Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,786
- Points
- 1,260
Continental Defence Corvette
- Thread starter Underway
- Start date
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2,012
- Points
- 810
The Danish 76mm guns/mount stockpiles seem to be from likely the 1970's to 1980's, and very likely seems to have been a combination of improper maintenance or breakdowns due to age. From what I can see, the mounts/guns off the Halifax are partially original as BAE Systems received a contract to upgrade them from Mk 2 to Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 config for the FELEX upgrade package. The guns/mounts went abroad from 2010 to 2016, before being returned to Canada. They are likely still good if we keep rotating our ammunition stocks however by the time the Halifax class are retired, penny pinching for a relatively cheap system being reused seems like a poor bargain.
- Reaction score
- 1,785
- Points
- 1,160
Like the 76mm and the 5" they replaced the 57's will probably be returned to the manufacturer.
- Reaction score
- 12,480
- Points
- 1,160
What is the role of the standard?
If I need one unit permanently available and I only have one unit in inventory then I need that unit to be available 100% of the time.
But if reality intrudes and I can only make it available 33% of the time then I need three units. And if, over time it becomes harder to meet the 33% standard and availability starts heading towards 25% then I need to add another unit to my fleet.
Is a standard a standard for a standard's sake or does it reflect a real world imperative?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,786
- Points
- 1,260
You can substitute my use of the word standard with average.
- Reaction score
- 1,708
- Points
- 1,010
Yep ammo is produced in lots, sometimes batched together. You are only allowed to use so many different component lots (say battery, booster, electronics) in a single overall lot. Sometimes it's one component lot, sometimes it's more depending on the exact item. The idea behind this is, if you can track the failure source down to a single component, only the full items that have the component need to be restricted/repaired/destroyed. This is also why there can be a mass restriction on all lots at first, until the problem is found. The risk assessment from the initial failure also has an impact on the initial action. A few more SAA misfires than normal on a weekend range, probably a local restriction on that lot and inform higher so other areas can be monitored. A grenade goes bang when the pin is pulled, all grenade training stops across the CAF. You have several premature detonations with 105 How HE and that entire model of fuze is restricted.
You can look and, in the old days you could sometimes see. This was when prox fuzes had a liquid electrolyte that could leak. Most now are powered by a thermal battery with a solid electrolyte that is melted by a squib, or by a turbine. Obvious signs of corrosion would remove a specific item from service, and all similar items would be inspected to see if it is only a problem with that item, or the entire nature, or maybe the magazine is leaky.
In the CAF there are periodic inspections on all natures of ammo. A statistically significant sample is taken and inspected. Sometimes it is only visual, sometimes more invasive. Link ammo is tested to see that it flows smoothly. I've taken fuzes apart and checked the torque on internal fasteners (gets boring fast after the first 20). X-ray and high performance liquid chomatography is also used.
Proof is also a quality assurance tool that involves functioning the item in controlled, monitored conditions. For C4 we made little balls of a particular weight, conditioned them to various temperatures and then detonated them. Smoke grenades we timed the delay, timed the emission duration, and assessed the quality of the smoke. PETE Nicolet (used to?) proofs the big stuff as they have instrumented ranges. Often proof tests are carried out only when there is a problem as it is very expensive and the need for it can be reduced by good periodic inspections.
- Reaction score
- 1,708
- Points
- 1,010
To add, you can also have premature functioning of shells depending on the filling. The Brits have/had a particular shell that has internal felt pads at the bottom to act as shock absorbers.
- Reaction score
- 16,792
- Points
- 1,160
Well there is the lathe and hammer method......
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,856
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 38,515
- Points
- 1,210
- Reaction score
- 8,651
- Points
- 1,210
Depends on what you mean by re-use. The CWIS on the Protecteur are the "same" CWIS that the original Protecteur have. But not really. They underwent a massive refurbishment and upgrade program to the Baseline B standard. Ship of Theseus and all that.
So perhaps the 57mm could be used, IF it underwent a refurbishment, all old and stressed parts were replaced, it got new firmware and a good cleaning. But that's a cost/availability conversation. Most of the time for a new build its just easier to buy new. The refurb goes to the OG model with a new lease on life.
- Reaction score
- 8,057
- Points
- 1,160
FWIW there was a pretty thorough business case done on storing the VLSs off the 280s for the RCDs.
At the time, VLS hadn't even been selected, but just on storage costs alone it didn't make any real sense, even if you discounted actual refurbishing, repair and upgrade costs. That's on something that's basically just a big steel box with some ventilation and controls, but would have cost about twice as much to warehouse things for 20 years than simply replace it with new.
Gets worse when you have something with a lot of hydraulics and other moving parts, and that's assuming you are actually doing maintenance to keep things properly mothballed so it's not a solid block of rust with a mice colony when you open the box up (which we're not very good at).
At the time, VLS hadn't even been selected, but just on storage costs alone it didn't make any real sense, even if you discounted actual refurbishing, repair and upgrade costs. That's on something that's basically just a big steel box with some ventilation and controls, but would have cost about twice as much to warehouse things for 20 years than simply replace it with new.
Gets worse when you have something with a lot of hydraulics and other moving parts, and that's assuming you are actually doing maintenance to keep things properly mothballed so it's not a solid block of rust with a mice colony when you open the box up (which we're not very good at).
