built to mil spec. :gun
 
Last edited:
Worth to note from the video, that the cargo lift joining both decks is not placed in the deck´s centre position, as i cannot see any lift there, but there is something like a lift marking just opposite the beginning of the ramp which connects both decks. I suppose they have kept that cargo lift somewhere, but not where expected, in fact if it is where i say, it is very close to the fore aircraft lift, just in front of this. There should be, otherwise they could not park containers in the upper deck.
 
Jaimito said:
Worth to note from the video, that the cargo lift joining both decks is not placed in the deck´s centre position, as i cannot see any lift there, but there is something like a lift marking just opposite the beginning of the ramp which connects both decks. I suppose they have kept that cargo lift somewhere, but not where expected, in fact if it is where i say, it is very close to the fore aircraft lift, just in front of this. There should be, otherwise they could not park containers in the upper deck.
Click to expand...

?? what video are you talking about ?? or do you mean the pictures ?
 
ThePuss said:
It was the Minstral's that are/would be civ spec, JC1/Canberra are built to mil spec. :gun
Click to expand...

Quote from Jane's from JP2048 program manager
Captain Craig Bourke, programme manager for Project JP2048, told Jane's on 28 May that RAN officers were on board Juan Carlos I during its initial sea trials. "These trials provide[d] evidence and assurance that the issues experienced earlier in the Juan Carlos I test programme have been addressed and rectified," he said. "In the specific case of the engine problem last year, the results of the failure investigation were shared with [the Australian DoD]. The failure of this engine was due to a manufacturing defect and notification of this to [DoD], enabled [DoD] to make sure through factory acceptance testing and production monitoring that this manufacturing defect was not duplicated in the Engines for the Australian LHD."

He added: "The Australian LHD has been designed and constructed to 'class' under Lloyd's Naval Rules, this was not the case for Juan Carlos I . Further, much of the internal layout of the superstructure is different [from] Juan Carlos I to accommodate the Australian version of the Saab combat management system, different sensor suite and different communications systems. Many of these changes are required to address the different context and concepts of operation."
 
aussienscale said:
Quote from Jane's from JP2048 program manager
Captain Craig Bourke, programme manager for Project JP2048, told Jane's on 28 May that RAN officers were on board Juan Carlos I during its initial sea trials. "These trials provide[d] evidence and assurance that the issues experienced earlier in the Juan Carlos I test programme have been addressed and rectified," he said. "In the specific case of the engine problem last year, the results of the failure investigation were shared with [the Australian DoD]. The failure of this engine was due to a manufacturing defect and notification of this to [DoD], enabled [DoD] to make sure through factory acceptance testing and production monitoring that this manufacturing defect was not duplicated in the Engines for the Australian LHD."

He added: "The Australian LHD has been designed and constructed to 'class' under Lloyd's Naval Rules, this was not the case for Juan Carlos I . Further, much of the internal layout of the superstructure is different [from] Juan Carlos I to accommodate the Australian version of the Saab combat management system, different sensor suite and different communications systems. Many of these changes are required to address the different context and concepts of operation."
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think I mentioned some time ago that the comments from several sources intimated that the Juan Carlos was considered a 'show pony' and that significant changes would need to be made in order to offer actual capability. As such this quote is not surprising.

Brett.
 
I didn't think there was a huge difference between civil and mil spec, aren't they more about two different ways to the same goal?

I wonder how different the Canberras will be. Complete redesign of the superstructure? The RAN was going to make these the main command ships of the RAN weren't they? Is all this stuff going out of the superstructure into the hull?
 
StingrayOZ said:
I didn't think there was a huge difference between civil and mil spec, aren't they more about two different ways to the same goal?

I wonder how different the Canberras will be. Complete redesign of the superstructure? The RAN was going to make these the main command ships of the RAN weren't they? Is all this stuff going out of the superstructure into the hull?
Click to expand...

