# RNZN Protector Project" Vessels



## Kirkhill

The 9000 tonne MRV shares some similarities with Norwegian Svalbard Icebreaker - similar size, similar concept of employment with the addition of a small transport capability but minus the heavy ice capability.

18 months from contract being signed to being in the water.  30 months from contract to delivery is anticipated.  Currently on schedule.  Vessel price (from other sources) approximately 100 MCAD.

Apparently not every capital project demands a 10 year delivery programme.



> First Ship for New Zealand’s Project Protector Launched
> 
> 
> (Source: Tenix Defence; issued Feb. 13, 2006)
> 
> 
> The Multi-Role Vessel being built for the New Zealand Ministry of Defence by Tenix Defence was launched on the weekend at the Merwede Shipyard near Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
> 
> Following the launch of the hull on Saturday (local time) the vessel was towed to Rotterdam, where the superstructure was lifted into place on Sunday. It will return to Merwede for fit-out.
> 
> It is the first of a total of seven ships, including two Offshore Patrol Vessels and four Inshore Patrol Vessels, to be launched under the NZ$500m Project Protector, on schedule, 18 months after contract award. The ships will be operated by the Royal New Zealand Navy.
> 
> Tenix Defence sub-contracted construction of the MRV to Merwede. The OPVs are being consolidated at Tenix’s yard at Williamstown in Victoria, and the IPVs are being constructed at Tenix’s yard at Whangarei in New Zealand, which is also building OPV modules.
> 
> Merwede CEO Ton Riedtijk welcomed the NZ Secretary of Defence, Graham Fortune, the New Zealand Ambassador to The Hague, David Payton, Commodore Jack Steer RNZN, Deputy Chief of Navy, Gary Collier, MoD Project Director, Gordon Hall, MoD Project Manager, and the CEO of Tenix Defence, Robert Salteri, to the ceremony.
> 
> Mrs Bronwyn Barton, of Melbourne, whose husband Blair is the MRV Ship Manager for Tenix Defence, launched the ship.
> 
> Robert Salteri congratulated Merwede on its achievement, saying the MRV construction demonstrated Merwede’s versatility and excellence, and maintained the leading record of the 100-year-old shipyard.
> 
> “The Project Protector team here in Rotterdam has set a cracking pace and a great example for the teams in Australia and New Zealand,” he said.
> 
> The MRV will start sea trials in June, and is scheduled for delivery to Tenix Defence in the Netherlands in July. It will come to Williamstown in September for final fit-out, and will be delivered to the Ministry of Defence before the end of the year.
> 
> The 131-metre MRV will displace approximately 9,000 tonnes and will be able to carry up to 250 troops and their equipment, a Sea Sprite helicopter, up to four additional utility helicopters as cargo, and a crew of more than 60, as well as additional trainees and Government employees. It carries two landing craft to ferry personnel and cargo to shore where there is no wharf, and is ice-strengthened.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


----------



## FSTO

Kiwis aren't as f***** as we are.  :
(sarcasm showing through)


----------



## Gino

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The 9000 tonne MRV shares some similarities with Norwegian Svalbard Icebreaker - similar size, similar concept of employment with the addition of a small transport capability but minus the heavy ice capability.
> 
> 18 months from contract being signed to being in the water.  30 months from contract to delivery is anticipated.  Currently on schedule.  Vessel price (from other sources) approximately 100 MCAD.
> 
> Apparently not every capital project demands a 10 year delivery programme.
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


It's all well and good if you're willing to settle for a modest, off-the-shelf design that is built in a foreign shipyard.  That is, of course, politically unacceptable in Canada.  We must build and design locally at great time and expense in order to get maximum industrial benefit for Canadian firms, particularly in Quebec.  Then after the project is complete, the shipyards will go bankrupt and layoff everyone.  Then we can tool up again at phenomenal expense when it's time for a new class of ships in twenty years.  Now that's how it's done.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sad but true....go offshore thats the onbly way I think we will get a quality warship


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill: did you read 2 or three articles down? - USN to grow from 281 to 313 ships. 

"Sufferin' Succotash."  

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Remember when the USN was going for a 600 ship Navy, I don't believe they ever reached their goal did they?


----------



## Kirkhill

Didn't see that one Whiskey.

And yes I do remember those days Ex-Dragoon.  Reagan's build up.  Given that the number of carriers has only dropped from about 15 to 12?, that there is more emphasis on subs, amphibs, and small craft, is it the Frigates that they are short of?

Nehmind: I see they are heading still further south to 11 carriers.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Nah, the damned cold war ended too early.  ;D

IIRC, that 600 ship navy included old CF Adams destroyers and the like. [along with everything new that was planned].

I note the planned surface combatant numbers will be less than 130, or less than 10 times what Canada has right now. For a navy with the global responsibility of the USN, thats actually a pretty thin blue line. Force multipliers through advanced sensing technology and precision, long range firepower is where they are headed. 

I just hope Canada can catch some of the wind in their sails!


----------



## geo

Gino said:
			
		

> It's all well and good if you're willing to settle for a modest, off-the-shelf design that is built in a foreign shipyard.  That is, of course, politically unacceptable in Canada.  We must build and design locally at great time and expense in order to get maximum industrial benefit for Canadian firms, particularly in Quebec.  Then after the project is complete, the shipyards will go bankrupt and layoff everyone.  Then we can tool up again at phenomenal expense when it's time for a new class of ships in twenty years.  Now that's how it's done.



Gino
Lead contractor for the CFP was Irving.... New Brunswick I believe.
If memory serves me right - he was downright stingy with handing out sub contracts to Quebec shipyards.

BC & Ontario also got contracts getween Destroyers, Frigates and the Maritime patrol vessels...- so leave the Provincial whacking for another day if you don't mind.


----------



## geo

It would appear that NewZeland has chosen to give it's defense dollars to Europe instead of encouraging New Zeland and Aussie shipyards..... 

Commendable.

Between the purchase of LAVs and the rest, the Kiwis have made a conscious decision not to encourage domestic R&D or local industry .... penny wise


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sad but true....go offshore thats the onbly way I think we will get a quality warship



Why do you say that?  Just the cost, or do you have concerns about the quality of Canadian shipyards?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Look at the 3 CPFs built in Quebec, the problems the 12 MCDVs have had, not to mention what seems to be the lack of work done on the Preserver in her last refit.

The CPFs when offered for export were overpriced pure and simple. Had Irving not been greedy I have no doubts there would be a few Halifax class frigates in other navies.


----------



## Kirkhill

A question for those in the know:

Let's set aside the federal government and the Irving's/Davie issues for a moment - it has been something like 10-12 years since those yards had any major projects so I am guessing that whatever hands might be available could be a little rusty on skills.

Here in BC we have yards that in 1993/1994 built two 400 car, 2000 passenger, 18,000 tonne ferries.  That might put them in the running for these type of vessels and the transports.  However today BC Ferries has sent its contracts to Germany because they lack confidence in the BC yards and pricing and financing was better.  They have suggested that the BC yards might get some of the smaller vessels they are planning over the next 15 years.

Here's the question - are the yards up to the game or did the diversion to those aluminum Cats do so much damage to available craftsmen, to changing skills and ultimately to reputation that they are some years behind the curve now?


----------



## Neill McKay

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Here's the question - are the yards up to the game or did the diversion to those aluminum Cats do so much damage to available craftsmen, to changing skills and ultimately to reputation that they are some years behind the curve now?



Compared to other countries, Canadian shipyards are very expensive.  I know of one case in which a ferry (not the BC Ferries project) was priced by several domestic and foreign yards, and even with the considerable import duty on foreign-built ships, it was still cheaper to go offshore (to the Netherlands, in this case).  A couple of issues are subsidies to foreign shipyards by their governments, and the cost of labour.

BC Ferries has a similar experience with shipyard costs, and ended up going to Germany for the Super-C ferries.


----------



## geo

BTW.... where did the "cats" end up?
bought at auction by undisclosed party and were hauled down to some place on the US West coast..... then what?


----------



## Gino

geo said:
			
		

> Gino
> Lead contractor for the CFP was Irving.... New Brunswick I believe.
> If memory serves me right - he was downright stingy with handing out sub contracts to Quebec shipyards.
> 
> BC & Ontario also got contracts getween Destroyers, Frigates and the Maritime patrol vessels...- so leave the Provincial whacking for another day if you don't mind.


So remind me again why three had to be built in Quebec when Irving was awarded the contract?  Sure some other areas ended up with minor subcontracts, but also remind me where Paramax was located?  I'm not province bashing, just stating the reality of Canadian politics.


----------



## Gunnerlove

The problem with Canadian shipyards is not so much in the workers as the purchasers. It is not a matter of starting production and delivering a ship every year to replace ships as they reach the end of their service lives. Instead we order a large batch of ships to be delivered in a short period of time. This requires a number of ships to be under construction at the same time. What this does is create a boom and bust in the industry, large amounts of work appear in different parts of the country creating local skilled labour shortages. Then the work is gone and the shipyard has to lay off most of its employees as they go back to surviving off of maintenance contracts. It is hard to justify large investments in your infrastructure when you might not see another large shipbuilding contract in decades. This forces the companies to re-tool at large cost if they win a contract, the cost of the re-tooling is pushed down to consumer, "US". 

If we as a country were to let a contract requiring a Frigate to be delivered every two years for 12 units a small ship yard could be established to efficiently build them one after another. They would be able to establish an adequate skilled labour force and work out the kinks in production as the project progressed. Rust out would not become a crisis issue as it currently does as we would be replacing our fleet in a protracted manner instead of as a panic purchase. As an added bonus we would be able to find the flaws in the ships before they are all built and delivered. 


Hey or we could just have them built by a crown corp in the same manner.


----------



## Kirkhill

Practice makes perfect.  Or put another way, the most valuable asset that a company has is its record of mistakes and the corporate knowledge of how they were fixed. As we all seem to recognize that demands continuity.

I wonder if there is some sort of strategy in the pipeline somewhere.  You lot need the kit now but it would be nice to have our own industrial base.  As Geo points out there are advantages to keeping the dollars at home even if they are inflated dollars.  As long as DND gets the necessary funds or the IRB dollars are delivered from some other department.


----------



## cobbler

> Sad but true....go offshore thats the onbly way I think we will get a quality warship


Well the NZ ship is built to commercial, not military standards. Saves cost, build time whilst sacrificing quality, safety, and its usefullness in war. 
I dont think its the smartest way to go, but then again the NZDF and the RNZN in particular is in a terminal nose-dive.



> It would appear that NewZeland has chosen to give it's defense dollars to Europe instead of encouraging New Zeland and Aussie shipyards.....
> 
> Commendable.



Not exactly, most of their 'project protector' ships are being built in Aus by Tenix, and some in NZ. This MRV is the only euro built, and she is only being built there because Aussie company tenix could not build her due to lack of facilities. But the deal with the shipbuilder was done through tenix.


----------



## geo

Gino said:
			
		

> So remind me again why three had to be built in Quebec when Irving was awarded the contract?  Sure some other areas ended up with minor subcontracts, but also remind me where Paramax was located?  I'm not province bashing, just stating the reality of Canadian politics.


Three out of how many?

Paramax, what was formerly known as SPAR Aerospace.... after the success of the Canadaarm and some successful telecom satalites, I would venture to say that they were a competent agency to consider when looking at Bidds for the Org that would put the brains into the Frigates.

If you talk to our American friends, many will point out that a lot of the technological & scientific advances that the public benefit from today are derivatives of research & development made in the Space and Military fields.... Should Canada deny itself the oportunity to develop new technology - I don't think so.... but, as has been pointed out, there is no reason for this Famine / Feeding frenzy procurement system... The CF should be taking delivery of Trucks, ships, aircraft and everything else on an ongoing basis.


----------



## TAS278

Regardless, Canada has developed one of the worlds better frigates. Unfortunately the resource/political support has not always been available to keep them in their best and brightest. One of the only major components keeping our Navy going is the great sailors we have operating our aging ships. 

There are plans for the future for an upgraded ops room and the likes but most of us will be retired or almost retired when it comes to be 

It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult to negotiate shipyard contracts when the country really has no direction for its military. 

Just my 2 pennies


----------



## mjohnston39

> BTW.... where did the "cats" end up?



The Fast Cats were bought for pennies on the dollar (IIRC 20M for ships that cost 400M+) by the Washington Marine Group. They are still in North Vancouver and word has it that Washington Marine is going to start a ferry business to the Island. It has hired the chief engineer from BC ferries and has been hiring some of the top ferry workers... 

Mike


----------



## Gino

geo said:
			
		

> Three out of how many?
> 
> Paramax, what was formerly known as SPAR Aerospace.... after the success of the Canadaarm and some successful telecom satalites, I would venture to say that they were a competent agency to consider when looking at Bidds for the Org that would put the brains into the Frigates.
> 
> If you talk to our American friends, many will point out that a lot of the technological & scientific advances that the public benefit from today are derivatives of research & development made in the Space and Military fields.... Should Canada deny itself the oportunity to develop new technology - I don't think so.... but, as has been pointed out, there is no reason for this Famine / Feeding frenzy procurement system... The CF should be taking delivery of Trucks, ships, aircraft and everything else on an ongoing basis.


