Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 305467 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 769
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #525 on: September 06, 2017, 20:00:27 »
For pity's putrefying sake!

Mark
Ottawa

You were surprised by this?  There seems to be more work going into pre-bid compliance evaluation than was originally anticipated, however that also means less work for compliance evaluation on the other end of the process after bids are "officially in".  Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).  At the end of the day late spring and early summer was the expected time for the competition winner to be announced.  I will be more concerned if those timelines slip.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,498
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #526 on: September 06, 2017, 23:57:06 »
Well this is interesting

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Half Full

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 42
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #527 on: September 07, 2017, 07:31:11 »
Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).
From the CBC article :http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/warship-design-delay-1.4277967
 "Campbell said that the navy's requirements for the kinds of warships it wants and the systems that will go into them has not changed."
 This tells me  that the requirements haven't changed but that the problem lies elsewhere... And in this case I bet the issue lies with Irving.  They have too much power and control over this project... And i will bet a beer they are concerned that they can't build them the way the companies have told them the Mots designs need to be built.  Probably to high of a standard required!
I would rather be in a boat with a drink on the rocks than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 194,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,179
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #528 on: September 07, 2017, 10:49:06 »
Not to mention Canada wanting the suppliers to teach Canada how to compete with them - at the same time the French and Italians are discovering that they can't maintain their own national yards.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 769
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #529 on: September 07, 2017, 18:24:17 »
Well this is interesting

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?

Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan. 

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,498
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #530 on: September 07, 2017, 19:09:42 »
Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan. 

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...

Well in my opinion the entire shipbuilding plan should be a national plan, controlled by the government, where we hand out the work to yard for certain parts of the program, as you stated say Davie and others build blocks, Irving assembles and finishes. The government would get ships faster, everyone get's work, and if we planned it right we could keep the yards busy constantly for decades to come.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 177,351
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,849
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #531 on: September 07, 2017, 22:27:32 »
In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,570
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #532 on: September 08, 2017, 09:18:12 »
In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

 :goodpost:

So true.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 41,748
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,702
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #533 on: September 08, 2017, 09:46:39 »
In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

 :cdnsalute:  :goodpost:

The fact we continue to give that yard tax dollars, breaks and contracts boggles my mind. 
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #534 on: September 08, 2017, 09:51:44 »
I'm more boggled that we don't make them properly fulfill the contract without penalty as we always let them slide on things.  They always get a hall pass. >:(

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #535 on: September 08, 2017, 13:34:25 »
The maritimes voted liberal, almost unanimously.  Without them, Trudeau is the leader of the opposition.  La Belle Province not so certain.  Logically I would support Irving too, regardless of product. 

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 62,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,030
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #536 on: September 09, 2017, 12:13:44 »
While agree that a high-low (largish OPVs? smaller frigates? corvettes?) mix of sorts for RCN surface warship fleet--A/OPS not real warship--is all that is affordable, we must keep in mind need to have sufficient ASW/anti-missile capability to contribute usefully to NATO vs resurgent Russian navy submarine/cruise missile threat:

Quote
Scale back warship plan: analyst

In June the federal government more than doubled the $26-billion budget to build 15 new Canadian Surface Combatant vessels — the first of which is expected to be delivered in 2026 — to $60 billion.

The U.K. revealed plans this week to buy five budget Type 31e general purpose frigates, on top of the eight type 26 global combat ships currently being constructed by BAE Systems, at a cost equivalent of about $400 million Canadian a piece. This is a fraction of what their Type 26 global combat ships — which are one of the designs in the running for Canada’s new fleet — will cost.

Ken Hansen, a retired navy commander and defence analyst, said Canada ought to follow countries like the U.K. and Denmark in scaling back on what he calls outrageous military-grade engineering standards as well as considering purchasing some vessels with more basic capabilities.

“(These standards are) driving defence procurement to ridiculously high extremes when in fact there is no imminent conflict that would justify that kind of expenditure,” he said.

“Historically . . . what we have always done is a high-low mix, and it makes no sense to be sending a really high capability ship off to low risk tasks,” he said.