This was one of the points brought up a few post's ago having the 3 C's in the main island, look at this animation I posted in another thread a few weeks ago
Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy
It is at the bottom of the page

Here is another link which gives you a heads up on the difference between Civilian and Naval spec, there is a substantial difference, not always visible to the naked eye
NSASS - Lloyd’s Register’s Naval Ship Rules
Lloyd's Register Group - Naval ships
Have a flick around, lots and lots and lots and, well you get the idea. It is a very complicated process with very specific design rules. Not as simple as slapping a few things here and a few things there
 
aussienscale said:
?? what video are you talking about ?? or do you mean the pictures ?
Click to expand...

Sorry i meant the pictures, now with the new photos added in that link it is clear where it is. Also in the video you pasted there is the lift highlighted.
In particular the light deck seems quite wide, no doubt it can carry many aircrafts.
 
aussienscale said:
This was one of the points brought up a few post's ago having the 3 C's in the main island, look at this animation I posted in another thread a few weeks ago
Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy
It is at the bottom of the page
Click to expand...

Must have missed that previously. Jesus she looks big compared to Melbourne.

So C2 spaces are in the island still on the RAN? Seems squishy. The AWD are also going to have space dedicated for this?
 
very nice photos and good to see a dedicated wharf and facilities for the side ramps.
lets hope we can do the same as parking on the wharf at Garden Island will get messy otherwise.
 
StingrayOZ said:
Must have missed that previously. Jesus she looks big compared to Melbourne.

So C2 spaces are in the island still on the RAN? Seems squishy. The AWD are also going to have space dedicated for this?
Click to expand...

I think there will be plenty or room in there, but is it the right spot for them, IIRC the US learned from this and have their spaces below in some instances ?

I beleive the AWD's will also have pretty substantial spaces as well, if you look at my previous post it will give you an idea of how big the Canberra Class are, not sure if you are familiar with the size of the Manure ? But the pic is a good reference, no doubt people in the units above GI will be complaining that they are blocking the sunlight :D
 
aussienscale said:
I think there will be plenty or room in there, but is it the right spot for them, IIRC the US learned from this and have their spaces below in some instances ?

I beleive the AWD's will also have pretty substantial spaces as well, if you look at my previous post it will give you an idea of how big the Canberra Class are, not sure if you are familiar with the size of the Manure ? But the pic is a good reference, no doubt people in the units above GI will be complaining that they are blocking the sunlight :D
Click to expand...

I viewed the schematics recently, interanally is very impressive indeed. Ops is split into 3 sections, with ship warfare, Joint ops and shore to sea Communications all different compartments. Each has a lot of room to move, and more consoles then Aus FFGs combined.
Below decks there are even more compartments that have allowed room to move. Each messdeck is massive, and is divided for Army and Navy to use seperate areas so as to avoid any issues with those who live onboard, and those visiting for the ride.
Its not so much the blocking of sunlight thats the issue, but after seeing where they park their surface combatants in Spain, ill never complain about walking from GI carpark to Island when Cassons up...its 5kms to the ship, thats without having to go to your mess...
 
icelord said:
I viewed the schematics recently, interanally is very impressive indeed. Ops is split into 3 sections, with ship warfare, Joint ops and shore to sea Communications all different compartments. Each has a lot of room to move, and more consoles then Aus FFGs combined.
Below decks there are even more compartments that have allowed room to move. Each messdeck is massive, and is divided for Army and Navy to use seperate areas so as to avoid any issues with those who live onboard, and those visiting for the ride.
Its not so much the blocking of sunlight thats the issue, but after seeing where they park their surface combatants in Spain, ill never complain about walking from GI carpark to Island when Cassons up...its 5kms to the ship, thats without having to go to your mess...
Click to expand...

If you think Rota is large with a few piers, google map Norfolk Naval Base....
 
Although a bit off topic (but then again this has become a pseudo Canberra class thread) below is a new vid of the launch of Spains lates ship the F105, so good to look at from an AWD point of view but at the end of the video shows some great views of the canberra and just how far along she is

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1RWEudZLMg"]YouTube - Botadura de la F105 "Cristóbal Colón"[/nomedia]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top