|
Post by davidd on Apr 27, 2019 12:33:44 GMT 12
Having (briefly only, in 1968!) worked in a dry dock, I somehow doubt the description of "opening the gate of the dock and letting the sea rush in" (my paraphrasing). Although the one I worked in was perhaps only 5% of the capacity of the South Korean one, probably even less than that, the addition of a vast amount of sea water would be, I suspect, rather dramatic and damaging if you simply "opened the gate". My memory of watching just one ship being reacquainted with the sea was that valves connected to the sea were opened (the ones I saw probably involved men winding up long threaded shafts way beneath their feet), and sea water then started flooding in through openings in the lower sides of the dock. Quite a few large fish which happened to be swimming rather too close to the intakes tended to get sucked in too, which were later shared by the permanent staff when the water was eventually pumped out again (I was only a casual staff member, so did nor get any share of this booty). Anyway, the seawater flooded in fairly slowly, so as not to erode the dock wall on far side or tear into the block work, and thus it probably took several hours to fill the dock completely (cannot remember how many hours), but I do remember that pumping out the dock took considerably longer, perhaps 6 - 8 hours. During the period the water level was dropping in the dock, the scrubbing down staff (including me) took to primitive wooden punts alongside the ship (there was plenty of room around it) and commenced the cleaning operation using tools somewhat like garden hoes (the "flat" ones, not the chopping ones). This was rather a disgusting and thankless job (I think the permanents mostly left this task to the casuals) and I recall that suspicious looking blisters in the ship's paintwork usually turned out to be the scene of some severe corrosion in the steel which had eventually to be ground out, then heavily repainted as the air dried out the surface of all structures. Once the sea level in the dock was about down to the bottom of the ship (about 6 feet from bottom of dock), the punts were hauled out and we had to wait for another hour or two to allow the remaining water to be pumped out. Then everybody descended into the bowels of the dock and got to work under the ship with a vengeance, scrubbing and scraping off all the roughness, weeds, other marine life, and "blisters", the later containing a completely black liquid, the result of oxidation of the steel. I was also surprised to learn (I did not know very much about the appearance of ships below the waterline) that ships tend to have perfectly flat bottoms, something I should have known, as there are some great scenes captured on film of ships in distress (in war and peace) which roll right over, and then can be seen that the entire bottom is flat. Anyway, with this unique experience, I have my doubts about "opening the gate of the dock" and letting the sea rush in - it would just not be possible in my eyes, both as to how they could open the "gate" (the dock I was working in had a floating gate which had to be "sunk" into the gate opening, with rubber seals to complete the water-tightness against the dock opening proper) without the weight of the outside water forcing it through the gate opening and having the sea burst through in an uncontrolled manner. Of course modern technology can be very clever, but the Lyttelton graving dock which I am familiar with was built (in the 1880s from memory) and it was developed in the age of steam, so it is entirely possible that much more elaborate and clever systems of moving water around have been developed since then. David D
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on May 12, 2019 17:16:17 GMT 12
HMNZS Aortearoa Google Maps... (before she was launched obviously lol) Click here Bridge and hangar module are a head in the drydock...
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on May 12, 2019 19:44:08 GMT 12
HMNZS Aortearoa Google Maps... (before she was launched obviously lol) Click here Bridge and hangar module are a head in the drydock... Amazing - even though Aotearoa is a decent size, she is absolutely dwarfed by everything else in the yard that's visible in the link.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on May 18, 2019 2:45:53 GMT 12
Amazing - even though Aotearoa is a decent size, she is absolutely dwarfed by everything else in the yard that's visible in the link. And the just think, HHI have something like 12 or 13 dry docks of similar size
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on May 21, 2019 23:22:57 GMT 12
Hope it at least has some sort of CIWS...
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on May 24, 2019 19:07:33 GMT 12
Hope it at least has some sort of CIWS... Phalanx CIWS on the bow and 2 mini typhoons on the superstructure above the hangar... and I assume a couple of 50cals somewhere...
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 4, 2019 10:43:43 GMT 12
Hope it at least has some sort of CIWS... Phalanx CIWS on the bow and 2 mini typhoons on the superstructure above the hangar... and I assume a couple of 50cals somewhere... Is this Phalanx CIWS a new block 1 version with FLIR and operator console same as Phalanx updated in the refit of the frigates? Was there a spare Phalanx in RNZN storage? From decommissioned 2005 frigate Canterbury?