According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1501098-scale-back-warship-plan-analyst

Related:

Quote
What Is the RCN For? Reprise
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/mark-collins-what-is-the-rcn-for-reprise/

USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
...
perhaps the national defence minister’s defence policy review should look very hard indeed at the minimum number of new Canadian Surface Combatants that will be needed to be seriously ready for real anti-submarine warfare–as opposed to say the essentially show-the-flag and alliance support expeditionary operations sometimes conducted by the RCN’s current frigates (which of course also are very ASW capable). Also how essential and affordable are the Navy’s few submarines for North Atlantic ASW and can we afford any substantial number of new ones down the road?..
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/

Mark
Ottawa




Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #537 on: September 09, 2017, 12:18:18 »
They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 769
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #538 on: September 09, 2017, 12:39:30 »
They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.
Agreed.

The difference between the RCN and the Euro navies is that we can operate 24/7.  They operate 12 hours a day and then do basic bridge watch overnight.  Also because they've reduced manning so much they can't fight and do damage control at the same time.  Or if they take damage they have to "pull out of the line" to keep the ship alive.  RCN ships can always fight and damage control together (as does UK, US and I think Australia).  Civilian ship standards mean that when you do take damage it's often more severe and your ship is now a useless casualty.

The RCN and gov't want ships that have the highest chance of bringing home the sailors in it alive and well.  That is the highest priority for the CSC.  You can't do that with civi standards.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #539 on: September 09, 2017, 14:44:08 »
They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.

It drives me crazy to read his commentary.


According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”


http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/hewitt-equipment-limited-awarded-halifax-class-frigates-generator-replacement-contract-2028318.htm

Hey, so do we!

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.


The old milspec standards were adapted into commercial standards, and some industries have higher requirements than milspec.  What we do have is shock and vibration standards, but you take industrial equipment and shock mount it for that.  WE USE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT YOU DAFT GASBAG!

Our requirements to have redundant equipment is no different than normal marine requirements for redundancy.

No one really expects a frigate sized ship to recover from a direct torpedo hit, but with the engineering standards will drastically improve your chances as the shock mounting will drastically reduce secondary and tertiary damage from the high speed contact. Industrial equipment not shock mounted will eat the entire force of the shock wave and fail.  I was on the last RCN ship to do shock testing; we found out right away what happened when something was installed that wasn't up to the milspec.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...


Two separated generators is the bare minimum for any ship, and we also have four on every ship.  Jesus H, what is he even talking about?

You want to know what drives the cost of warships?  Look at the expensive weapons systems and sensor packages.  Aside from the material costs involved in stuff like using naval brass for piping and valves, and the relatively minimal cost for shock mountings, warships cost a lot because there are a few BILLION dollars of WAR FIGHTING gear on it.

God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years? 

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,498
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #540 on: September 09, 2017, 23:57:30 »
God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years?

The government of Canada has traditionally been reactionary, not precautionary in spending, and procurement, his line of thinking kinda goes along with what our country always seems to do, sadly.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 194,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,179
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #541 on: September 10, 2017, 11:35:27 »
Quote
the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years

And that is not an insignificant part of the problem.   Delivering ships in flights with shorter operational careers would save money.

Take a low inflation rate of 3%.  Apply it for 20 years.

$100,000,000 in 2020 will be $181,000,000 in 2040.  Virtually double the price for exactly the same ship - assuming you are not paying a premium to buy obsolescent parts that the market no longer supplies.

Same rate of inflation applied for 35 years.

$281,000,000 in 2055.  Triple the original price to directly replace 35 year old technology.

And if the "actual" inflation rate were the 8% I have heard bandied around when discussing military procurement then, after 35 years,

$100,000,000  becomes $1,478,000,000.  15 times the price or 15 ships will buy you 1.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #542 on: September 10, 2017, 11:44:33 »
That's where the $62B price tag comes from; the PBO took the rolling cost estimates and adjust it to 2040 values.

I'll see if I can find the studies on warship cost escalations (RAND?) but there are a few that show 8-10% cost escalation each year of delays.  In practical purposes you can tie that to costs and makes business cases to recover schedule delays easier, as it becomes a 'pay now or pay later' issue.

It'll be interesting to see how it rolls out; with the obsolescence for computers running at a 3 year cycle, configuration and obsolescence management will be a challenge between the first and last ship.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 62,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,030
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #543 on: September 15, 2017, 12:23:15 »
Note Type 26 going for RCN, RAN contracts too:

Quote
BAE joins race for new US frigate with its Type 26 vessel



BAE Systems is officially gunning for the U.S. Navy’s new frigate program with its new Type 26 frigate now in production in the U.K.

