# A brand new 27,000 tonne Australian Navy ship was damaged during maiden sea trials



## Geoff Gower (Sep 8, 2011)

A CIVILIAN contract crew made two serious errors during sea trials for the navy’s biggest ever ship, damaging its hull and melting down electrical systems. The first of two $1.5 billion 27,000-tonne Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs), to be known as HMAS CANBERRA, suffered excessive vibration in May during her first “shakedown cruise” between Melbourne and Sydney. The fault was traced to the brand-new vessel’s two German-built Siemens propulsion pods — or azimuth thrusters — which were out of alignment. Each thruster, fitted at the stern of the ship, has two propellers mounted on large electric powered pods that can be rotated to any angle, eliminating the need for a rudder. And just like the wheels of a car, poor pod alignment causes vibration. A crew from Teekay Shipping Corporation was hired by prime contractor BAE Systems and was apparently unaware that the pods must be operated in tandem above eight knots. They ran them independently in low-speed mode at high speed, causing serious vibration throughout the ship. “Once the pods were back in the correct mode the vibration ceased,” a project source said. “It was an operator error and the return journey was much smoother.” The vibration was generated by cavitation and the bounce produced at the stern rolled across the ship with decks trembling and panels vibrating. “It was like the shaking floor in an amusement park house of fun,” a source said. Damage was minimal, but vibration caused paint to be stripped from the ship’s hull directly above the pods. The crew’s woes continued when Canberra returned to Port Phillip Bay and was forced to drop anchor for four hours after losing steerage following an electrical power failure.
Unfortunately the operators forgot to disconnect the emergency power and when the main power kicked back in the circuit breakers melted. “There were no major design errors during the trials and both issues were operator errors,” the source said. “The trial didn’t go as well as hoped, but it was better than expected.” In addition to the serious errors, excessive corrosion was detected in propeller nuts and a small crack was discovered in the hull of the ship that was caused during its long journey on a barge from the builder in Spain. The Canberra will be back at sea in July for the next round of trials before she is handed to the Navy later this year. News of the botched sea trials comes as the government announced it would insert an “experienced shipbuilding management team” into taxpayer-owned shipbuilder ASC in Adelaide to fix the troubled $8.5 billion Air Warfare Destroyer program. Defence Minister David Johnston and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the team would target productivity and production schedules in a bid to get the controversial three-ship alliance project back on track.


----------



## gordy (Apr 18, 2008)

Well, there you go, isn't that what sea trials are for?


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

"There were no major design errors during the trials and both issues were operator errors,” the source said."

Call me old fashioned but it sounds like a bit of a design error to me, but what the hell, they're just chucking money away as usual.

John T


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Whilst that is what sea trials are for breakers and their controls are designed to avoid melting when at all possible (like the front of tankers - not supposed to fall off).


----------



## ben27 (Dec 27, 2012)

good day geoff gower,today,01:21.re:a brand new 27,000 tonne aus,n,s,was damaged during sea trials.the trials are carried out by civilian contact crew,!!!!they seem to have trouble getting it right,wy is there no navy officers included in the trial.at least to navigate the ship.thanks for posting,hope the aus,navy spots your post.regards ben27


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

ben27 said:


> good day geoff gower,today,01:21.re:a brand new 27,000 tonne aus,n,s,was damaged during sea trials.the trials are carried out by civilian contact crew,!!!!they seem to have trouble getting it right,wy is there no navy officers included in the trial.at least to navigate the ship.thanks for posting,hope the aus,navy spots your post.regards ben27


Ben, because it is a builders Trial and she has not been handed over as yet, there will be Navy personnel onboard as Observers but the Civilian Crew run the Trials to iron out any problems. When it comes to the Acceptance Trials the situation is reversed. The damage that has been done will be paid for by the Prime Contractor or Teekay depending on their shared responsibility, not the Taxpayer. As Gordy has indicated that is what Trials are for, these things happen and to quote a well used phrase "Lessons will be learnt" one possibly being don't employ Teekay to do Trials(Cloud)


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

It is another indication of the demise of our Merchant Navies that a 'civilian' crew is being panned with the absurd assertion that this would not have happened if she had had her military staff in control instead. It is not we, after all, who never sailed on a Wednesday!


----------



## oilkinger (Dec 17, 2008)

We can't seem to get it right with warships. Our woes started back in 1958 with the first sea trials of HMAS Vendetta, an Australian built Daring Class destroyer.
The engine room telegraphs had been connected up in reverse and instead of leaving the pier going astern she went ahead, pierced the dry-dock caisson wall in front of her, and nearly caused a disaster with one of our frigates on blocks in the dry-dock. See link below.
Then in 1964 we ran over her sister ship the Voyager and sank her with the loss of 80 sailors. Fortunately I was on the Carrier which did the running over.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's we built 3 destroyers and half a dozen frigates all of which were over budget and hellishingly overdue.
Then in the 90's we decided to have a whack at building submarines. Did we give the contract to a professional ship-building outfit ? Not jolly likely. A political decision was made to have them constructed in the our state of South Australia as a vote winner. The contract went to a company that specialised in heavy mining engineering and mining conveyor systems. So - we ended up with 6 crap submarines, billions of dollars over cost and, after 10 years in commission, its doubtful if they'll be combat ready. They have diesel/electric propulsion, you know - supposedly super quiet but, after trials at the US Navy
submarine test area off Hawaii, the admiral there described them as being as loud as an "underwater rock concert." 
The company that built these dodgy subs is now building our 3 air warfare destroyers. Construction is well behind schedule and over budget - who would have guessed !!!!
And now to the LHD Canberra and her sister ship. If you look at a pic of her you will see she has a ski-jump ramp. This configuration is to assist the take-off of fixed wing aircraft - right ? But guess what ? ( I bet you're ahead of me here ) We don't have any bloody fixed wing aircraft. The 'H' in LHD stands for helicopter. We are using her as a helicopter carrier. But you can't park any helicopters at the front end of the flight deck as the deck is on a 30 degree angle and they'll probably tip over !
It hurts me to say it but, here in Oz, we are world leaders in mediocrity.
www.ipernity.com/doc/373825/32472475


----------



## berbex (Feb 17, 2013)

oilkinger said:


> It hurts me to say it but, here in Oz, we are world leaders in mediocrity.
> www.ipernity.com/doc/373825/32472475


Don't be too hard on your aussie self, it happens everywhere; and it could be worse.

The world is full of people repeating mistakes their fathers learnt from the hard way. Such is life.


----------



## ben27 (Dec 27, 2012)

good day chadburn,sm,yesterday,#6 19"02.re:a brand new australian navy ship was damaged during maiden sea trials.thank you for your informative reply,regards ben27


----------



## dunsteaming (Jun 13, 2008)

Aussie shipbuilding mainly to buy votes than produce a good product LOL


----------



## Leratty (Jun 3, 2012)

Interesting to note so far nothing on SN as to Aus looking to Japan for its next fleet of subs. After the last debacle (apparently not too quite so easily detectable?) one hopes it is a better decision & ensure nothing is built in Aus if only for quality reasons. What about the decision for those large 2nd hand landing craft carrying ships? What an embarrassment the cost to rectify the problems was as I understand more than they cost to purchase + they cant do the job as Aus army tanks too heavy for them?
Become the Switzerland of S.E. Pacific-Asia just gotta be cheaper (


----------



## Chillytoes (Dec 9, 2006)

“The trial didn’t go as well as hoped, but it was better than expected.”
This would have to be the quote of the century! And we're only in year 14!
Makes you wonder exactly what they did expect.


----------