Hey, three's not bad when you didn't actually win the contract.  Anyway, the upshot is that I think we need three things to be in place before we will ever be able to build ships (in Canada) with any kind of cost effectiveness:

1)  A long term national shipbuilding strategy;

2) A government with the ability to think and plan beyond the next election; and

3) A government that will not change horses in mid-stream and cancel programmes just because they were initiated by a different political party.


----------



## geo

BC Fast cats...
now that's funny.
the Fast Cats were handicaped by BC Ferries and were never allowed to run "flat out" and now someone wants to run them in their original role?

Wonder if they're going to respect the speed limits that hamstrung them in the 1st place.

Gino...
Not dissagreeing with you
Defence procurement should be part of a national strategy that should not be hamstrung by party politics


----------



## FSTO

The problem with the Fast Cats was that they put them on the Departure Bay (Naniamo) to Horseshoe Bay (North Van) run and there was no real time saver using that route. If they instead put them on the Duke Pt to Tsawwassen which is 1/2 hr longer than the other routes, they could have cut that 1/2 hr out of the trip. Once again inability to think outside of the box (and the BC Liberal party election plan to get rid of the Cats (ala EH101)) killed the fast ferries.

If they had built 3 to 4 super-ferries we wouldn't be having this debate today.


----------



## Kirkhill

> If they had built 3 to 4 super-ferries we wouldn't be having this debate today.



And the BC shipyards would be better placed to meet the needs of BC Ferries, the Navy and the Coast Guard.


----------



## Navy_Blue

It was mentioned here that civi standards would be less safe for our uses but cheaper.  I had the opportunity to go on a Berlin class AOR last summer.  This ship was build to civi spec's.  It was still equipped with a NBC citadel.  Flight deck and hanger.  The interior was like a cruise ship, no wire ways or piping but still had access to junctions and valves through panels.  For the purposes of the JSS civi standards would be mores than enough as long as there are accommodations for Damage Control and Fire Fighting.  You must realize that the living area of the ship was all above the water line and all the MSE spaces would resemble our own.  MIL SPEC Or Civi you still need to use fire retardant materials for a tanker.  

You save big on cost.  MIL SPEC is the biggest rip off.  We would have access to readily available parts and equipment lessening the need of our stores system to maintain stock(It barely does now).  Not to mention cut costs in half.  I'm sorry but what sailor hasn't seen that torpedo test the Aussies did?  Torp = sunk.  Mines, missiles and IED would all have devastating results requiring extensive time in dry dock.  MIL SPEC or Not.  JSS is not going to be an Assault ship.  key word is "support"... Logistics and C&C...in the rear with the gear. 

Now frigates and combatants.  Yes they need to be built to a higher standard to lessen damage from all sorts of attacks.  Damage control is much more imperative and necessary if you want to limp out of a fight.  Save the MIL SPEC for the big guns.  

On the topic of our ship builders.  most of the experts and experienced people (Naval Eng and Architechs) used in the CPF program were Scottish and European and they moved here with there families hoping the program would be as successful as it was planned to be.  Irving Paid big bucks I think for those brains.  Buy now they would have moved on to bigger and better endeavours.

If you look at a few of the bidders for JSS you will see some forign firms involved aswell.


----------



## Armymatters

FSTO said:
			
		

> The problem with the Fast Cats was that they put them on the Departure Bay (Naniamo) to Horseshoe Bay (North Van) run and there was no real time saver using that route. If they instead put them on the Duke Pt to Tsawwassen which is 1/2 hr longer than the other routes, they could have cut that 1/2 hr out of the trip. Once again inability to think outside of the box (and the BC Liberal party election plan to get rid of the Cats (ala EH101)) killed the fast ferries.
> 
> If they had built 3 to 4 super-ferries we wouldn't be having this debate today.



On top of that, the Fast Cats were:
1. Gas-Guzzlers. The Fast Cats burn more than twice the amount of diesel fuel per passenger per trip than any of the other ferries in the fleet. In order to optimize speed, they had to be refueled in the middle of the day so they didn't have to sail with full tanks. This was due to the fact they had diesel engines, not the more efficient gas turbines for high speed operations.
2. Unreliable. The water intakes for the water jet propulsion have an appetite for logs, which caused breakdowns and various sailing cancellations. It should be noted that BC's local waters are full of stray logs and wood from the lumber industry along the coast (I have been sailing once down the Georgia Strait, and we always had someone on the bow looking out for logs so we didn't bump into them) and the flotsam has been a problem, albeit comparatively minor (to the other problems), for the fast ferries. Also of note is the fact that due to the high speeds the ferries operate at, the engines often ran flat out, causing various breakdowns of the engine plant. This problem can be attributed to the BC Ferries decision to go with diesel engines, not gas turbines.
3. Capacity handicapped.  Because of weight restrictions and size, the Fast Cats are unable to carry large trucks or campers and only 2 buses at a time. Truck traffic was to be fully routed through the Tsawwassen - Duke Point (Nanaimo) run, away from Horseshoe Bay and its wealthy outspoken residents. Also, it was intended that the fast ferries would be able to make more trips daily because of their speed and make up for their smaller size, as the fast ferries have a smaller capacity than the conventional vessels they were built to replace. For example, the C-class ship, Queen of Oak Bay, can carry 362 vehicles and 1,442 passengers to the PacifiCat Explorer's 250 cars and 1000 passengers. In the end, they proved to be not faster, not bigger, and a lot more costly to operate, which was the death knell for the ferries.

I would agree with Navy Blue that Civil standards for surface ships offer good value. However, for large combatants, such as destroyers, there is precedence for building them civil spec. The Japanese Kongo Class DDG (Japanese version of the American Arleigh Burke class DDG) is build to civil rather than military standards. The Japanese are planning to build 2 - 3 more Kongo's, on top of the 4 they already operate.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Army I'm sorry I can't agree with your interpretation of marine systems.  GT's would be no more fuel efficient on the Cats.  We run to LM2500 GT's on the CPF for when we need to go fast.  On the diesel Pielstik 20 cylinder our endurance is huge.  

In one night running one GT (because the Diesel was down) @ an average speed of 8 knots; we burned enough fuel to fill my Nissan Sentra for 6 years driving.  8 knots!!  We could burn that in an hour if we wanted to.  The Pielstik would burn a fraction of that.  

The cats burn more fuel because of the method of propultion and speed expected not the prime movers (by the way diesels love to be flat out).   Jets are not as efficient as screws.  Faster yes but use allot more power.  The physics of moving a hull through water has allot to do with speed and fuel efficiency as well.  One GT can get a ship moving 25 knots you need a second just to get you up 5 more knots.  Twice as much fuel for five knots.

Cats make more sence in long haul application where speed will translat in to saving hours not minutes.


----------



## Donaill

Hmmm.  Doesnt the U.S. have a nice little act called the Jones Act?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I would agree with Navy Blue that Civil standards for surface ships offer good value. However, for large combatants, such as destroyers, there is precedence for building them civil spec. The Japanese Kongo Class DDG (Japanese version of the American Arleigh Burke class DDG) is build to civil rather than military standards. The Japanese are planning to build 2 - 3 more Kongo's, on top of the 4 they already operate.



Care to provide a source for that?


----------



## Kirkhill

They do indeed have the Jones act.  Would you care to expand on how it fits into this discussion?


----------



## Neill McKay

Donaill said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Doesnt the U.S. have a nice little act called the Jones Act?



Yes, but that applies to a ship visiting two US ports, not to one visiting a US port and then a foreign port.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Care to provide a source for that?


Sure: 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/kongo.htm



> The Kongo is an improved version of the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke class, displacing 9,485 tons (full load). It is a substantial departure for Japan in terms of size and capability in its surface fleet. There also are qualitative differences between Japan’s modern ships with their well-trained crews and the older, less capable ships of other East and Southeast Asian navies.
> 
> Although derived from American Arleigh Burke class, numerous changes include a far longer helicopter deck aft, less horsepower and a slightly different weapon suite. Some of the differences between the JMSDF Kongo's and the USN Burkes are that the Kongo's employ a separate fire-control system for the 127-mm gun, which has a faster firing rate than the USN standard Mk 45 127-mm gun, a back-up surface/air search radar, a more elaborate EW system and while they have the capability to act as a helicopter platform they do not have a haul down system. Full displacement on the Kongo's is larger, 9,485 tons to 8,500 tons and is some 78 feet longer and 2 feet wider.
> 
> Construction was done to mercantile rather than military standards. The Italian Oto-Breda 127mm/54 calibre Compact gun, firing 45 rounds per minute [to 8.7nm anti-surface, 3.8nm anti-aircraft] is the main gun armament aboard Japanese Kongo class Aegis destroyers. This turret was designed for reduced manning, and the distribution of personnel to inside the turret became unnecessary, as it is controlled with remote control. It is possible to land helicopters on the rear deck, but because the VLS launchers in the rear deck, there is no equipment to support the helicopter.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Then thats characteristically irresponsible of the Japanese. It might be cheaper to get them at sea but when the things that go boom start being tossed about, how long do you thing mercantile standard built ships are going to last? Might as well build them right the first time to maximize saving lives. Its almost criminal (IMO) to advocate the Navy to use ship's built to these standards.


----------



## geo

Well... the UK had HMS Sheffield up to Mil Spec for the Falkland war and that Exocet did a commendable of frying it nevertheless.... something about the Magnesium alloys used in the ship's construction.

Remember that the Japanese self defense force was somewhat restricted in the kind of war fighting capabilities it could posess.... by act of their Parliament even. 

Is it possible that the Japanese have looked at the nature of surface combat on the deep blue and concluded that modern technology has made it such that even Mil spec ships WILL GO DOWN in an engagement?


----------



## Navy_Blue

I Personally don't believe our MIL SPEC standards are what they used to be.  We don't get what you pay for anymore.  Our parts are grossly over priced and the companies providing them are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## cobbler

> Well... the UK had HMS Sheffield up to Mil Spec for the Falkland war and that Exocet did a commendable of frying it nevertheless.... something about the Magnesium alloys used in the ship's construction.



The Sheiffield was only samaged by the missile, what sunk her was the storm which hit whilst she was in tow. Most of the crew survived, and the majority of those that didnt were overcome by toxic gases when the remained in the ops room. The damage control saved the ship, and her mil spec construction surely kept her in one piece when the exocet struck amidships, in a civvie spec ship things would have been much uglier.


----------



## geo

Ahhh... good to know. After the fire, understand that the RN had to rethink the use of Magnesium in their ship's construction.... revised milspecs to reduce or eliminate this flamable metal.


----------



## Armymatters

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhh... good to know. After the fire, understand that the RN had to rethink the use of Magnesium in their ship's construction.... revised milspecs to reduce or eliminate this flamable metal.



Also, the fire on HMS Amazon in 1977 drew attention to the risks of using aluminium in the superstructure. During the fire, the superstructure deformed enough so that the ladders were rendered unusable so the crew could not get up to the areas that were on fire and put them out. That is partially why our CPF's are built and designed with essentially zero aluminium in the superstructure. A bit of trivia regarding naval ship building and design.


----------



## STONEY

A few points to ponder for those who think that building a ship to mercantile standard is somehow a terrible thing.

1. Half of the vessel used by the Canadian Navy are built to mercantile standard.
2. Many of the worlds Navy's ,such as British,Dutch,Spanish,Italian to name a few , build many of there vessels to
 mercantile standards ie HMS Ocean (helo carrier) , HMS Albion, Rotterdam, Galicia, San Girgio (assault ships) 
3. Merchant ships are designed to spend far more of there time at sea than warships, therefore their equipment has to be designed to operate for long periods without failure with small crews.
4. When a ship is being built to mercantile standards, professional naval architects & inspectors employed by  
   classification society's like Lloyds ,who spend their whole lives at their job, oversee that vessels construction  
   to ensure it meets standard.
5. When a ship is built to navy standards, an officer on a 2 year posting to the project office oversees construction
   to ensure it meets standard.
6. Ships built to mercantile standards must meet an endless list of international standards for such things as , safety of life at sea,   pollution regs. , firefighting, stability while ships built to naval standards can waive these things for military necessity.

Cheers


----------



## Neill McKay

STONEY said:
			
		

> A few points to ponder for those who think that building a ship to mercantile standard is somehow a terrible thing.
> 
> 1. Half of the vessel used by the Canadian Navy are built to mercantile standard.



Which half, though, is very significant.



> 6. Ships built to mercantile standards must meet an endless list of international standards for such things as , safety of life at sea,   pollution regs. , firefighting, stability while ships built to naval standards can waive these things for military necessity.



I think one salient item, absent from this list, is resistance to the effects of weapons.  That's really what the argument seems to hinge on.


----------



## geo

The nature of new naval weapons is such that even warships with milspecs "will" experience fatastrophic failures & go down....


