• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,694
Points
1,160
Whoever posted the fifth or sixth comparison: this time with ammunition, it is fanboyism.
I could not understand your reaction to Underways post on what the JSS ammunition capabilities will be. It was not to later that I figured you likely mistook his post as referencing what the Astreix was capable of, when he actually was talking about the upcoming JSS, which he is involved in.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,079
Points
1,090
Ah....the union....when one of their members got accused of an accident causing injury to another of their workers and was to be disciplined or possibly fired, they got very angry one day in about 2013...

Our Comm Techs had been given permission to go onboard while in a certain yard, and work on the PA system - at the time it was a "Safe Alongside" requirement that needed to be functional when we took the ship back.

Well, they had over 90% of the ship's speakers functional and tested going home that day, and we were just a couple of weeks away from getting the ship back into our control. The last 10% had been identified, and there was a solid plan in place to fix them.

The next morning? Over half of their repairs were 'undone' in one way or another. Cables cut, yanked out...etc. We were livid. Nothing we could do though except wait to do the repairs once we were handed over the ship.

Willful and deliberate. No one held to account.

As for the MK.41 VLS, I believe you're thinking of the DELUGE system - it works well from what I was told by some 280 sailors. I suspect that most of the missiles in the other cannisters were actually fire-able. They're designed to be somewhat survivable.

Looking at that video, I don't think it was an actual detonation of the warhead - it was a Restrained Firing.

The MK.48 VLS cannister system on the Halifax Class is designed to protect against restrained firings as well - the J-Tube is designed to be able to survive 10 regular launches, or 2x restrained firings with no excessive heat exiting or damaging the ship.

Here's a comment found on the 'net' from someone who seems to know what they're talking about that viewed the original video from 2018:

From the looks of the video, the boost motor fired (Orange flame) but the missile stayed in place. That would indicate that the missile restraining bolts did not release and the missile stayed put.
That’s a Hang fire , not a Misfire. Misfires don’t ignite…Hang fires do.

The efflux will have vented from not just the efflux vents in the launcher but also out of the missile tube. From the video the white blobs flying around would indicate that the motor broke up as well and spread itself over the upper deck. Somewhere in that burning mess is also going to be the High Explosive warhead unless they had a telemetry pack fitted in place of the warhead (Doubtful). I talked to a “steely eyed missile man” US colleague and he told me an SM2 has a dual boost solid propellant rocket motor. This usually means it is a boost and sustainer motor in the same rocket tube. The boost part which burns first is a solid propellant which consists of lots of short lengths of cordite type explosive which has a high surface area. (It could look like say… star shaped macaroni or similar.) When ignited it burns quickly(High surface area) producing high volumes of gas which exits via the motor aperture giving you a high impulse thrust. When that burns out the sustainer motor (also solid propellant) takes over but burns at a slower consistent rate to give constant thrust over the range of the missile.

All missiles have restraining bolts that hold them in place on the launcher or vertically in place in a VL launcher. They are either mechanically actuated or shear bolts. It doesn’t pay to have a VL missile rattling around in a VL tube in rough weather with the vessel pitching and rolling. Same goes for the old beam type launchers (sea sea dart video!) as you don’t want the missile sliding off the beam in roughers.

The MK41 has a deluge system that sprays the tubes in case a hang fire like this happens. That was actuated. Missile tubes also have a lot of fireproof cladding in them to stop Hang fires burning through the deck below the rocket motor. I dont know from the reports if this cladding held.

The damage to the bridge will be due to the ship sailing into the wind at a set speed for the shoot which is standard practice. Any hot efflux from the Hang fire will have been blown back against the bridge burning the paint.

The door being closed probably just means the crew closed the door as best they could after the incident to stop heavy weather filling the MK41 tube with water. As it is the missiles around the damaged tube will, I expect, need to be removed and overhauled/disposed of as they have probably been exposed to excessive heat which can cause a chemical breakdown in the propellant and an increase in explosives sensitivity to shock and handling.