- Reaction score
- 8,651
- Points
- 1,210
Yep, the only reason the Protecteur CWIS were available was because they were in rotation as replacement within the fleet already. Winnipeg's CWIS was broke, PRO's just came out of refirb, swap them, send WIN to refirb etc...
Otherwise they would have been retired a long time ago.
- Reaction score
- 12,480
- Points
- 1,160
I was going to put this in one of the LCS threads but I decided it fit best here.
The interviewee is a USN Admiral that got saddled with the job of shepherding the LCS program as Commander TF LCS.
He became a fan. And still is.
His highlights.
The original intent - to build five boats for the price of one DDG
200 MUSD vs 1000 MUSD
Both projects escalated to
600 MUSD vs 3000 MUSD
Still 5 for 1
The ships were supposed to be cheap inshore vessels that showed the flag between wars. In wartime they could become minor combatants.
Emphasis on Surface Warfare constabulary duties in support of Coast Guard type operations
Seconadry role in MCM
Tertiary ASW role.
Problems
1. There are two very different ships. One should have been down-selected.
2. Training and logistics weren't properly resourced from the get go.
3. Blue Water navy standards were applied to Brown Water Patrol Boats.
As an example he cites crewing practices. Apparently watch-keeping at sea is not a problem with a lean crew. The problem arises dockside where most vessels spend most of their lives. To prevent fires like the Bonhomme Richard the Big Ship navy mandates a fire watch of about 25 personnel. That is about half of the sea-going crew of the LCS. A Quarter of the Port-Starboard crewing system. Thus results in morale problems because homeported crews have to spend most of their lives onboard instead of home with the wives and kids. The Admiral notes that the Aussies and Canadians make do with a deck watch of three on a frigate in homeport.
He have also notes that the DDGs have onboard virtual training facilities as well as on board maintenance facilities. Neither exist on the LCS,. Onshore versions were created after the fact.
What he is arguing, essentially is that he is in partial agreement with those on this forum who argue for big crews. But, what I am picking up is that these ships need a Mothership. A place where for maintenance, rest and refresher training that can be forward deployed to support a flotilla of 6 hulls.
He also notes that technology has caught up to the modularity vision.
They have a working Surface Warfare based around the bolt-on NSMs and the 57mm gun.
They have a working autonomous MCM package that deploys and recovers PT Boat sized USVs from the stern of the LCSs.
They have successfully mounted the Mk70 PDS launcher on the deck of an LCS.
The Mk 70 was installed and commissioned and test-fired in 24 hours. It was removed from the vessel in under 18 hours.
That launcher gives the LCS access to every missile the big ships can launch from their Mk41 VLSs.
If there are enough missiles to go around.
And there is lots of space to incorporate any and all new technologies.
And they are available. And in demand.
....
The mothership, together with increased autonomy, and some considered crewing practice changes like 3 man fire watches, would result in crews that could focus on maintenance dockside while risking minimal crews at sea.
The interviewee is a USN Admiral that got saddled with the job of shepherding the LCS program as Commander TF LCS.
He became a fan. And still is.
His highlights.
The original intent - to build five boats for the price of one DDG
200 MUSD vs 1000 MUSD
Both projects escalated to
600 MUSD vs 3000 MUSD
Still 5 for 1
The ships were supposed to be cheap inshore vessels that showed the flag between wars. In wartime they could become minor combatants.
Emphasis on Surface Warfare constabulary duties in support of Coast Guard type operations
Seconadry role in MCM
Tertiary ASW role.
Problems
1. There are two very different ships. One should have been down-selected.
2. Training and logistics weren't properly resourced from the get go.
3. Blue Water navy standards were applied to Brown Water Patrol Boats.
As an example he cites crewing practices. Apparently watch-keeping at sea is not a problem with a lean crew. The problem arises dockside where most vessels spend most of their lives. To prevent fires like the Bonhomme Richard the Big Ship navy mandates a fire watch of about 25 personnel. That is about half of the sea-going crew of the LCS. A Quarter of the Port-Starboard crewing system. Thus results in morale problems because homeported crews have to spend most of their lives onboard instead of home with the wives and kids. The Admiral notes that the Aussies and Canadians make do with a deck watch of three on a frigate in homeport.
He have also notes that the DDGs have onboard virtual training facilities as well as on board maintenance facilities. Neither exist on the LCS,. Onshore versions were created after the fact.
What he is arguing, essentially is that he is in partial agreement with those on this forum who argue for big crews. But, what I am picking up is that these ships need a Mothership. A place where for maintenance, rest and refresher training that can be forward deployed to support a flotilla of 6 hulls.
He also notes that technology has caught up to the modularity vision.
They have a working Surface Warfare based around the bolt-on NSMs and the 57mm gun.
They have a working autonomous MCM package that deploys and recovers PT Boat sized USVs from the stern of the LCSs.
They have successfully mounted the Mk70 PDS launcher on the deck of an LCS.
The Mk 70 was installed and commissioned and test-fired in 24 hours. It was removed from the vessel in under 18 hours.
That launcher gives the LCS access to every missile the big ships can launch from their Mk41 VLSs.
If there are enough missiles to go around.
And there is lots of space to incorporate any and all new technologies.
And they are available. And in demand.
....
The mothership, together with increased autonomy, and some considered crewing practice changes like 3 man fire watches, would result in crews that could focus on maintenance dockside while risking minimal crews at sea.