----------



## Lineman

Since the CF may be interested in some sort of RORO transport and the new government is looking north would something along the lines of a "beefed" up MV Cariboo be of interest? It was built here in Canada at the Davies yard. Found it at Wikipedia _Again just an observation from the outside looking in._


----------



## Donaill

I'm sorry. I must have mixed up my information. Does the U.S. not have a law that requires ships to be built in the U.S. if they are going to carry U.S. products? If my memmory is correct than they do, if so does it cover military ships as well? My point is that I see nothing wrong with awarding ship contracts to Canadian yards. It is time that we stopped shipping so much of our goods out only to buy them back at a higher price. 
Canadians first. Everyone else can bloody well wait.


----------



## Neill McKay

Donaill said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I must have mixed up my information. Does the U.S. not have a law that requires ships to be built in the U.S. if they are going to carry U.S. products? If my memmory is correct than they do, if so does it cover military ships as well?



I don't think there is, or reasonably could be, a law requiring any ship carrying US products to have been built in the US.  However, I believe it is at least a matter of policy, if not law, that US military equipment will be carried in US-flagged (and maybe US-built) ships.

Under the Jones Act, I believe ships in coasting trade (carrying goods between two US ports) have to be US-built and crewed (as well as US-flagged).  You may want to check that yourself, though -- I've never looked into it deeply enough to read the Jones Act itself.


----------



## Kirkhill

Neill:

That is my understanding of the Jones Act as well.

Donaill:

While I agree in principle with your "Buy Canadian" policy I have problems with it on two fronts.  

The first is that additional costs may be incurred to train, employ and maintain a Canadian capability.  That may not be a bad thing in itself. It is at least debatable.  However for DND, that is held to a tight budget that is broadly seen by the majority of Canadians to be a necessary evil at best, the reality is that they end up required to pay more for comparable equipment while not being given the extra funds necessary to buy at home.  This is despite the fact that 100 MCAD spent in the domestic economy is not the same as 100 MCAD spent internationally.

The second problem is that it is not the rest of the world that ends up "bloody well waiting".   It is the CF that has to wait for deliveries while people are hired and trained and facilities are built to build goods that are available, if not off the shelf, on short delivery from open production lines.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problems I see with the ships built to mercantile standards and those built to naval standards are I find naval ships biult to mil specs have a lot more water tight bulk heads and hose stations then those ships not built to mercantile standards, if anything those should be a telling reasons right there.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The problems I see with the ships built to mercantile standards and those built to naval standards are I find naval ships biult to mil specs have a lot more water tight bulk heads and hose stations then those ships not built to mercantile standards, if anything those should be a telling reasons right there.



Then again any modern anti-ship weapon can turn a mil-spec ship into a pile of scrap metal at the bottom of the ocean pretty quickly. This is what a MK 48 torpedo can do to a destroyer:
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/gallery/slideshow_010202.shtml
The torpedo broke the ship's keel, which caused the hull to fracture into two sections (bow and stern). The stern sank immediately after being hit, while the bow section stayed afloat for a few moments before going under.
To make the point very clear, this is what a AGM-84 Harpoon missile can do to a destroyer (scroll down to see the damage):
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/reinli/472/id34_m.htm
http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/p-3.htm
Then again, that ship was hit by 3 Hellfire missiles, 3 Harpoon missiles, and a single 2400lb bomb. She didn't sink until navy technicians came onboard and and planted some scuttling charges to sink her. But you get the picture: Modern weapons can do a whole lot of damage to mil-spec ships, so much that it may make it uneconomical to repair the damage and the ship is best sent to the scrap heap. There is even is a story of a Harpoon being accidentally misfired in 1982, which went off to destroy 4 cottages, and damaged a further 130. Lucky, no one was hurt.


----------



## Navy_Blue

STONEY I don't know how you can say the military can wave fire fighting standards and safety on warships.  Like EX said we have far more water tight compartments.  Our damage control equipment is everywhere.  I'd rather fight a fire on a CPF than a MCDV.  But we all know if an MCDV sees any action we're in allot of trouble.  

The point about Officers overseeing  our projects is not entirely true either.  Irving Hired allot of high priced help to build the CPF and over see the project (I don't think it helped much).  Our officers tend to have pressure from above to keep projects moving and let QC standards slide.  Its our own fault most time the ships come out below standard because we don't fight it and the ship yards take advantage of that.

There is no reason you couldn't build a ship to be strong and still use civi parts and equipment.  The maintenance and replacement cost is where we would see savings.  Especially over the long term.

Armymatters, Our frigate have the ability to take damage and limp out of a fight.  Your link about the harpoons demonstrates this point.  We have enough redundant systems to get our surviving crew away from danger.  Thats why we should continue to build them the way we do.  However ships meant to be for Logistics like the JSS should be kept in the rear and therefore could be built to civi standards.


----------



## Armymatters

I would have to agree with the point on logistics ships easily. Quite a few other navies (including the Royal Navy) use purchased civilian tankers for AOR operations. Perhaps purchasing a couple of commerical tankers and refit them for AOR ops to replace our current AOR's may in fact be economical? They will need some work (fitting the fueling hoses and rigs, perhaps adding a helo deck, but the helo deckcan be omitted), but can be done, in Canadian shipyards.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This argument is becoming ridiculous. I would humbly submit all of you who are talking about Milspec versus commercial standards construction like it is nothing at all have never fought a fire at sea.  I have...

Helmets on boys... war story time.  In 2003, I was the Air O on HMCS OTTAWA.  We were coming back from Panama when we suffered an engine room fire.  A big one.  Like "balls of flames shooting out of the top of the uptakes" big.  Five attack teams, 27 cans of AFFF, 180 Chemox cannisters, 1 gas turbine Engine and 4 hours later, we got the situation under control.  Our butts were saved by Milspec redundancy, luck, good training and excellent leadership.

Now, the rest of you can sail around on luck, good training and good leadership if you want to.  Me- I will also take the most overbuilt and bulkheaded ship over the "cheapest" ship- everytime.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

As SKT points out its doubtful a naval vessel built to mercantile standards would have fared as well, so for those of you who advocate mercantile standards to our ships please think before posting again. Yes its cheaper but is it worth the cost in lives?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> There is even is a story of a Harpoon being accidentally misfired in 1982, which went off to destroy 4 cottages, and damaged a further 130. Lucky, no one was hurt



Care to document that?


----------



## Armymatters

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Care to document that?



No problem:
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/History/1945_1989/Missile%20Incident.htm


> HARPOON missile on the loose destroys residential area in North Western Zealand
> 
> For unknown reasons the Danish guided missile frigate PEDER SKRAM accidentally launched an SSM missile.
> - Fortunately, no one was killed in the incident, but 4 weekend cottages were completely destroyed and another 130 received large or minor damages.
> 
> The breaking news of the Danish broadcasting at noon September 6, 1982, was that the frigate PEDER SKRAM for unknown reasons had launched a HARPOON missile.
> 
> The missile detonated just a few minutes later in the center of a residential area; just 100 meters from an elder retired couple.
> 
> By Johnny E. Balsved



It is a unusual incident no doubt. At least we have proven the Harpoon missile has an actual land attack capability!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Back in 1982, they didn't. Only with the introduction of the Harpoon II did the Harpoon become capable of attacking land targets as well.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Armymatters,

Thank-you for the reference on the Harpoon incident.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Can someone elaborate on exactly what differentiates the two specifications?


Matthew.  ???


----------



## Navy_Blue

MIL SPEC Did not save you on the Ottawa fire your skilled HQ1 and attack teams saved you.  Just because something is built to civi standards doesn't mean it can't have same redundancy we require.  If a civi tanker had the number of crew we do they could handle a fire like that too.  

MIL Spec equipment is typically hardend and tested to hold up to shock, heat and battle conditions without failing.  Redundancy has nothing to do with it.  If your redundant equipment is in a different space (which it would be) from the fire it would not be affected.  Also there is no reason you couldn't have adequate supplies of fire fighting equipment.   MIL Spec is just tested to a higher standard and therefore more costly...allot more costly.  Its also harder to get parts for replacement.  

from the site concerning the US military:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Standard

The proliferation of standards had drawbacks, however. It was argued that the large number of standards, nearly 30,000 by 1990, imposed unnecessary restrictions, increased cost to contractors (and hence the DOD), and impeded the incorporation of the latest technology. Responding to increasing criticism, Secretary of Defense William Perry issued a memorandum in 1994 that effectively eliminated the use of most defense standards. This has become known as the "Perry memo". Many defense standards were cancelled. In their place, the DOD encouraged the use of industry standards, such as ISO 9000 series for quality assurance.  Weapon systems were required to use "performance specifications" that described the desired features of the weapon, as opposed to requiring a large number of defense standards. In 2005, however, the DOD partially reversed itself and issued a new memorandum that permits use of defense standards without obtaining a waiver, but did not reinstate any cancelled defense standards.  According to a 2003 issue of Gateway, published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center [2], the number of defense standards and specifications have been reduced from 45,500 to 28,300. However, other sources noted that the number of standards just before the Perry memorandum was issued was less than 30,000, and that thousands have been cancelled since then. This may be due to differences in what is counted as a "military standard".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> MIL SPEC Did not save you on the Ottawa fire your skilled HQ1 and attack teams saved you.  Just because something is built to civi standards doesn't mean it can't have same redundancy we require.  If a civi tanker had the number of crew we do they could handle a fire like that too.



Where did I not credit the Ship's Company?  Please re-read my post...

I offer caution when one wants to build warships to civilian standards- particularly if one also expects to save money on crewing, too.  To me, civilian standard construction is building a ship to the minimum acceptable tolerance with the minimum required redundancy- anything more than that costs the owner money.  This is not to say that civilian built ships are inherently unsafe- as long as no one is throwing burning or explosive things at the ship.  Also, should a fire break out on a civilian ship, no one expects the ship's company to do much other than fight the fire if it is small and abaondon ship if it is not.  After all, it is insured, right?

Warships do not have that luxury. We do not abandon warships until they are basically useless and past saving. Often, warships are called upon to continue fighting or sailing, even if heavily damaged or actually on fire.  If you advocate building warships with fewer bulkheads and less redundancy in order to save on construction costs and also try to simultaneously reduce crew size, I think you have the recipe for disaster brewing.

If you are saying, use off the self-equipment where prudent to do so in order to save money, I can't help but agree with you.  One should at least put the equipment through reasonable shock/heat/waterproof testing (depending on it's criticality within the ship) before you stake your life on the gear.

I have to say Navy Blue- you sail more often than I do.  If you have the confidence to stake your life and the lives of your shipmates on an equipment procurement plan as you have laid it out, I  am not really in any position to argue with you.


----------



## Kirkhill

> One should at least put the equipment through reasonable shock/heat/waterproof testing (depending on it's criticality within the ship) before you stake your life on the gear.



For civilian projects on shore, (food processing plants no less) I have regularly spec'd commercially supplied electronics and enclosures that can be wetted with a 2" hose ( NEMA 4),  submerged for their service life (NEMA 6P), be guaranteed to be explosion proof (generate no sparks), be shock resistant, operate in environments of +50C to -50C, and have clients expect 10 to 25 years of useful life operating 24/7.  

They also don't appreciate being told not to worry if things go wrong - there's always insurance.  In addition to the increased premiums, there is loss of revenue generating production time, loss of reputation and market share, not to mention law suits from disappointed customers, as well potentially from upset neighbours and from affected employees and their families.

So much for what I do know about the Spec issue.

Now for what I don't know - when dealing with vessels with large open spaces (bulk carriers, ferries, RoRos, transports, LHDs, Aircraft Carriers, Multi-Role vessels etc) just how much compartmentalization can be supported?  In such vessels is it as useful to have highly compartmentalized crew and machinery spaces (even in civvy ships the machinery spaces are isolated) when you have an open deck 2-3 levels high running from stem to stern and across most of the beam?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill-

Thanks for the info in civvy specing.  Good stuff!

I also don't know much about how many ways you can carve up a Ship's interior.  What I would propose though is for the ship designer to ask himself three questions before he starts designing:

1) What is the ship supposed to do?  (This should give you your basic size and shape)
2) What is the worst thing that can happen to the ship while it is doing what it supposed to do?
3) From a design perspective, what is the most efficient (after all, even in the military, money is not infinite  ) way for the ship to survive number 2 and continue to do number 1? (This should start to tell you how to arrange the guts of the ship...)

Any thoughts on the above?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Not only are watertight compartments important, the systems and redundant systems that pass through those compartments have to be of high, durable military quality -fire mains, conduit and cabling, air exchange and veting systems, and in some cases fuel lines.


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Not only are watertight compartments important, the systems and redundant systems that pass through those compartments have to be of high, durable military quality -fire mains, conduit and cabling, air exchange and veting systems, and in some cases fuel lines.



Agreed - but pass-throughs and penetrations are issues in civvy design as well.


----------



## Navy_Blue

It not that you didn't credit the crew SKT.  Its that you suggested the redundancy and MIL SPEC had something to do with it.  It was all crew I've been on board state of the art freighters and the equipment and safety are not lacking.  The only thing they don't have is crew.  You can't fight a fire or flood with 30 people or less. 