All in all a very nasty incident that did not result in serious casualties which was good to see.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
As for the MK.41 VLS, I believe you're thinking of the DELUGE system - it works well from what I was told by some 280 sailors. I suspect that most of the missiles in the other cannisters were actually fire-able. They're designed to be somewhat survivable.
Rounds for the all up round.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,694
Points
1,160
Ah....the union....when one of their members got accused of an accident causing injury to another of their workers and was to be disciplined or possibly fired, they got very angry one day in about 2013...

Our Comm Techs had been given permission to go onboard while in a certain yard, and work on the PA system - at the time it was a "Safe Alongside" requirement that needed to be functional when we took the ship back.

Well, they had over 90% of the ship's speakers functional and tested going home that day, and we were just a couple of weeks away from getting the ship back into our control. The last 10% had been identified, and there was a solid plan in place to fix them.

The next morning? Over half of their repairs were 'undone' in one way or another. Cables cut, yanked out...etc. We were livid. Nothing we could do though except wait to do the repairs once we were handed over the ship.

Willful and deliberate. No one held to account.

As for the MK.41 VLS, I believe you're thinking of the DELUGE system - it works well from what I was told by some 280 sailors. I suspect that most of the missiles in the other cannisters were actually fire-able. They're designed to be somewhat survivable.

Looking at that video, I don't think it was an actual detonation of the warhead - it was a Restrained Firing.

The MK.48 VLS cannister system on the Halifax Class is designed to protect against restrained firings as well - the J-Tube is designed to be able to survive 10 regular launches, or 2x restrained firings with no excessive heat exiting or damaging the ship.

Here's a comment found on the 'net' from someone who seems to know what they're talking about that viewed the original video from 2018:
Hence the reason that yard gets blacklisted, once the rice bowel is empty or a threat of empty, you be surprised at how they can accommodate.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
11,802
Points
1,360
It’s a damning indictment when Asterix‘ major benefit that it’s better than Nothing.
That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?

The same who, by my understanding from the educational aspects of this site, ran 280s until they fell apart and who appear to be riding the CPFs hard and putting them away wet, and by laypersons' understanding running the organization and kit hard as heck and at some not insignificant amount of risk? :unsure:
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?
The people who enable It. Davie the Navy and Her Majesty’s Government.
The same who, by my understanding from the educational aspects of this site, ran 280s until they fell apart and who appear to be riding the CPFs hard and putting them away wet, and by laypersons' understanding running the organization and kit hard as heck and at some not insignificant amount of risk? :unsure:
It was a jolly time when war was over and the order of all governments going back to at least 1993 we needed to reduce taxes (boost consumer spending) was the order of the day. People loved it.

I’m not sure the most conservative or the most liberal government will get it near 2%. All the American’s care about is NORAD and that we’re able to deploy in some force to Latvia,, and the North though i do note that HDW is back at Halifax.

Being old and retired…
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
99
Points
380
Well, you can damn David for cutting corners or sabotaging the ship in the ways noted above, but I’m not sure you can damn them for either the design of the vessel or the actual need for the vessel.

If there were shortcomings in the actual design/capabilities of the proposed vessel, then that’s on the buyer more than the seller. You just say it’s not what we need and either make them change it or move on.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,152
Points
1,040
That's not necessarily untrue, but damning of whom?

The same who, by my understanding from the educational aspects of this site, ran 280s until they fell apart and who appear to be riding the CPFs hard and putting them away wet, and by laypersons' understanding running the organization and kit hard as heck and at some not insignificant amount of risk? :unsure:
The older ships also had a totally different philosophy for the DWPs; we used to to 'baseline' refits, where we would just systematically replace portions of the systems each refit. ie we would do the front third, middle, then back third over 3 refits (starting at I think the 10 or 15 year point. So at 25 or 30 years old piping for the major systems would be be replaced at least once.

That changed around mid 90s for the 280s when we did the TRUMP program to condition based (basically check things and replace as necessary), but basically meant that the firemain (for example) was basically from the 90s, so when we retired them the oldest parts were about 25-30 years old. Still means you do some repairs but overall in decent shape.

A lot of the minor piping and domestic systems were still original, but generally the major bits were in decent shape for a 40 odd year old ship, so it was more on the old generators and engines that were way obsolete, plus the controls and wiring that was an issue.