Company officials confirmed Thursday it had responded to the U.S. Navy’s request for information and were in talks with unspecified companies in the states about how it would build the ship for the FFG(X) program, according to a BAE official who spoke on background to discuss early developments.

“In terms of the technical requirements, its a good fit. ... We responded to the RFI and we’re confident its a pretty good fit,” the official said.

The Type 26, designed primarily as an anti-submarine ship, is competing hard for both the Canadian and Australian frigate programs [emphasis added, see below on current Irving link]. Anti-submarine warfare is a key requirement for FFG(X), which BAE thinks gives its frigate an edge. The design also incorporates a large mission bay that can be used as flex space for mission modules.

“The Type 26 is at the start of life, it‘s a new design and meets the new standards, and it‘s got adaptability built in,” the official said.

The ship’s mast could be reconfigured to support Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar and will have enough power, space and cooling to support other requirements the Navy is looking to incorporate.

While the Type 26 incorporates or can adapt to virtually all the capabilities outlined in July’s RFI, including 36 vertical launching system cells and Mark 41 VLS launchers, the ship might be too rich for the Navy’s blood, according to Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former aid to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert.

“I think they‘re leaning to something with a little less capability that will be a bit more economical,” Clark said.

The British Royal Navy recently inked a deal for the first three Type 26 frigates worth £3.7 billion (U.S. $4.9 billion). That cost averages to just a little less than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, though that’s not a perfect metric because the costs would be different for a U.S. version.

Still, the Navy isn’t looking to buy a ship that compete’s for missions with the destroyer, said Rear Adm. Ron Boxall in an exclusive interview with Defense News in July.

“We don’t want the ship to be so big that it competes with the destroyer. We want this to be part of the high-low mix,” Boxall said. “So ensuring we get those capabilities at the best value is important.”

But the ship faces other headwinds as well, Clark said, because some of the competing designs already have ships they can show the Navy, whereas BAE Systems just cut steel for the first Type 26 this summer.

“The problem they‘re facing is the rest of [their competitors] have ships that actually exist,” Clark said. “You look at Fincantieri‘s FREMM, there are already hulls in the water you can point to. [Huntington Ingalls] can point to the National Security Cutter and say: ‘We could offer a modified version of this for the frigate.’

“The Navy made a big deal in the rollout of the RFI that it was looking for ‘proven designs,’ which likely means they‘re looking for ships that already exist [emphasis added--and RCN?].”
http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/14/bae-is-in-the-race-for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/

Last year (Thales actually got this contract http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/royal-canadian-navy-ships-privatize-maintenance-1.4250961 ):

Quote
Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 62,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,030
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #544 on: September 21, 2017, 17:16:39 »
Third time lucky one trusts:

Quote
New deadline established for competition to design navy's new warships

Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.

It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.

Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.

Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.

It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.

Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/new-deadline-established-for-competition-to-design-navy-s-new-warships-1.3600295

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 164
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #545 on: October 02, 2017, 09:17:48 »
It seems like the Canadian version of the City-class(Type-26) was proposed and looks like it will have APAR-2 on it.  :nod:  (if my guess is correct)


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/download/file.php?id=78

From this page:"Also, she appeared to have a 32 cell Mark 41 VLS forward and omitted the Sea Ceptor VLSs both forward of the bridge and aft of the funnel.  Aft of the funnel, she carried two quad Harpoon launchers.  Lastly, she was carrying SeaRams instead of Phalanx noisemakers in her waist positions. "
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 09:20:19 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 120,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #546 on: October 02, 2017, 10:13:19 »
and it looks like 2x25-35mm guns aft as well

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,406
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #547 on: October 02, 2017, 20:44:15 »
Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in?   :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #548 on: October 02, 2017, 21:16:06 »
You'll notice the black line going around the hull between the red and grey?  That's the DWL or designed water line for the hull.  It's got plenty of room between there and the flight deck surface.  She's cool.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 125,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,400
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #549 on: October 02, 2017, 22:12:06 »
Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in?   :salute:

Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [:D

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.