I have seen what MIL SPEC buys us and its not that impressive.  I would have no problems sailing a civi spec AOR in operational situations.  Our defence systems would still be MIL SPEC we would still be broken into reasonable water tight compartments and we would have enough safety gear for all the crew.  MIL SPEC has less to do with this than we think.  The people making decisions about what a final ship looks like will determine what gear goes where and what type.  Feed through would be no less effective at preventing flood or smoke movement.  Fire mains and control valve would be no less effective either.  The gain would be access to readily available parts cheap with an acceptable loss in quality not safety.  Heres a little job for you guys walk around the boat and look at part numbers, MFG part numbers if there is no MIL front of it, its not MIL SPEC.  You will find most valves, vent trunking and piping has nothing to do with these regs.  Look at our weapon systems steering and consoles even cannon plugs on UPS's, they will have these MIL numbers.  We've been taught to believe that MIL spec encompasses all parts material and equipment.  If that were true we wouldn't be able to local purchase as much as we do.

I agree our warships Frigates, Destroyers and SCSC should still go MIL SPEC for the most part.  We need to be able to limp out of fights if we survive the first strike.  

All in all this has kinda drifted from the original topic of the thread.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> You can't fight a fire or flood with 30 people or less.



Agreed.



> I agree our warships Frigates, Destroyers and SCSC should still go MIL SPEC for the most part.  We need to be able to limp out of fights if we survive the first strike.
> 
> All in all this has kinda drifted from the original topic of the thread.



Agreed again.  I also see your point about spending money on equipment that is, in effect, "overspec'd" for the job it is supposed to do.


----------



## Kirkhill

Although I am still partial to the Svalbard class vessel as a Northern Patrol/Jack-of-all-trades vessel just thought you might like to see how the Kiwis are making out.

Force Review 2002
Fleet Mix Study 2004
Contract Awarded 2004
1x 8000 tonne Multi-Role Vessel (19 knots - 53 sea crew + 307 others) delivered to NZ for fitting out in Sept 2006.  Commissioning Jan 2007 - Ice Strengthened for Antarctic service.
2x 85m Offshore Patrol Vessels (22 knots - 35 sea crew + 44 others)
4x 55m Inshore Patrol Vessels (25 knots - 20 sea crew + 16 others)

Total value of project NZ$500,000,000 or CAD$368,000,000



> Canterbury Begins Final Pre-delivery Fit-out
> 
> 
> (Source: New Zealand Defence Forces; issued Sept. 25, 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> Defence Minister Phil Goff today announced that the first of the Project Protector ships, the Multi Role Vessel (MRV), Canterbury, arrived in Melbourne yesterday from the Netherlands for the final phase of construction.
> 
> "The Canterbury will remain in Melbourne for the next four months while weapon and military communications systems are fitted and the crew undergo training. Once the work is complete, the Canterbury will be commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy and begin its first voyage to New Zealand said Mr Goff.
> 
> "During delivery from the Netherlands, the ship encountered a variety of weather, including a series of deep low-pressure systems with 8-9 metre swells and near storm force winds. I am advised that the ship performed exceptionally well in the conditions and provided a very comfortable ride.
> 
> "The Canterbury will, for the first time, provide the New Zealand Defence Force with the capability to deploy personnel and equipment by its own means. It will greatly improve New Zealand's ability to respond to natural disasters in the Pacific and elsewhere, and will further enhance New Zealand's contribution to peace and security in our region and beyond. The MRV represents yet another significant and careful investment by this Government in our defence force".
> 
> "The first of the Offshore Patrol Vessels, one of two being built by Tenix in Melbourne, will be launched in November. The second Offshore Patrol Vessel and the four Inshore Patrol Vessels, being built by Tenix Shipbuilding New Zealand, in Whangarei will be launched and delivered throughout 2007. The total project cost is NZ$500 million with more than $110 million coming to New Zealand industry", said Mr Goff.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm


----------



## Navy_Blue

*Bump*

I again have resurrected an old thread bah ha ha ha.

I had the opportunity this week to be lectured in EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) and EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatibility).  In that time we had a guest speaker who cleared the fog away from things we do all the time that we are told not to do but are given no explanation as to why or why not.  "don't paint the ground straps"..."Don't hang on the wires."  We hear this from people who themselves really don't understand why they are telling us.   I might add that this should be a Topic lectured in NETP, before work ups and any major deployment it was a real eye opener.  From stewart to the CO and everyone in between we all do simple things that effect weather the ship is able to shoot a target at max range or max minus 10 miles.  The vast majority of the ships company I think is unaware of how much we affect EMI and EMC.  

Anyways in this thread I ranted several times why we should look for more Civi spec equipment but failed to realize how much this equipment would effect the operation of modern warships.  Most of our Mil Spec takes into account EMI and EMC.  Just these are probably more important than strength and ability to take shock and control damage.  I don't want to break OPSEC so I will just say our standards insure we can fight float and move *all at the same time*.

I feel I have truly been enlightened today.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Very good point on illustrating why Civ Spec and Mil Spec do not operate well together in a naval enviroment.


----------



## geo

and why mil spec costs much more............

and why it takes longer to deliver mil spec......


----------



## Kirkhill

and why its important to figure out when milspec is a mission critical requirement....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

For damage control and safety of the ship you aree risking the lives of your crew if you decide not to go mil spec.


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> For damage control and safety of the ship you aree risking the lives of your crew if you decide not to go mil spec.



So are you saying that since the MCDV's are a mixture of mil spec and civilian standards in regards to DC and safety, they are at risk?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Compared to ships built strictly Mil Spec, they are more at risk then they should be.

Although being an MSE type you should know the benefits of Mil Spec over non mil spec being the DC experts (along with HTs) on ship...


----------



## Navy_Blue

An MCDV has an issue with many enclosed void spaces behind panels and bulk heads.   In a ship board fire, those spaces could be a nightmare to overhall.  That would be my main concern with MCDV's civi spec stuff.  

For the the 280's and most importantly for the CPF's Our cost is greatly increased in having to account for every piece of gear what it does and how it affects all the other gear.  We have incredibly sensitive equipment and things as simple as a rusty joint or missing bolt on a cover can drastically impede the ability of that equipment to operate to its full potential.  Ever wonder why an engineer would make a connection box that has 20 or more bolts.  I always thought they didn't want the cover to fall off in an explosion.  I always thought it was ridiculous.  I don't anymore.  

Mil Spec has more to do with parts, equipment, installation, palcement and maintenance than it does with DC.  I don't think anyone ever thought there would be 100 Dell computers spread thoughout the ship in the 70's and 80's when they designed the ship.  The yard probably approved emitions for one PC but when you combine 100 what is the effect??  You think anyone ever took the time to test the plasma TV in the cave?? or the XBOX and PS2's in all the messes??   Sure they meet civi standards for emissions but we don't use Radio Shack Walkie Talkies to talk to the world or a 700x zoom on a Sony Camcorder to look for incoming missiles.


----------



## geo

(which is why the space shuttle, amongst other milspec pieces of kit, continues to operate with truly antiquated computer hardware)


----------



## Stoker

Yes this has been an issue for me for a number of years. I was aboard Glace Bay when I was in the shore office in 95. I was very surprised that the ship wasn't built entirely mil spec then. There is a number of pieces of equipment we use for DC on the ship that are not mil spec however does the job, for example the IFDMS system is something a building would have. Of course these items are being rapidly unsupportable, since some of these systems were purchased in some cases five years before the ship was built. We all know that the platform is not having a midlife refit, however a list of obsolescence items are formulated every year of systems that need to be replaced, this year the top two is the computer aided monitoring system (386 computer) and the radars. If you look at the ships design, no citadel, some bulkheads that not water tight or smoke tight, hatches with no tell tales, no firemain jumper stations, a whole firemain system built out of mild steel and dissimilar metals, I can go on. Now with all these so called flaws, the ship is still safe to go to sea, we are Loyd's certified as any civilian ship, however our survivability is way down in a conflict. In 99 on exercise in the Baltic, we has a 1000Kg mine explode about a mile away, the shockwave when through the ship and we had tank sensor problems ever since. If we were to build the ship to mil spec entirely, we would be talking a platform at double the cost at least, but if a mine explodes under the ship, I don't think it would matter if we were mil spec or not.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So receiving lower quality equipment is fine with you?


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So receiving lower quality equipment is fine with you?



Of course not, however I have to deal with what we got on a daily basis. I have avenues to try and improve equipment on the ships EC's, UCR's and SOCD's , which I have done and continue to do.  I however never felt that I was in danger on the ships, even when I was in 14 meter seas 1200 miles off the coast or fighting a flash fire on one of our main diesels.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Our point is given the choice,naval architechs should design warships both major and monro as well as auxxillaries and any other vessel destined for the navy with Military Specifications and get rid of Civ Spec altogether. Those of us that sail would be safer.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-D

I am not want to start a flame-war here so bear with me but given a limited amount of money in the kitty which would you accept, if not prefer

1 milspec vessel with a crew of 200
2 similarly sized vessels with crews of 100 but civvy specs
or (possibly) 4 smaller vessels with similar capabilities, crews of 50 but built in civvy spec.

I know we are not considering role and environment and a multitude of other critical parameters but sometimes isn't the number of platforms as critical as the capabilities?


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ex-D
> 
> I am not want to start a flame-war here so bear with me but given a limited amount of money in the kitty which would you accept, if not prefer
> 
> 1 milspec vessel with a crew of 200
> 2 similarly sized vessels with crews of 100 but *civvy specs*
> or (possibly) 4 smaller vessels with similar capabilities, crews of 50 but built in *civvy spec*.
> 
> I know we are not considering role and environment and a multitude of other critical parameters but sometimes isn't the number of platforms as critical as the capabilities?



Civies build ships with DC equipment to deal with Exocet missiles ?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill: I would think that a commercial design utilized in the role for which it was designed is not on its face (or in practice less safe) or somehow otherwise inferior in design to military specifications, these are simply different specs for different applications. While there can clearly be some common shared characteristics, all the rest is apples and oranges. A naval vessel designed to military standards is not necessarily any safer than a commercial ship if it is pressed into a commercial role or a role that does not require at a minimum standard the design of a warship. Even liberty ships, as great a design as they were, were not built to a true naval standard, yet if any piece of equipment could be said to have been the decidingingly most influential mass production design in WW2, it was such a vessel.

Not many liberty ships sought out the enemy - I believe they prudently avoided the enemy at all costs despite their armaments. Similarly, hybrid ships such as armed trawlers performed minor escort roles, often ending in disaster. Purpose design warships sought out the enemy unless a tactical reaons held them back.  The primary reasons would be proper armament and probability of the design to survive an engagement. Therein lies the primary distinguishing characteristic between commercial and military design standards.  

On the matter of crew size - the Canadian Navy [like all Navies] uses a time tested watch keeping system that keeps a vessel at a certain state of readiness, depending on the anticipated situation or transit status. It follows that the smaller the crew size, the more time each crew member spends time closed up at their station rather than performing training, maintenance, crew rest etc.  This is sustainable only for a short time, perhaps a  few years at most in time of war, before the crew reacts negatively.

The key seems to be able to crew the ships to a military standard, keep them floating and fighting after suffering some battle damage, and in the case of Canada to design them to be adaptable to a plethora of diffuse accommodations standards and changing technology over a 40 + years lifetime (in both offcial languages and one or more spirits)


----------



## Cloud Cover

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Civies build ships with DC equipment to deal with Exocet missiles ?



With enough depth under the keel, the fire will go out.


----------



## aesop081

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> With enough depth under the keel, the fire will go out.



Sure....if the ship goes all the way to the bottom, the fire will be put out.  My point is that civy specs are made for situations encountered by civilian vessels.  Military specs are for situations encountered by military vessels.  i dont know too many cruise ships out there that were designed to take hits from SSM or gunfire. To build a warship using civilian specs because of some perceived cost-saving is, IMHO, asking for trouble.


----------



## Cloud Cover

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Sure....if the ship goes all the way to the bottom, the fire will be put out.  My point is that civy specs are made for situations encountered by civilian vessels.  Military specs are for situations encountered by military vessels.  i dont know too many cruise ships out there that were designed to take hits from SSM or gunfire. To build a warship using civilian specs because of some perceive cost-saving is, IMHO, asking for trouble.



I think thats what I just said in my preceding post, but lets be clear were not talking cruise ships and yachts here either unless we are talking about preferred accommodations for air crew.  ;D


----------



## aesop081

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I think thats what I just said in my preceding post, but lets be clear were not talking cruise ships and yachts here either unless we are talking about preferred accommodations for air crew.  ;D



Jealousy will get you nowhere


----------



## Gunnerlove

Just remember that if it is MS it just meet a Specification that was determined sometime in the past by someone who may or may not have had a grasp of what he was doing. 


Look around and you will find MS floor cleaners, and dish soap with NATO stock numbers, because a COTS product might not get our floors clean enough to walk on in a combat environment. 

Then look in a Galley, looks like (IS) a whole lot of Commercial kitchen equipment, that has had a Spec written so as to approve its use on board a military ship. Same thing can be done with valves and engines.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

To answer Kirkhills question though that one ship made strictly to mil spec with 200 crew would be what myself and most sailors would prefer. Quality over quantity works in the navy as well. your 2 to 4 ships might not survive even a minor battle where I am betting its more likely the strictly mil spec ship with 200 crew would be better able to deal with DC not to mention the casualties that will occur. Say a ship lost 10 crew for whatever reason, which of your 3 groupings would be better able to absorb the casualites? It would not be the two civ spec ships...