The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.

Sure, new combat gear, but it's a bit like the kid with a old car, that was fundamentally well built but needs repaired, driving around with bondo/hope, but fitted with rims, ground effects and a big stereo.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
11,802
Points
1,360
The CPFs have always been condition based, and a lot of that has never been fully poked at, so we fix things as they break, and survey what we can for repair planning. Impossible to get a lot of it though, so basically there is a huge mechanical repair deficit, and why the DWPs are two years long. Add to that not enough people/time for maintenance, and a high ops tempo that is doing the rental beating/put away wet, and the ships are in bad shape.
Thanks for the info, @Navy_Pete, appreciate the insight. How is structural steel assessed for "on condition'?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,152
Points
1,040
Thanks for the info, @Navy_Pete, appreciate the insight. How is structural steel assessed for "on condition'?
There is a whole program for that with rolling surveys through the 5 year cycle for areas they can get in while the ship is in the water, and then a lot of additional surveys during a DWP. There are some known problem areas in each class you find over it's life so they get checked fairly frequently.

While in dock that's when you spend a lot of time looking at the underwater hull (once the paint is off) plus inside the tanks. The class societies add some additional checks to take spot checks of the hull thickness as well as the ship ages, so that's a new tool in our tool box.

Plus every time you replace tiles, doing work on insulation etc you always do spot checks. It's pretty robust, and one area where we can learn from the class societies and commercial practices to improve it.

Things still get missed, and sometimes you get things happen between checks, or you can't fix it right away so you monitor it and maybe have limits on what kind of sea state you can roll in. Not ideal, but it's where we are.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
I think it was underways but I honestly thought he was talking about the jss
So ? ?
Yes, I was talking about JSS, not Asterix, though on review of the post in question I can see how there might be some confusion.

All my posts unless specifically stated are usually about JSS. I used to work on that project so have some knowledge of it. My knowledge of Asterix is limited to news clips and going alongside it once at the new AOPS jetty in Halifax to refuel.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
It would be reckless to carry missiles and shells outside a magazine. I’d be stunned that a master would let that happened. If one goes off in a 40ft container, hopefully it is stack on more 40ft containers Or boom.

I don’t know about mk54 carriage, But if we need more LWT two things have occurred: we are fighting the entire Russian submarine force and the AOR will have been sunk.

So my point, is what has been posted above is so ridiculous is that it is for public consumption, marketing material and not for serious hobbyists and professionals
I honestly don't understand what you are driving at here. JSS won't need to store ammo in sea cans. Also, most ammunition on missiles and shells these days does not sympathetically detonate like we are seeing in Russian ammo dumps on the news right now. It's very inert and requires very specific energetics to explode. I wouldn't have a problem with storing most missiles in a sea can assuming there are appropriate fire precautions taken.

If there is even a single submarine the RCN task group is hunting, given the last time a NATO country tried to find submarines (Falklands) we will be flinging torps at everything that even remotely looks like a sub on the sensors. Which means JSS deep mag torps may be needed at sea. Perhaps not RAS'd over though, just have the friendly helo come over and get bombed up.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
946
Points
1,060
should we keep her as a stand-in for JSS?

Where and who should refit her. Davie likely won’t pay for it. However, the only place that has dry dock space is Davie.
The government/CAF will pay for it one way or another that should be obvious
The people who enable It. Davie the Navy and Her Majesty’s Government.
I'm not sure how Davie can be blamed for proposing something. That's their job. It is also their job to fulfil the contract and provide QA/QC but then thats something all our shipyards appear to have trouble with
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
OK so some images and discussion of my JSS tour I had a few days ago. I have permission to share these photo's.
Be aware that its a very busy worksite and looks messy but that's where they are right now.

5089.jpg
The ship is huge. Bow shot.