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 4, 2019 10:56:44 GMT 12
Phalanx CIWS on the bow and 2 mini typhoons on the superstructure above the hangar... and I assume a couple of 50cals somewhere... Is this Phalanx CIWS a new block 1 version with FLIR and operator console same as Phalanx updated in the refit of the frigates? Was there a spare Phalanx in RNZN storage? From decommissioned 2005 frigate Canterbury? I'm positive one of the Phalanx carried on the ANZACs is ex-F421 Canterbury, but stand to be corrected. I hope like hell Aotearoa is 'fitted with' rather than that old chestnut of 'fitted for' - given the huge budget involved I'd like to think some of that is for it's own CIWS. The ANZACs currently carry a block 1B, Aotearoa should ideally have the same. p.s. Nighthawknz: is 1x CIWS & 2 mini-typhoons confirmed?
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 4, 2019 13:30:40 GMT 12
p.s. Nighthawknz: is 1x CIWS & 2 mini-typhoons confirmed? I can't say 100% confirmed, but it has always been said that she will be armed from her very conception, and the status quo all the way through has been 1x CIWS Phalanx on the bow and 2 mini-typhoons on the super-structure, ... and knowing NZ there will most likely be 50cal mounts on the bridge wings like with HMNZS Canterbury... but I can't say for 100%
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 27, 2019 21:31:19 GMT 12
Start your engines. Another milestone in the construction of the Navy’s new sustainment vessel, Aotearoa, occurred recently when her two Bergen 9-cylinder, B33:45 model Main Diesel Engines were started for the first time and churned up the waters of Ulsan Harbour. The engines are 9 cylinder, each cylinder 330mm bore and 450mm stroke (hence 33:45 designation) outputting 600kW per cylinder, 5.4mW total output per engine.
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 31, 2019 10:39:30 GMT 12
Here she is sitting in the water being fitted out...
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 31, 2019 11:27:17 GMT 12
Here she is sitting in the water being fitted out... Wow she looks impressive... I see work in underway to lengthen the main wharf at DNB, east end is a dolphin & west end is a true extension, I wonder if the cost of that was folded into the Aotearoa project cost or if it's a separate budget!?! For god's sake don't let the 'save our harbour' (or whatever they're called) crowd hear about this The other thing that blows me away is the illusion created by the red & white cranes to the left of that image - my brain was telling me they were in the foreground... but if you look closely they're actually behind Aotearoa... they're friggin HUGE!
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 31, 2019 11:29:13 GMT 12
Those are some big arse cranes...
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Aug 31, 2019 19:27:38 GMT 12
Those are some big arse cranes... Thanks for posting the picture, she looks great! I notice (if you zoom in close) a few scrapes on the hull already!? This applies to the grey above the red anti fouling as well as on it. Can anyone offer an explanation for this?
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 31, 2019 22:18:49 GMT 12
So Aotearoa is A11 and not A12 as noted in wiki.
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 31, 2019 23:25:46 GMT 12
So Aotearoa is A11 and not A12 as noted in wiki. Yes interestingly all the early artist impressions etc showed A12 on the hull but now it's clear she'll carry A11 as did Endeavour. Seems weird they would've got that 'wrong' but I guess it's a minor detail. She'll look damn impressive tied up alongside DNB.
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Sept 5, 2019 12:55:00 GMT 12
So Aotearoa is A11 and not A12 as noted in wiki. Yes interestingly all the early artist impressions etc showed A12 on the hull but now it's clear she'll carry A11 as did Endeavour. Seems weird they would've got that 'wrong' but I guess it's a minor detail. She'll look damn impressive tied up alongside DNB. Maybe wiki is not wrong and there are really two identical logistics support vessels, A11 and A12 that could be explanation for the project $493m, about twice cost of HNoMS Maud which is just a little larger in length and displacement. Or does ice strengthening, winterising and enviroship design account for the greater cost?
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Sept 5, 2019 17:42:15 GMT 12
Maybe wiki is not wrong and there are really two identical logistics support vessels, A11 and A12 that could be explanation for the project $493m, about twice cost of HNoMS Maud which is just a little larger in length and displacement. Or does ice strengthening, winterising and enviroship design account for the greater cost? The ice strengthening is the main reason for the cost increase all the extra steal and the extra man hours to weld it into a ship etc... the winterising features would also would add cost as well... don't really think the enviroship would add any cost really but never know
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Sept 14, 2019 22:56:23 GMT 12
Just noticed from Aotearoa photo above the small platform on each side just forward of the exhaust stacks. These are not shown in any of the artist images, on NZ navy web pages, wiki or elsewhere. Could these be the locations for the mini typhoons?
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Sept 16, 2019 14:59:33 GMT 12
Sharing knowledge. In preparation for the arrival of our fleet sustainment vessel Aotearoa next year, a team of our personnel are at @hms_Raleigh in England, practising with their Replenishment-at-Sea trainer. @royalnavy uses the same equipment we do.
|
|