----------



## Kirkhill

Joseph Stalin: "Quantity has a quality all its own".

How do we afford to put enough platforms at sea to be able to monitor and control all our approaches?
Is it enough to put up a "low threat level" patrol force that runs back to port at some point in the transition from "green" to "red"?  (Setting aside considerations of who will provide the service, design and capabilities)
How do we factor in Barnett's observation that the US Navy no longer fights for control of the seas but has won it? 

When the Royal Navy was confronted with the same situation in 1816 it sent its hundred ships of the line to port and scrapped all but 10 to 20 of them.  It down sized the fleet from over 100,000 sailors to 19,000.  It built sloops and frigates, and later gunboats and other small vessels and sent them off to police the globe independently.  And the British Government stood up the Coast Guard as a civilian barrier to replace the military barrier that was no longer necessary.  
With that reduced force the RN ruled the waves for over 100 years and was only seriously challenged in 1916 at the Battle of Jutland.

Even as it expanded in manpower, by 1898 it was back up to about 100,000 sailors, it was essentially a small boat navy with a strong, modern but small Heavy Fleet.

Should the sea-going positions be handed over to the Coast Guard for domestic patrols in lightly armed and armoured vessels? 

They apparently don't want to get involved in shooting. Navies are apparently reluctant to get involved in constabulary work domestically although that  is what they are doing overseas - conducting boarding ops, search and seizure, and containment - as well as providing service support to troops ashore.

Is it not appropriate to consider a Battle Fleet and a Patrol Fleet as both necessary parts of a well balanced Navy?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill, we are not talking of the Royal Navy from centuries pass we are talking the Canadian Navy of today.. Until we get a budget like the USN we will always go the multi role approach never the Battle and Patrol. The only way you will see any sort of patrol force is if they arm the CCG and the likelyhood that is going to happen is us buying cruisers.  I have boarded ships in the Gulf and even the newer ships some of their DC is laughable at best. You will have morale issues and people leaving if you insist they sail on death traps which is what you are advocating. I know I would get out. 

  While I have little doubt our DC types could handle an actual situation, I do not believe complicating their job is the way to approach this.

I am definitely agreeing with W601 and cdnaviator on this one.


----------



## cobbler

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, we are not talking of the Royal Navy from centuries pass we are talking the Canadian Navy of today.. Until we get a budget like the USN we will always go the multi role approach never the Battle and Patrol. The only way you will see any sort of patrol force is if they arm the CCG and the likelyhood that is going to happen is us buying cruisers.



The RAN doesn't have a budget like the US navy, yet it has the Battle and Patrol philosphy/structure.

Surely when time comes to replace the MCDV's Canada could get 10 Patrol Boats and maybe 4 dedicated mine clearers. They could all still perform the reserve/training roles, but with added and valuable capabiliites. You'd have PB's that are cheaper and better at patrol work, and MH's that are actually designed for and useful in the task, without having to get modded, although I am confident the MCDV's could do a great job at minesweeping, once.

The PB's could be built to civi spec, as the RANs new Armidales are. The specs are safe for what the boats duties are. And morale has not dropped. In fact it has improved. Sailors walk up stairwells instead of climbing up poky ladders, and even a guy at the rank of Seaman gets the equivalent of what an Officers quarters are on a FFG. 

Then the MH's could not just be built to mil spec, but with shock resistent single skin hulls, low magnetic signitures, and all the bells and whistles associated with ships around the world of the class. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, the MCDV's contain none of.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Cobbler 

In addition I would question whether the USN HAS a Battle/Patrol philosophy.  In my view they have stayed well away from anything that looked like Patrol duties - thus their hunt for Littoral Combat Ships.  What they have are a number of Battlefleets in Being and Battlefleets Afloat.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Don't forget the USN has the Cyclone class PBs that are being returned from the USCG not to mention the MkVs that are being used for Force Protection duties in conjunction with the USCGs new PBs, so I will arguethat they do approaoch the patrol duties. Whether a ship is a crusider or patrol boat we do conduct patrols no matter what navy you belong to.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mine Countermeasures platforms I would argue should be built to mil spec due to the role they are fitted for. Coastal patrol boats, IPVs etc I concede could possibly be built civ spec but only if they are not used in any sort of expeditionary role. The Canadian Navy in deploying the Kingston class to Europe in the recent past have shown we could deploy these ships to any potential hot spot if needed thus showing a greater risk for battle damage.

Cobbler I will argue, will the RAN deploy the Armidales to areas like the Gulf? If not then maybe civ spec is ok in that case.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Don't forget the USN has the Cyclone class PBs that are being returned from the USCG



Where the Navy ditched them because they didn't want them, just like they ditched their riverine boats and their Hydrofoils and all their other excursions into inshore work.  The reason they want the Cyclones back is that you need a lot of water under the keel of Cruiser - and you'll know better than I but I was under the impression that that was in short supply on sandy shores like the Gulf.

What is the effect of a Silkworm on a Cyclone?


----------



## cobbler

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Cobbler I will argue, will the RAN deploy the Armidales to areas like the Gulf? If not then maybe civ spec is ok in that case.



Almost certainly not.

They have been deployed to places like the Solomon Islands. But that is an area where the enemy's most powerful weapons are home made rifles, so I doubt DC under hostile fire was a consideration.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> What is the effect of a Silkworm on a Cyclone?



probably a big BOOM!...not sure your point though.

We might as well agree to disagree guys because there is no way you will convince me that civ spec is better or safer then mil spec. Cheaper yes but cheaper gets guys like me killed....


----------



## Kirkhill

And if you got killed who would be there to straighten guys like me out....

But getting away from the "incendiary" comments about Silkworms what do you think about the Navy handling the types of tasks the RAN uses the Armedales for - peacetime patrols of local waters to intercept armed civilians.

We have three options in Canada for that type of task - Navy, Coast Guard or RCMP or potentially a new force equivalent to a seagoing RCMP.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Unfortunately I have done little to change your opinion so I do not think me straightening you out would matter lol...

My point is I do not like Civ Spec vessels, they do not belong in our navy. If and this was a big if we did get some IPVs I could concede as I said above they might be made to Civ Spec. I do feel our crews are at risk for no reason. To me its no different then mounting a GPMG on a fishing trawler and conducting patrols. You would accomplish the same thing for less money.

Any ship we could use in a hot zone (Mine Counter Measure vessels, AORs, amphibs, destroyers and frigates etc) must be made with *mil spec*. I won't debate this, this should not be debated at all. Its negligence and possibly murder to advocate anything less then mil spec for ships that will potentially be involved in combat.

As for your 3 options. You might as well count the CCG out of that right now. They are not interested and if you push the issue you place every mariner at risk. Navy and RCMP could do it but only after a major influx of cash.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK then, 

We MUST have Mil Spec.  I will so stipulate even if I don't fully appreciate the rationale.
I agree that the Coast Guard doesn't want to get involved with "shooting" and that they are out of the running.

So that indeed leaves the RCMP, who has operated launches only, and the Navy who doesn't want to get stuck in home waters apparently.

Assuming that some agency could be found to supply sailors to assist the Air Force in covering our national approaches (and potentially deploy to hot zones as circumstances warrant) how would you feel like trading in the PYs for manning 1 CPF and  tasking that crew to man 5 Visby class corvettes?  43 crew per vessel. They run at about 184 MUSD each.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3724219.stm
http://www.kockums.se/SurfaceVessels/visby.html
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/

Or how about something like the LCS with a crew in the 15 to 75 range (with up to 60 of them being Mission Specialist "Passengers" and not permanent parts of the ships company)

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/specs.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I wouldn't the idea of becoming a coastal defence force is not appealing at all. To get rid of our expeditionary assets is like getting rid of an infantry company or the Leopards all over again.

Kirkhill, if you can do a tour on an actual warship before being dismissive of what DC equipment we have, you are really missing the point on this.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-D -

I am not being dismissive.  

I am trying to understand how other nation's navies manage to cover bases that we as a nation don't cover using any assets of any force.  

I want to keep the blue water, expeditionary capability.  

But there are other things that I feel need doing as well, and that includes a more effective an robust patrolling of our domestic waters.

Wouldn't at least some of your shipmates appreciate the opportunity to spend part of their career on a two weeks on / two weeks off assignment patrolling the EEZ and approaches from their home port?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

We can do that by beefing up the Nav Res and giving them some OPVs/IPVs and MMs.

We don't do two weeks and two weeks off. Our sailing schedule does not work that way.

To reinforce my point I deirect you back to SKTs point on Reply#51 when he was on the Ottawa. Nuff said


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I found this article that at least in theory puts some "Hooray" on our current military prediciment. If the harper government keeps to its plan our military will get a long deserved boost. Its from July last year, but good reading just the same.