This next two photos are aft, where they are working on getting the last blocks installed which included the steering arrangements up to the flight deck.
20220822_100942.jpg
20220822_100947.jpg
That photo directly above shows how they clamp a block together in preparation for welding it. Those clamps to two different types, one to make it line up and another to pull it tight.
20220822_095725.jpg
Example of a one of the bays where they are working on the next blocks. They are welded inverted and then flipped to proper alignment later. Anything you see with grey coating is JSS, and anything with red coating is the CCG next vessel (OSSV I think?).
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
20220822_101050.jpg
The aft of the ship as it is right now. It ends currently where the hangar is supposed to meet the flight deck. But there is no hangar or other house structures up there yet. The flight deck is a complicated block because it houses the RAST system that will control the helo landing and movement.
20220822_101122.jpg
20220822_114708.jpg
Main mast which also includes the Radar rooms. The geometry on top is odd to ensure that all the sensors and emitters have their best possible positions without getting in each others way.
20220822_102042.jpg
Sitting on the bullring looking aft onto the foc'sle. Thats the breakwater/windbreak (can't remember the real name for it). The centerline platform is where the forward CIWS will be located. The two smaller platforms that jut out from the sides are for the Naval Remote Weapon Stations. The top walkway is for access to navigational lighting and ceremonial rigging IIRC.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
I honestly don't understand what you are driving at here. JSS won't need to store ammo in sea cans. Also, most ammunition on missiles and shells these days does not sympathetically detonate like we are seeing in Russian ammo dumps on the news right now. It's very inert and requires very specific energetics to explode. I wouldn't have a problem with storing most missiles in a sea can assuming there are appropriate fire precautions taken.

If there is even a single submarine the RCN task group is hunting, given the last time a NATO country tried to find submarines (Falklands) we will be flinging torps at everything that even remotely looks like a sub on the sensors. Which means JSS deep mag torps may be needed at sea. Perhaps not RAS'd over though, just have the friendly helo come over and get bombed up.
I guess I’m not clear: A number of poeple a few pages ago that ESSM and SM2 on Asterix. My point is that would be a horrible idea. If you’re going to carry them in a non existing magazine, where are you going to put them. Because the poster who advocated put munitions in special containers, then I inferred that is where they thought SM2s should go.

we have magazines in the unlikely case something explosdes or ignites then they are less likely to kill or mission kill a ship. The video shows that when something is in a bunker it can take that kind of heat.

it’s Canada’s job to be good at sub hunting. I‘d imagine if you are busy fighting subs i don’t know if you’d have time to RAS I that anti torpedo manoeuvres would be going 24/7.

I hope that helps.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
20220822_102912.jpg
Looking aft from the breakwater to the bridge. Its very far away... lol
20220822_104837.jpg
Speaking of the bridge, here it is. Full of the bridge navigation equipment stored carefully to protect it (desiccant, wrapped in plastic, then secured in these boxes... we'll see how well this works...)
20220822_105620.jpg
Looking down the stack from a couple decks up. Its a very long way down to the engine room..
20220822_111640.jpg
My heels are on the edge of where the hanger doors will eventually be looking forward to the forward bulkhead of the hangar. The white paint on the port side is where the hangar torpedo magazine will be located. The airlock just stbd of the centerline goes into the Role 2 medical.
20220822_110746.jpg
This is the stbd passageway in Medbay. The doors to my right are a surgery and x-ray. In the middle is the stack.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
685
Points
910
Underway, I am glad you brought up the Falklands war.

Everybody remembers how that war, at sea, was an air war. But the Argentinians also had three (yes, just three - at least until one was destroyed in St-Georges Island) O-boats. There never was a shortage of AA missiles, or of shells for the guns - but the RN very nearly ran out of anti-submarine ammunition. As you indicated, anything remotely looking like a POSSUB got a torp/depth charge thrown at it. In those days, we called the tactic "classification by detonation".

So yes, carrying and transfering Mk 34/54 is an extremely important capability, even in a small war involving submarines. And MTS, you can transfer torpedoes at sea simply by sending your own frigate helicopter to the JSS, where they can load them on the helo, then return to the frigate, have them unloaded and put back in stores. It's slower than a transfer in harbour but if you need them, then you don't care that it's longer and more complicated.

P.S.: I don't recall anyone suggesting loading the larger missiles in the Asterix.
 
Top