• 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)

Fair enough Chief, but it was the Brits that spec'd and installed the transformers.  Even good nails can be bent.
 
Kirkhill said:
Fair enough Chief, but it was the Brits that spec'd and installed the transformers.  Even good nails can be bent.

True enough, I would imagine if the transformers were prematurely failing it was probably a bad batch or like you said improperly installed. I would even go as far to say the transformers in question were probably off the shelf items and not tailor built.
 
Definitely off the shelf Chief.

The Bay class were built on an existing RO-RO design with minimal adaptation (Hence the Mexafloats instead of a well that can be flooded to offload landing crafts). They were built at their existing merchantman standards. This is why they were considered "auxiliaries" and part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

That may also explain why "propulsion" transformers can have problems.

In a naval setting, there would not likely be any "step-up" transformers between the main diesel-generators and the motors. The DG's would be rated at the propulsion motors voltage and you would only have the thyristors to transform AC to DC between the DG's and the Motors. Then you would have "step-down" transformers to provide shipboard service. That is the arrangements on the MCDV's for instance (as far as I know).
 
Got this off a site from one of the engineers on board.

"Yes there are six transformers located within the High Voltage system. Two, one Port, one STBD are used to transform the voltage of 6.6kV to 440V for domestic distribution.
The other "four" transformers are used in the propulsion system. You are correct in saying we have four engines. Two engines either side, one straight line 8 cylinder and then a V12 engine. Both supplying the High Voltage system. From the Alternators to the H.V switchboard, power is then applied via a vacuum circuit breaker to a combined transformer, meaning two transformers ( one wired in a delta configuration and one wired in a star configuration) the power on the secondary is 2.2kV. This voltage is then applied to a converter to the azi motor then to the azi itself.( azimouth propulsion) Have I lost you yet?
So, we can lose 50% of our propulsion due to a defect in one transformer. I cant go into the specific nature of the defect due to its sensitive nature and bad press we are getting. Anyway if any of you have further questions, please drop us a line and i will try and answer them."

They also have Wartsila diesels, the same brand as on a MCDV so easily supportable by ISSC.
 
I assume the long paragraph is the quote from that engineer and refers to the Bay class.

The set up makes (some) sense, but it is different than the one we use on the MCDV's.

For instance, while both ships use Warstila diesels,  on the MCDV's all four are of the same type.

Also, domestic power on the MCDV's is usually  provided by the motor alternator at sea, and usually by the general service DG in harbours without shore power - so there is no need for transformers for shipboard service. I think from a military point of view, our set up makes more sense, in that we can ultimately drag ourselves back to port with any single DG and single Azi-motor remaining functional.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I assume the long paragraph is the quote from that engineer and refers to the Bay class.

The set up makes (some) sense, but it is different than the one we use on the MCDV's.

For instance, while both ships use Warstila diesels,  on the MCDV's all four are of the same type.

Also, domestic power on the MCDV's is usually  provided by the motor alternator at sea, and usually by the general service DG in harbours without shore power - so there is no need for transformers for shipboard service. I think from a military point of view, our set up makes more sense, in that we can ultimately drag ourselves back to port with any single DG and single Azi-motor remaining functional.

Yes the quote is from what I assume is someone in the know, its amazing what you can find on the web.

You are dead on with the description of the MCDV propulsion. We do have a number of fairly large 440V/220V step down transformers on the ship and 110V lighting transformers as well.
It is a pretty robust system and as you pointed out you can single shaft as long as you have one shaftline and DA functioning. The Aux DA and Emerg DA are also Warstila brand.
 
GK .Dundas said:
I had no idea that Lucas Electrical was still in business ? ;D

The Lucas trademark is currently owned by TRW Industries, of Livonia, Michigan. They produce under the name Elta Lighting.

Oldgateboatdriver said:
Definitely off the shelf Chief.

The Bay class were built on an existing RO-RO design with minimal adaptation (Hence the Mexafloats instead of a well that can be flooded to offload landing crafts). They were built at their existing merchantman standards. This is why they were considered "auxiliaries" and part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

That may also explain why "propulsion" transformers can have problems.

In a naval setting, there would not likely be any "step-up" transformers between the main diesel-generators and the motors. The DG's would be rated at the propulsion motors voltage and you would only have the thyristors to transform AC to DC between the DG's and the Motors. Then you would have "step-down" transformers to provide shipboard service. That is the arrangements on the MCDV's for instance (as far as I know).

:sarcasm: Some Brit shipbuilder probaly tried to hook them up to a positive ground  ;D
 
Say what you will, I would have been chuffed to see one or two come here.  They fill a need that we cannot presently provide.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Say what you will, I would have been chuffed to see one or two come here.  They fill a need that we cannot presently provide.

Agreed, anything would be better than we have now. I think we missed out big time on the purchase.
 
Chief Stoker said:
Agreed, anything would be better than we have now. I think we missed out big time on the purchase.

The Admiral didn't when I took him to task on it during his town hall.
 
Hogwash.

Canada has a maritime amphibious warfare capability commensurate with its needs and role within the international community.

It's just that major components of that capability involve repeated uses of the word 'zodiac' and 'frigate'.
 
The CCGS Henry Larson burnt out a transformer/electric motor on it's sea trials and had to wait in the harbour for 6 months while the factory made a replacement, German made as I recall.
 
Colin P said:
The CCGS Henry Larson burnt out a transformer/electric motor on it's sea trials and had to wait in the harbour for 6 months while the factory made a replacement, German made as I recall.
That's the cost of having a vintage fleet.  When PRE went into refit in 04/05 she had to have the cargo pumps redone.  The housings were rotten.  New ones had to be custom made at a cost of $1.5M apiece.  Many of the companies who made components for the old girl went out of business decades ago.  When the Joy air compressor died and needed a new head, the only one that could be found anywhere was in a scrap yard in Northern Texas.  Thank god it was usable after a fashion.
 
I know Canada did it with the tanks, and bought the Dutch Leopards as they had too many.
So why don't we lease to own an AOR or something similar. We missed two opportunities to provide aid. Haiti and Sandy.
In the current world fiscal situation must be a German or Brit ship available.
Thought I read earlier that Australia jumped all over this.
At least one until we build our own. 
 
Just found this in the Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1311250--navy-support-ships-join-f-35s-as-objects-of-criticism
 
The lightness of being a consultant..... never having to say you're sorry and being allowed to survive with polka dot bow ties around your neck.  ::)
 
Back
Top