> *Canada's Prime Minister Harper Adds Military Muscle*
> By Paul Jackson
> Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is quickly fulfilling campaign promises to rebuild the nation's military by going on an unprecedented $15 billion peacetime spending spree on heavy transport planes, helicopters, ships and trucks.
> 
> That plan will surely get the 46—year—old prime minister a hearty handshake when  he meets with President George W. Bush at the White House on Thursday, which is, incidentally, the president's 60th birthday. Harper will already have been accorded the rare honor of staying overnight Wednesday at Blair House, the official White House guest quarters.
> 
> The $15 billion (Cdn.) procurement package is basically equivalent to the current annual budget of the Canadian military, which hovers around $15 billion but which the Harper government also plans to increase substantially year—by—year.
> 
> To give dramatic effect to the planned purchases they were all announced in a single week by Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor. The procurement plans include:
> 
> *$4 billion to buy and maintain four long—range, heavy—lift aircraft, likely the Boeing C—17 Globemaster.
> 
> *$3.2 billion for 17 other transport aircraft to replace the decades—old Hercules fleet.
> 
> *$2 billion for 16 medium—to—heavy lift helicopters.
> 
> $2.1 billion for three new supply ships.
> 
> *$1.2 billion to buy 2,300 military trucks to replace the rusted out contingent used to supply and transport the armed forces.
> 
> For comparison of scale, it's worth noting Canada's population and economy are about the same size as that of California. The country's population is 33 million, and a Canadian dollar is worth about 90—cents U.S. For simplicity's sake, many observers simply multiply a Canadian statistic by 10 to get the U.S. equivalent.
> 
> Canada's fleet of 1960s' era Hercules transport aircraft demonstrate, as do its 40—year—old Sea King search and rescue helicopters, the deteriorated state of much of the nation's heavy military equipment. In any given day up to 20 of the 30 Hercules fleet are on the ground waiting to be repaired. The Sea Kings, now being replaced slowly by a fleet of 28 Cyclone helicopters, are notorious for crashing and spend far more time having maintenance work done to them than in the air operationally.
> 
> The procurement announcements came just as former Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, was urging his Liberal party to back the U.S. ballistic missile defense shield. McKenna, a former premier of New Brunswick, had been thought to be the heir apparent to outgoing Liberal leader and former prime minister Paul Martin. But surprising almost everyone, McKenna suddenly decided not to join the Liberal leadership race.
> 
> While serving as Canada's prime minister, Martin infuriated Bush and his administration by giving the impression his government would join the missile defense shield program and then backing out at the last moment. To add insult to injury, Martin didn't even inform Bush himself of the decision, leaving it to one of his cabinet ministers.
> 
> Harper, as opposition leader, basically sat on the fence during the missile defense shield debate — much to the annoyance of many in his party — but it was suggested he did not want to get on the wrong side of an issue with the electorate that might cost him votes and an election win. It is now fairly obvious that if, as is likely, Harper wins a majority mandate in the next election, his government would quickly move to join the defense shield program.
> 
> With the new announcements, Harper declared his government was 'correcting 13 years of Liberal neglect' of the armed forces. In the mid—1990s, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Martin, as finance minister, cut the military's budget by 25% and its manpower level from 80,000 to 60,000 men and women in uniform.
> 
> O'Connor, a former brigadier—general, wants to get the military personnel back up to the pre—Martin cut levels, and likely higher. Even at just 60,000 personnel, Canada only has about 20,000 combat ready troops available at any given time. Incidentally, O'Connor is the first Canadian defense minister in recent times to have actually served in uniform.
> 
> The new defense spending plans are sure to further please the Bush administration, as are the Harper government's moves to take the nation from a Liberal—Left tilt in foreign affairs to a stance more in line with that of the U.S. Canada's new foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, has already forged a close friendship with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Harper and Bush chat frequently on the telephone, unlike Chretien and Martin who so upset Bush with their anti—American slurs they rarely got their telephone calls to the White House returned.
> 
> Just as Harper and O'Connor were making the procurement announcements, and McKenna his defense shield comments, Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defense, released his committee's latest report entitled 'The Government's No. 1 Job: Securing the Military Options it Needs to Protect Canadians'. In the June 303—page report, Kenny calls for a doubling of the current $15 billion (Cnd.) military  budget to $30 billion or $35 billion (Cnd.). He welcomed the new announcements, but contended military spending plans by the Harper government still fall short.
> 
> Paradoxically, Kenny was appointed to the Senate by the late Liberal—Left and anti—military prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. Kenny had been a longtime aide to Trudeau, but since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and taking over as chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defense he has seemingly turned into a 'Liberal hawk' as he criss—crosses the nation, probes the lack of security at Canadian airports and sea ports, and insists on sitting down with rank—and—file members of the armed forces as well as officers to get their views on what the military needs. Aside from a $30 billion to $35 billion budget, Kenny wants to see the military's strength increased to 90,000 personnel.
> 
> Incidentally, through the administrations of several Liberal prime ministers until Trudeau the country maintained a high military stance. From Second World War prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, to his 1950s successor, Louis St. Laurent and 1960s' prime minister Lester Pearson the nation's military force was fairly constant. That came to an end with Trudeau.
> 
> Although Canadians generally knew Trudeau's heroes included Communist dictators Fidel Castro and Mao Tse—tung, just weeks ago a new scholarly book shed sensational light on his philosophies long before entering federal politics. The book Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada 1919—1944 by Max and Monique Nemni, paints Trudeau as being both a Fascist sympathizer and anti—Semitic in the 1930s and early 1940s.
> 
> Although it was well known Trudeau had avoided conscription during the Second World War, the Nemnis' (both admirers of Trudeau) also revealed he blamed Britain for starting the war, claimed Canada was ruled by a 'military clique', and denounced Mackenzie King's declaration of war against Nazi Germany in 1939. In his more youthful days he was also a Quebec separatist, declaring one day Quebec would be a sovereign independent state. Insightfully, the one issue even his harshest critics gave him credit for during his prime ministership was that Trudeau battled Quebec separatism all down the line.
> 
> On his travels across the nation, Kenny has often walked into supposedly secure areas of airports and sea ports without being challenged. His findings of lapses of security and the possibility airports and sea ports have been infiltrated by criminal elements have shaken 'thinking' Canadians.
> 
> Kenny has constantly tried to wake Canadians up against what he says is both complacency and a false sense of security. Chretien himself added to the attitude of many Canadians by insisting because Canada is a 'multicultural' nation it is safe from terrorist attacks. That's even though it is well known Canada is one of the targets on Osama bin Laden's hit list. Just a month ago police and security forces arrested 17 individuals alleged to be 'home grown Islamic terrorists' who  planned to blow up several Canadian landmarks and even invade the House of Commons and capture and behead the prime minister.
> 
> Kenny — who must appall the basic Liberal—Left structure of his own party as much as Zell Miller appalls the Liberal—Lefters in the Democratic party, has tried to demolish three myths Trudeau, Chretien and Martin perpetuated:
> 
> Myth One: Canada is not a warlike nation. True, he says, but Canadians have a history of protecting themselves, and standing up for what is right when the crunch comes. He points to Canada's participation in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War. Coincidentally, in the Second World War one—in—ten Canadians were in uniform, a rate said to be higher than its allies. At the end of the Second World War, with a population of around 11 million, Canada is thought to have had the fourth largest military in the world.
> 
> Myth Two: There is no imminent threat to Canadians. Not so, he says. Canadians live in a shrunken world in which borders and even oceans offer limited buffers to disaster. He notes Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli testified before Kenny's Senate committee in May  that he expects a terrorist  attack  will occur on Canadian soil. Zaccardelli pointed out the U.S., Britain, Australia, Spain, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia had already been attacked, as had Iraq. Commented Kenny, 'Canada has an unenviable  place on al—Qaida's list of countries to be targeted.'
> 
> Myth Three: The Americans will take care of Canada. Kenny's assessments: The U.S. is a great friend of Canada. On a huge number of issues, the interests of both countries are complementary. But Americans look after their own interests first and foremost, and so should Canadians. The dependence of one nation depending on another nation for its survival is dangerous. In a nutshell, when it comes down to it, the U.S. will look after Canada in a crisis if it can, but it naturally will have to look after its own citizens first. That's why Canada must become self—sufficient of its own security and defense.
> 
> Kenny also notes, as have Conservative politicians, that Canada's expenditures on defense as a percentage of its Gross National product (GNP) are abysmal. In 2005, the U.S spent $1,712 per capita, and Britain spent $903.  Australia $648, and  even The Netherlands spent $658. Yet Canada spent only $343 for each man, woman and child to defend the nation. All figures are in Canadian dollars, so add 10% to translate to U.S. dollars.
> 
> Canada's defense spending has often been as low as 1% of its GNP — 1996—97 to 1999—2000, for instance. In 2000—01 and 2001—02 it fell to 0.9% In 2005—06 it was just 6.8% of total federal government spending.
> 
> Rounded out, Kenny says both Britain and France spend roughly 2% of their GNP for defense, and if Canada spent that much a $30 billion (Cnd. ) annual defense budget would be quite attainable and sustainable.
> 
> Still to come from Harper's government are details of  Arctic military icebreaking vessels and other large military hardware. The U.S. disputes Canada's sovereignty claims over the Northwest Passage, which could one day become a major all—weather sea international lane, but Washington has hinted it may accept the claim of  Canadian sovereignty if Ottawa can guarantee security of the region. By having military icebreakers patrol the Arctic, Canada would not only be demonstrating military muscle, but it would ease Liberal—Left criticism the Harper government is in Washington's pocket.
> 
> Kenny's all party committee, by the way, wants to see between $58 billion and $81 billion spent on big ticket military hardware over the next 20 years.
> 
> Kenny has also criticized the idea that defense procurements should always have economic benefits for Canadian industry. He believes they should be based on getting the best equipment possible, at the best possible price, and in the shortest period of  time. Rather than tying purchases to some form of 'regional economic development' programs for depressed areas, he wants to see the government have an 'off the shelf' purchasing policy and obtain equipment compatible with that used by the Canada's allies.
> 
> Some analysts actually contend  the Liberal senator's reports and recommendations could simply be used by the Conservatives as their own blueprint for rebuilding the nation's military and ensuring the security of its coasts and airspace. That's not the view of Liberal MPs who this past week condemned Harper's and O'Connor's military spending plans.
> 
> In response to Liberal attacks in the House of Commons, Harper said,
> 
> 'I do not care whether the party opposite does not support our military. This party does, and we will have a strong military for a strong country.'
> 
> No one doubts the youthful prime minister's resolve any more.
> 
> Paul Jackson is a veteran and award—winning Canadian journalist who has spent four decades writing on politics, foreign affairs and defence for many of Canada's major metropolitan daily newspapers. He is now Editor Emeritus of the Calgary Sun.


 Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/07/canadas_prime_minister_harper.html


----------



## cobbler

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Any ship we could use in a hot zone (Mine Counter Measure vessels, AORs, amphibs, destroyers and frigates etc) must be made with *mil spec*. I won't debate this, this should not be debated at all. Its negligence and possibly murder to advocate anything less then mil spec for ships that will potentially be involved in combat.



No arguing with that. It's just common sense. All of those types of vessels should be made mil spec. To do otherwise would be foolish and dangerous.

But do you really think the MCDV's would be up to performing in such an area of operations anyway? 

Like I said, for the same price when it comes time to replace them you could get civ spec Patrol Boats, and some proper MCM's. 




			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wouldn't the idea of becoming a coastal defence force is not appealing at all. To get rid of our expeditionary assets is like getting rid of an infantry company or the Leopards all over again.



Who said anything of the sort?

Taking up a patrol role certainly doesn't mean you have to give up blue-water capability. In fact it could add to it, as you would need less of your major fleet units loitering around home waters for the duties which could just as easily be done by a smaller vessel.

And really _expeditionary_ requires amphib ships.
Frigates, destroyers and AOR's only constitute Blue Water capability, not expeditionary.


----------



## aesop081

cobbler said:
			
		

> But do you really think the MCDV's would be up to performing in such an area of operations anyway?
> 
> .



Do you realy think they were designed for that in the first place ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> But do you really think the MCDV's would be up to performing in such an area of operations anyway?
> Like I said, for the same price when it comes time to replace them you could get civ spec Patrol Boats, and some proper MCM's.



First off the MCDVs are not mil spec they have civ spec as well. Second read my posts again where I conceded IPVs made to Civ Spec _might_ be beneficial. Having seen the MCDVs deployed to Europe illustrates that they are deployable. If the powers that sign our pay cheques say they need to be!



> Taking up a patrol role certainly doesn't mean you have to give up blue-water capability. In fact it could add to it, as you would need less of your major fleet units loitering around home waters for the duties which could just as easily be done by a smaller vessel.
> 
> And really expeditionary requires amphib ships.
> Frigates, destroyers and AOR's only constitute Blue Water capability, not expeditionary.



I see you know little of the CF and how it actually functions.....if we start putting a lot of money into inshore assets (our expeditionary assets yes I said expeditionary assets) as I have heard enough 3 ringers and above call our frigates, destroyers and AORs *expeditionary* units. THe government will deide we do need that capability and you will see frigates destroyers and AORs go the way of the do-do.

Expeditionary while usually pertains to amphibs does not constitute it totally, if you look it up you will see it pertains to _any_ military force sent abroad.


----------



## STONEY

Weather Mil Spec or other  ex Dragoon have you ever heard of HMCS Kootenay .
Well for your info this was a fully mil spec warship.  She had an explosion and fire with loss of life and severe injuries and the vessel at one point was in fear of being lost.
After this incident an investigation showed that this whole class of warship plus her sister classes of warships were woefully lacking in both DC and firefighting equipment. 
The Kootenay Not only used up her own firefighting equipment but most of all the ships who were in company which included  the carrier Bonaventure. Now this was from a gearbox explosion and not military action yet was disasterous. Shortly after all navy ships were provided with twice as much firefighting equipment and many improvments were made to DC methods and the whole navy's publications & training methods .  Mil Spec by itself means nothing , if given the choice of going in harms way in a CPF or Tribal  as agianst a Kongo or F-124  i'm afraid there would be no contest.

Cheers


----------



## Stoker

Yes that was a "Mil Spec" warship in 1969, the technology and design today is considerability better now than then. If that ship wasn't "mil spec" do you think it would of survived? It wasn't just a lack of firefighting gear on the Kootney, it was also due to the fact that the ship was operating in DC condition X ray, with most of the doors and hatches open during full power trials.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks Stoney I am very well aware of the Kootenay and I am also aware of the Falklands Islands and the Iran-Iraq War which is why I advocate the lessons learned for_ Modern_ mil spec vessels from these occurences.

Agreed Stoker...100%


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world...



> *Canterbury tales: NZ MoD slated over flawed MRV deal*
> By Jon Rosamond
> janes.com
> 24 October 2008
> 
> 
> When waves 6 m high tore a rigid-hull inflatable boat (RHIB) from its station aboard HMNZS Canterbury, less than six weeks after the 8,870-ton auxiliary had been accepted into service, it was hardly the most auspicious start for the ship's operational career under the New Zealand ensign. *But the alarm bells began sounding even more urgently when, three months later, a member of the ship's company was killed during what should have been a routine manoeuvre to deploy another RHIB.
> 
> The two incidents - on 10 July and 5 October 2007 respectively - prompted the New Zealand Ministry of Defence (MoD) to announce in December that it had ordered an independent inquiry into Canterbury's acquisition and introduction into service, focusing on the ship's safety and functionality. The review was to be led by John Coles, formerly chief executive of the UK's Warship Support Agency.
> 
> Coles' report, published on 12 September 2008, is brutally frank and exposes serious weaknesses in MoD procedures and management. He states that the procurement was "constrained... by the initial choice of ship design, it has been managed to get the ship into service as soon as possible, and it has been characterised by shortcomings in project management and governance and collective wishful thinking".
> 
> Furthermore, Coles and his review team judged that the ship "is unlikely to meet all of the requirements" of the delivery contract awarded to Tenix Defence Systems (now part of BAE Systems Australia) in July 2004, and that "remedial work" is necessary to allow Canterbury to perform military tasks.
> 
> Most damaging, perhaps, are the assertions that even when the improvements have been completed, the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) will have to impose operating limitations on the ship, and that its sea-keeping "is likely to be poorer in higher sea states". *
> 
> Navy and government officials can at least draw comfort from Coles' confirmation that Canterbury is "intrinsically safe" to go to sea and that "the functionality required by the NZDF [New Zealand Defence Force] has or will be achieved".
> 
> In a press release issued on the day of the report's publication, the MoD said the review "has concluded that the ship will be a valuable asset" for the navy and that the Coles team had decided there "was no connection between design and performance issues and the death of sailor Byron Solomon".
> 
> New Zealand's requirement for a multirole ship capable of performing a broad range of sealift, logistic support and relief tasks in the South Pacific region can be traced back to the 1987 defence review, which identified a capability gap for a vessel to deploy army units around the region and transport stores to sustain such deployments.
> 
> BMT Defence Services undertook a project definition study for a new-build logistic support ship and proposed a vessel featuring a twin-hangar, two-spot flight deck, four landing craft launched from side davits, and accommodation for an embarked military force of up to 200 troops, in addition to a standard complement of 60.
> 
> However, the price tag was deemed unaffordable and the concept was quietly abandoned; attention turned instead to the possible acquisition of a second-hand military ship or a converted merchant vessel. By the early 1990s, the capital outlay for the RNZN's new Anzac-class frigates had left little room for the acquisition of a sealift ship. Even so, the 1991 Defence White Paper reiterated the continuing need for such a capability, noting that the NZDF had "insufficient transport to deploy and sustain a reinforced battalion group away from New Zealand".
> 
> One possibility investigated by the NZDF was the lease of the Royal Australian Navy landing ship HMAS Tobruk, which was expected to become surplus to requirements following Australia's acquisition of two ex-US Navy Newport-class landing ships (which became HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora). In the event, Tobruk's large manning requirement and attendant operating costs persuaded New Zealand to look instead at the acquisition of a mercantile hull...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Hmmm wasn't this the class so many were advocating in the past for our Navy?


----------



## CougarKing

A notable update:



> *NZ Navy Welcomes New Inshore Patrol Vessels*
> Navy News — By Editor on April 16, 2009 at 5:52 am
> (1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
> 
> http://www.defencetalk.com/navy-welcomes-new-inshore-patrol-vessels-17839/
> 
> Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson says the upcoming delivery of the four new Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) is an important and significant step for the Navy, the New Zealand Defence Force, and the whole country.
> 
> The Minister of Defence announced earlier today that the four ships, ROTOITI, HAWERA, PUKAKI and TAUPO are soon to be delivered, beginning with ROTOITI, which will be officially handed over to the Navy on Friday 17th April in Whangarei, before sailing to Devonport Naval Base on Friday 24th April.
> 
> The ship will be affiliated to the port of Napier and the Hawke's Bay region, reflecting the special relationship with the Navy that stretches back to the 1931 earthquake.
> 
> “The delivery of these ships reflects a lot of hard work by the New Zealand Defence Force, in particular the Navy, and the Ministry of Defence,” Rear Admiral Ledson said.
> 
> *“The IPVs will be very capable ships and they will provide increased opportunities for our Sailors, both in the Regular Force and Naval Volunteer Reserve Forces, to have new and exciting challenges and experiences. Importantly, too, they will enable the Navy to make a wider contribution both to New Zealand in our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and further a field, particularly in the South Pacific.“ Rear Admiral Ledson said.
> 
> “Along with the new Offshore Patrol Vessels and the Air Force’s P3 Orion Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, they will provide a ‘step up’ in the Defence Force’s ability to work in close partnership with government agencies such as Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Police, Customs and the Ministry of Foreign affairs and Trade to address New Zealand’s security challenges.”*
> 
> "We're grateful to the contractor, BAE, for their contribution to the significant effort that has gone in to securing the delivery of these impressive new ships. Today is a very exciting day for the Navy,” Rear Admiral Ledson said.
> 
> Background information on Project Protector IPVs
> 
> The Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems have agreed a formal delivery schedule for the Navy’s new Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs).
> 
> The ships are ROTOITI, HAWEA, PUKAKI and TAUPO. Prior to departure from Whangarei, they will be commissioned into naval service.
> 
> *The ships are built to a modified Philippine Coast Guard “San Juan class” design. The Philippines Coast Guard currently operate 4 of this class and have been doing so since 2000.*
> 
> The first IPV, ROTOITI, is planned to be delivered to Devonport Naval Base on 24th April, with the remaining three ships being delivered over the following six weeks.
> The timetable for formal handover to the Navy and ceremonial commissioning of the new ships will be advised in due course.
> 
> The Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) are complete and have undergone sea trials, but the contractor has not yet offered them for delivery as there are still some issues to be resolved.
> 
> Narrative Ship Data
> 
> The IPVs are versatile vessels capable of multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks.
> 
> At 55 metres long and with a contracted 3000-nautical mile range (although the sea trials show that the range is likely to be in the region of 7000nm which is double the contracted requirement), they will contribute significantly to the patrolling of New Zealand’s 15,000km coastline, and our Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles. The primary role of the IPVs will be patrol and response to maritime security incidents within the inshore zone around New Zealand.
> 
> In addition to patrolling, an IPV’s tasks will include surveillance, response and boarding operations, and search and rescue. Secondary roles for the IPVs will be in New Zealand disaster relief and defence aid to the civil community.
> 
> The IPVs will have a complement of 20 naval personnel and four Government agency officers. They also have the capacity to host 12 additional personnel onboard for general naval training or other duties.
> 
> Additional Information
> 
> Compared with the Inshore Patrol Craft (1990s) and the Lake Class Patrol Boats (mid-70s to late 80s) the IPVs are like comparing a Ferrari with a Toyota Hilux. The IPVs are much faster (over the double the speed of the IPC) and highly manoeuvrable. With active fin stabilisers, they provide a comfortable ride, they are far more sophisticated (modern off the shelf equipment and automated systems including unmanned machinery spaces) and significantly more capable (long range, modern communications and surveillance systems) and they look smart!
> 
> The introduction of the IPVs will be an exciting time for the Royal New Zealand Navy. There would be many senior officers watching the young Commanding Officers with envy as the IPVs are significantly better than their predecessors.
> 
> The Navy has never had anything as capable and sophisticated as these ships which are specifically designed to undertake a range of tasks for several Government agencies including Customs, Ministry of Fisheries, DoC, Police, MFAT, NZDF and Maritime New Zealand.
> 
> Their introduction will enhance Navy's recruitment and retention as these ships frequent ports around the NZ coast.


----------



## CougarKing

From the Commonwealth Navies' board of "Navweapons.com" forums:



> *HMNZS Otago, the RNZN first Protector class OPV was handed over the RNZN on 18-Feb-10. * A number of military roles have been assigned to the OPV's - MCM, Diving Support, Military Hydrography.
> 
> Once the next OPV is delivered the RNZN will operate a force of 12 Vessels (2 x FFH, 2 x OPV, 4 x IPV, Diving Tender, Survey Ship, Tanker and the MRV Canterbury). This is down from some 20 vessels the RNZN operated at the start of 1990.
> 
> The 2010 Defence review is due for release in March this year, no public comment has been made on the likley outcome by Ministers or Defence staff.
> 
> (...)




More at the RNZN website:








> HMNZS OTAGO - P148
> HMNZS OTAGO - Ship Information
> The Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) *HMNZS OTAGO* and *WELLINGTON *deliver substantial new capability to the Royal New Zealand Navy.  The ships can go further offshore, stay at sea longer, and conduct more challenging operations than the Inshore Patrol Vessels, and will enable the RNZN to conduct patrol and surveillance operations around New Zealand, the southern ocean and into the Pacific.
> 
> The OPV’s are capable of many roles including maritime patrol, surveillance and response.  They have the ability to conduct helicopter operations using a Seasprite SH2G helicopter, boarding operations using the ships Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats, or Military Support Operations with embarked forces.
> 
> The OPV’s have strengthened hulls which enable them to enter southern waters where ice may be encountered.  They are not designed as ice-breakers or to enter Antarctic ice-packs, but have the range and capability to undertake patrols in the southern ocean where ice may be encountered.
> 
> The ships are highly automated and operate with a core crew of 35, plus 10 flight crew to operate a helicopter.  The ships power and control systems are fully computerised.
> 
> 
> 
> Specifications:
> Displacement:                 1,900 tonnes
> Length Overall:               85 metres
> Beam:                            14metres
> Range:                           6000 nautical miles
> Speed:                           Maximum continuous  22 knots
> Complement :
> Core ships company        35
> Flight personnel:              10
> Government agencies:     4
> Additional personnel:       34
> Total:                             83
> Armament:                    One 25mm Bushmaster Naval gun and two .50 calibre machine guns
> 
> Helicopter capability
> OTAGO can embark the KAMAN SH-2G (NZ) Seasprite helicopter onboard.


----------



## RC

The OPVs are Canadian designed.


----------



## RC

I've just read the rest of this thread and while I recognize it's quite old, it is of particular interest to me because I'm a naval architect who has designed naval ships with elements both "civ" spec and mil-spec and I have heard this debate many times from various angles.

I will not argue in any way that a warship that is expected to see combat should be mil-spec.  I agree that it would be dangerous to do otherwise and I don't believe that the CF would ever consider it.

However, this leaves a substantial grey area, and I would argue that ships that are not expected to see naval combat (ie. they are defined as non-combat ships at the outset and not expected to take torpedo, missile, or mine strikes) should be "civ" spec equipment, with a balance of naval vs. civilian requirements, even if they are commissioned warships.  While it is of course safer to build everything mil-spec, logic must intercede at some point.  I think it would be silly to buy $600 mil-spec coffee mug for a non-combat ship, when a $3 coffee mug will do.  There's a chance a brick could fall on my head while I'm out for a sunday stroll, but I'm not going to wear a helmet all the time as a result even though it would make me safer.


That being said, "civ" spec vs. mil-spec is not just a Ford Focus vs. a Formula 1.  You do have the option of the Ferrari or Lamborghini in there as well.  For instance, you can choose substantially upgraded stability regs for a commissioned warship without requiring V-lines and the compartmentation on your combat ships.  Similarly, you shouldn't have SOLAS DC standards on an armed non-combattant, but it's equally unnecessary to have the full package from a frigate.  You would design the DC system around the intended threats.

For instance, a NZ OPV is lightly armed, is a commissioned warship, and is expected to take weapon damage from non-naval sources (ie. small arms fire).  As a result, her DC capability and stability are limited to saving the ship from internally created or collision fire/flood, but not heavy weapons fire/ flood.  She is suited to her mission and is not intended to replace a combat capable ship.  On the other hand, some mil-spec is required in the comms suite to prevent EMI given her required capacity for situational awareness.

To my mind, this is the right way to do things.  This is the intended route on AOPS and gives the very important added benefit that the politicos don't have the option of confusing an AOPS program with a frigate replacement program.  AOPS cannot be placed in a combat role and thus is not now, nor shall it ever be a cheap alternative to frigates; this is an argument that every Canadian voter can understand.

To summarize:  
Combat ship = MIL-spec, no question, no comment
Armed non-combattant = substantially upgraded navy requirements from a civ base, with mil-spec as required to maintain nav and comms.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Very interesting points RC, thank you for your clarifications.  Just a question though. What is the best route to go for AORs? I would think because they are deployable assets that may find their way facing the same threats as other warships then they should be strictly mil spec. Do you concur?


----------



## Acer Syrup

I am also interest in what RC has to say on the AOR. But as RC said:



			
				RC said:
			
		

> To summarize:
> Combat ship = MIL-spec, no question, no comment
> Armed non-combattant = substantially upgraded navy requirements from a civ base, with mil-spec as required to maintain nav and comms.



I think every vessels comes down to a risk assessment; Risk vs Cost. Not even that, some are a compromise with the powers at be. Some vessel are black and some are white on the spectrum and some are grey. Its the grey ones that are a kicker and the more and more we develop multi role vessels, the more those vessel will have grey lines.

It would seem to me that due to vessel costs and lengthy construction times that I would tend to lean towards being a little more cautious. Sherman Tanks paid off big for the US in WWII, but large ships are no tank. Ask a General and a tanker about the Sherman and I bet they would give you a different view of what that tank was like. As person who may serve on an AOR or JSS - Mil-Spec the shit out of it!

An AOR is a supply ship.... isn't supplies almost one of the most important things? Wouldn't you want to protect it? Wouldn't it be a high risk target?


----------



## RC

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Very interesting points RC, thank you for your clarifications.  Just a question though. What is the best route to go for AORs? I would think because they are deployable assets that may find their way facing the same threats as other warships then they should be strictly mil spec. Do you concur?



Yes, I absolutely agree that while an AOR (or JSS) is not necessarily a fighting ship, it is a combat ship, a high value asset, and should have whatever protection its architects can imagine.  It should have mil-spec, navy stability standards, and appropriate and substantial DC capabilities.

While I agree with some of the comments regarding the futility of protecting against modern weapons to a degree, there are still plenty of minor assets out there with weapons to suit.  Losing an AOR/JSS to something like a fast attack missile boat or an old mine would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I've only had some fringe involvement with the JSS program, so I'm not entirely aware of what they are considering, but from what I've seen of the SRD, I think it's more mil-spec than an AOPS, but less than a frigate.  I believe the stability standard is being specially developed as JSS specific.  I think the cost debate on the JSS should not revolve around the level of protection it is afforded, but the level of capability.  Better to have it do a few things well and safely than do everything on a weak and dangerous platform.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think we are all straying into a field of distinctions without differences and artificial use of vocabulary.

First of all I cannot see any difference between a "fighting" ship and a "combat" ship: There are no source I know of which currently distinguishes the two with a defined distinction. 

And for the record, AOR's are neither: we in Canada tend to overuse them for tasks not directly related to their primary function as supply vessels (such as using them to house a combat mission staff), but many nations do not even bother to arm them with even self-defence weapons, and the British go even further: they are not warships but fleet auxiliaries  operated by the merchant seaman of the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Service.  

Also, and sorry about this RC, but there is no reason whatsoever for an AOR to ever, ever, ever be in a position where it can be attacked by a Fast Attack Craft or hit a mine: These are littoral threats and an AOR is a deep ocean/away from theatre asset. There, they take the same chances as everybody else, including all the merchies we employ or protect there. For instance, during the Gulf War, all the support vessels were kept as far away from the gulf as possible consistent with the transit needs of the warships they served and were afforded protection by  a group of frigates and destroyers of the coalition and shore based aircrafts. 

Now, depending on the circumstances, the AORs can be, or not, a High Value Asset. This term of art refers to any ship that happens to require increased protection under the circumstances of a mission: It can cover anything from an Aircraft Carrier (fully mil-spec, I presume) as well as a container ship delivering ammo to Europe (not mil-spec at all).

Speaking of mil-spec, we should remember that the British in the Falklands lost a fully mil-spec Type 21 Frigate to a single WWII 500 pounds bomb. Meanwhile, some supertankers (not mil-spec at all) have hit mines in the persian gulf and not even noticed until alongside and someone noticed the paint peeling of the hull.  

Acer Syrup is correct in my view: Its a matter of risk assessment and you can use the whole spectrum from fully mil-spec to fully civilian. This is exactly what led to the MCDV being civilian specs (like the British River class minesweepers that inspired them in fact). Their primary use (other than training), which was the justification for their original purpose was EDATS (extreme depth armed team sweep). This requirement existed because we were planning to acquire up to 8 nuclear submarines at the time. As everyone knows, these plans were abandoned after the Berlin Wall came down. However, those deep anti submarine mines posed little to no threat to the surface ships that were meant to sweep them.

By the way (and this may not belong here), I would not mind if new Canadian true AORs (built for no other purposes) were put in the hands of merchant seaman of the CFAV's and only embarked the military supply personnel required for the actual supply tasks. That could ease the manning problems of the fleet and I am sure that the supply techs and officers would not mind not having to perform to a "pusser" navy captain's standard.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I don't think you can really compare mil-spec early 1980s to mil-spec 2000+. Up until the Falklands War,it was ok to build warships made in part of aluminum. A 500 lbs bomb is going to make any frigate sized ship hurt if hit directly. Musing here though, I wonder if that same Type 21 frigate built to todays mil-spec and lessons learned from the Falklands War would have made out.

As for mine hits on supertankers come on. Those things are friggin massive!! I dare say it would take more then a single mine to sink a modern day supertanker....

I could be wrong but IIRC even during the Iran-Iraq War there were no merchant flagged vessels sunk, albeit I think it was over 600 damaged and around 500 sailors killed or injured, when both sides declared open season.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Back in the 90's the sistership of the Exxon Valdez broke down off the west coast we were tasked to tow it till salvage ships arrived, even our 350' 1100 class icebreaker looked like a toy beside it. The amount of flex they are designed to have is also incrediable.


----------



## RC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think we are all straying into a field of distinctions without differences and artificial use of vocabulary.
> 
> First of all I cannot see any difference between a "fighting" ship and a "combat" ship: There are no source I know of which currently distinguishes the two with a defined distinction.
> 
> And for the record, AOR's are neither: we in Canada tend to overuse them for tasks not directly related to their primary function as supply vessels (such as using them to house a combat mission staff), but many nations do not even bother to arm them with even self-defence weapons, and the British go even further: they are not warships but fleet auxiliaries  operated by the merchant seaman of the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Service.
> 
> Also, and sorry about this RC, but there is no reason whatsoever for an AOR to ever, ever, ever be in a position where it can be attacked by a Fast Attack Craft or hit a mine: These are littoral threats and an AOR is a deep ocean/away from theatre asset. There, they take the same chances as everybody else, including all the merchies we employ or protect there. For instance, during the Gulf War, all the support vessels were kept as far away from the gulf as possible consistent with the transit needs of the warships they served and were afforded protection by  a group of frigates and destroyers of the coalition and shore based aircrafts.
> 
> Now, depending on the circumstances, the AORs can be, or not, a High Value Asset. This term of art refers to any ship that happens to require increased protection under the circumstances of a mission: It can cover anything from an Aircraft Carrier (fully mil-spec, I presume) as well as a container ship delivering ammo to Europe (not mil-spec at all).
> 
> Speaking of mil-spec, we should remember that the British in the Falklands lost a fully mil-spec Type 21 Frigate to a single WWII 500 pounds bomb. Meanwhile, some supertankers (not mil-spec at all) have hit mines in the persian gulf and not even noticed until alongside and someone noticed the paint peeling of the hull.
> 
> Acer Syrup is correct in my view: Its a matter of risk assessment and you can use the whole spectrum from fully mil-spec to fully civilian. This is exactly what led to the MCDV being civilian specs (like the British River class minesweepers that inspired them in fact). Their primary use (other than training), which was the justification for their original purpose was EDATS (extreme depth armed team sweep). This requirement existed because we were planning to acquire up to 8 nuclear submarines at the time. As everyone knows, these plans were abandoned after the Berlin Wall came down. However, those deep anti submarine mines posed little to no threat to the surface ships that were meant to sweep them.
> 
> By the way (and this may not belong here), I would not mind if new Canadian true AORs (built for no other purposes) were put in the hands of merchant seaman of the CFAV's and only embarked the military supply personnel required for the actual supply tasks. That could ease the manning problems of the fleet and I am sure that the supply techs and officers would not mind not having to perform to a "pusser" navy captain's standard.



No problem at all.  I'm a Nav Arch with 90% civilian experience, so you could drive an AOR through the hole in my  knowledge regarding military operations and tactics.  A large part of the reason I read this forum is to learn, so I'm quite happy to be educated.  My understanding for the AOR's is that they would be sent to combat zones (thus they are combattants) but obviously are not armed to attack (thus are not fighting ships).  I picked up the terms from naval officers, so I figured they would have some understood definition.

My feeling is that if the AORs need to be protected by a group of frigates, destroyers, and aircraft, it's because you expect them to get shot at.  And if you expect them to get shot at, then you'd better factor that into your risk assessment during design.  

Also, my understanding of High Value Asset corresponds more to the asset than the mission.  A high value asset is one that the crew will fight to save until they just can't fight anymore (and thus they should have the resources to do so) rather than an asset that will be abandoned at the first real hint of danger to the crew (as you would see on a commercial ship).  I would expect a naval AOR/JSS to lie much closer to the former than the latter.


----------



## RC

Sorry to double post, but I also wanted to add that I've heard High Value Asset used in reference to Naval vessels in the very literal sense that it was expensive to build and if it gets sunk in a battle, you probably aren't going to get another one.

This is somewhat of a philosophical musing, but I think that a Navy needs to build these types of assets (ie. complex, robust, mil-spec) during peace times because if we do go to war at some point, all they are going to get is whatever can be pumped out quick, dirty, and cheap.  So it is best to build the solid, tough ships that will form the backbone of your combat force when you have the opportunity.


----------



## CougarKing

An update: a problem has emerged with HMNZS _Canterbury_'s 2 landing craft/LCMs.

link to article on NZ's _Stuff_ news website



> *The multi-role HMNZS Canterbury's two landing craft are be replaced due to design flaws.*
> The problems are the latest to affect the fleet of seven ships bought by the Government for $500 million. The Australian-based builders BAE Systems have agreed to an $85 million payout.
> *The navy today confirmed some of that money would go towards designing and building two new landing craft medium (LCMs) to replace the vessels which came with Canterbury when she was commissioned in Melbourne in June, 2007.
> Other cash would be used fixing weight issues on the two new 85 metre offshore patrol vessels, HMNZS Otago and HMNZS Wellington.*
> The deputy chief of navy, Commodore Bruce Pepperell, told NZPA design deficiencies in Canterbury's landing craft had caused problems with the bow ramp doors which were prone to cracking.
> *They were also problems loading cargo into the landing craft from the stern door of Canterbury at sea, and stability issues.
> The craft were still being used, but with "very severe limitations". *
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

A related update:

Defense News link



> *New RNZN Ship Arrives; U.S. Policy Stirs Debate*
> By NICK LEE-FRAMPTON
> Published: 13 Apr 2010 12:10
> 
> WELLINGTON - On the same day that New Zealand welcomed a new Offshore Patrol Vessel,* a former prime minister said he thinks it's time to allow non-nuclear U.S. ships to return to the country's ports.*
> HMNZS Otago, the sixth of seven ships ordered for the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) under the 500 million New Zealand dollar ($357 million) Project Protector, arrived in Auckland from Melbourne, Australia, on April 9 with Defence Minister Wayne Mapp aboard.
> 
> The 279-foot, 1,900-metric-ton Offshore Patrol Vessel, armed with a 25mm Bushmaster cannon, was ordered in 2004 and launched in November 2006. It was originally scheduled for delivery in 2007 but was only formally handed over to the RNZN in February.
> 
> Mapp said the Otago was value for money "even though maritime terrorism is not currently a problem for New Zealand. We haven't had those things in our area as yet, but the whole point of a defense force is to be prepared for contingencies that might happen. When you've got unstable states, you've certainly got the prospect of transnational crime, drug running, piracy and things of that nature," he said.
> 
> Otago's sister ship, Wellington, is expected to arrive by June.
> 
> Also on April 9, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister and an architect of New Zealand's nuclear-free laws, told the DominionPost newspaper here that it is time U.S. ships were allowed to return to New Zealand.
> 
> Under the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987, nuclear-powered or armed ships have been barred from local waters.
> Palmer is not advocating a change to the legislation but said he sees no reason to stop U.S. Coast Guard ships - or any other non-nuclear American vessel - from entering New Zealand ports.
> 
> U.S. ship visits are "desirable" if they conform with New Zealand law, he told the NZPA news agency. "I'm just suggesting that ship visits could occur from almost any other nation that has a navy under New Zealand law, and there does seem to have been a change in American attitudes to the subject, and therefore the time may be propitious for this."
> 
> However, Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said Washington takes the view that it will not send ships to New Zealand while the legislation is in place, and the Wellington government, he says, has no intention of changing that.
> 
> "We were elected on that policy, have adopted that policy and accept that there are some consequences that flow from that," he said April 10.
> 
> The debate over nuclear warships has "bordered on hysterical" for years, Associate Defence Minister Heather Roy said in a statement April 10. "Confusion has been encouraged by many groups around nuclear weapons, nuclear propulsion and nuclear power, and this has been counter-productive to our relationship with the U.S. Repeal of the legislation that prevents nuclear propelled ships into our waters is long overdue."
> 
> Two RNZN ships, the Anzac-class frigate Te Kaha and fleet tanker Endeavour, left this week for the first RNZN visit to U.S. ports in 25 years.
> 
> The two ships will exercise in the South China Sea with the Singaporean, Malaysian and Australian forces. The RNZN vessels will then split up - Te Kaha sailing to support the New Zealand exhibition at the Shanghai Expo, and Endeavour visiting South Korea - *before reuniting to attend the Canadian Navy centenary celebrations. *  The ships will then sail down the west coast of the United States, stopping at the civilian ports of Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, and stopping in Hawaii at Honolulu.


----------



## CougarKing

> Defense-Studies Blogspot link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cracks in the Navy's four new inshore patrol vessels are not serious and just part of the "bedding-in" process, Defence Minister Wayne Mapp says.
> 
> The 55m-long ships, which were delivered in 2009, have undergone repairs and strengthening to the front of the superstructure where it meets the deck.
> 
> Dr Mapp said the acute angle had created pressure that caused the cracking, and it needed to be strengthened.*
> 
> The damage is not considered to be serious or threatening to the integrity of the ships, he said.
> 
> Repairs took place under warranty, meaning it did not cost the Government anything.
> 
> "Those cracks were relatively small and able to be easily repaired, and repaired under warranty. I don't know [how much the repairs were], and neither do I need to know," Dr Mapp said.
> 
> "These are the sorts of things that occur in the bedding-in period. And they're back in service.
> 
> "I'm assuming that all the little things that need to be fixed up under warranty will be fixed up under warranty. And there's been a few little things like fans being too loud, stuff like that."
> 
> 
> *The four vessels - Taupo, Rotoiti, Hawea and Pukaki - were part of the Navy's $500 million Project Protector in 2004, which delivered seven new ships to the Navy.
> *
> Taupo also had repairs done under warranty to its main engines and generators. During maintenance in Auckland, its fuel system was stripped and cleaned out after contamination.
> 
> The four vessels are used for maritime surveillance and to support other agencies such as Customs and Fisheries.
> 
> They have a range of 3000 nautical miles and patrol up to 200 nautical miles off the coast.
> 
> Dr Mapp said "they're out and about on the New Zealand coast, and that has been noticed".
> 
> The Navy has also had repairs done under warranty on its two 85m-long patrol vessels, HMNZS Otago and HMNZS Wellington, which were delivered earlier this year.
> 
> After the Wellington left the shipbuilder's yard in Melbourne, a water seal leaked in its port engine and its starboard engine control system developed a fault. The ship was diverted to Sydney.
> 
> Meanwhile, Dr Mapp said the $234 million contract to upgrade the military's five Hercules aircraft is close to a solution.
> 
> Safe Air, which was subcontracted to do some of the work, had pulled out.
> "We've almost resolved that issue," he said, "but we're not quite ready to make a formal announcement."


----------

