Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[karl28]

CBH99
          ( High Jack alert )
        Hey man I here you I work as a PSW in a Longterm carefacility here in Belleville we deal with the same problems  some things we have lots of  than with other stuff we never have enough .  Same poop different pile in regards to how government handles allocating funding 

 

[RC]

The problem with two classes, as I understand it, is that the political will exists to fund arctic patrol vessels, but not offshore patrol vessels, whereas the Navy sees more of a need for OPVs.

From an end product perspective it makes the most sense to split the program and get 3 APVs and 3 or 4 OPVs, but practically, if they were to do that, there is a high risk of losing funding for the OPVs, which are the real desired capability.  So instead of 6 AOPS with a balance of ice and open water capabilites, the navy would get 3 APVs with few compromises made for open water.

 

[RC]

Model tests are underway on the AOPS.  Maybe the first of the planned vessels to hit the water?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/08/17/mackay-yellowknife-reserve.html

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Can someone breakdown the delays in the project?  NDHQ?  Navy?  Government Cabinet?  PWGS?

Although not as bad as the Sea King replacement, I remain disappointed at how many projects appear to be bungled.

If I didn't know better I'd think it was done intentionally to keep "project managers" employed as we have more project managers than are required to efficiently run the projects we can finance.


Matthew.  ???

 

[Kirkhill]

Matt, in defence of project managers everywhere I don't think 2-3 years definition on a project like this is unseemly.

The government set a intention (a desire) and a budget (tentative) then put it to industry to see what was possible.  Industry has responded and now the government has to cut the suit to fit the cloth available.  In this particular case our requirements are not common to those of many other nations.  Denmark, possibly Norway, Sweden and Finland,  and perhaps Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and the Falklands have some similar requirements (excluding Russia for reasons of purely personal animus).  At first blush Norway's Svalbard has appealed to me but the limits of its operational envelope have yet to be explored in the context of Canada's needs.

The fact that they have a testable hull-form at this point speaks to the continuation of this project.  This is not even like the CH-148 Cyclone where there was a choice of platforms ( and we decided to do the Monty Python and picked "something completely different").

The Navy has to define and choose a completely new hull form.  Industry has to prove that their proposed hull forms will get the job done.

In civvy street I have often been confronted with projects going through a 3 year plus definition phase (7 years are not unheard of).  And that is with well defined components, capabilities and structures.

This project seems to be moving reasonably well, IMHO.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[a_majoor]

Another hijack attempt here

While Kirkhill is speaking from experience about how long it takes to do project definition etc., I still find it to be incredible that we allow such things.

The Empire State Building, then the world's tallest structure, was designed in two weeks and built in one year. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Design_and_construction).

During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands. During the same period, aircraft design moved from propellers to jet and rocket technology (and guided missiles and bombs were also introduced during the war). Ship, weapons and AFV technology also advanced at a very rapid pace, although not as fast as aviation.

To suggest that today, when we can reference things very rapidly using computer data bases and make 3D designes on CAD (and transfer the approved designs directly to CNC machines for production anywhere in the world) we need to spend years or even decades to do project definition speaks to the entrenched bureaucracy rather than our ability to actually do these projects.

If "we" demanded things on a WWII timescale, I suspect that we would also get things a lot cheaper, since we would not be paying the wages of armies of paper pushers for a decade or more as part of the deal.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The delay is one of the reasons I have advocated buying offshore for so long. Take for example the new Spanish Juan Carlos I class LHD. Designed in 2005, laid down and constructed between 05-08, launched in 2008 and they will be commissioned later on this year in 2009. Navantia makes quality warships we could learn a lesson or a couple of hundred from them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another hijack attempt here

While Kirkhill is speaking from experience about how long it takes to do project definition etc., I still find it to be incredible that we allow such things.

The Empire State Building, then the world's tallest structure, was designed in two weeks and built in one year. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Design_and_construction).

During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands. During the same period, aircraft design moved from propellers to jet and rocket technology (and guided missiles and bombs were also introduced during the war). Ship, weapons and AFV technology also advanced at a very rapid pace, although not as fast as aviation.

To suggest that today, when we can reference things very rapidly using computer data bases and make 3D designes on CAD (and transfer the approved designs directly to CNC machines for production anywhere in the world) we need to spend years or even decades to do project definition speaks to the entrenched bureaucracy rather than our ability to actually do these projects.

If "we" demanded things on a WWII timescale, I suspect that we would also get things a lot cheaper, since we would not be paying the wages of armies of paper pushers for a decade or more as part of the deal.

Behold the overnight success :

The Spitfire " There were 24 marks of Spitfire, but also, as will be seen, many sub-variants within the marks. The entire Spitfire family may be divided by the generation of Rolls-Royce engines which powered the aircraft. Thus the first generation was powered by single-stage Merlins, from Merlin II to Merlin 50 and resulted in Spitfires Mks. I, II and V as the most prominent fighter variants. Two-stage Merlins (meaning the use of two-stage supercharger for increased altitude performance), from Merlin 61 to Merlin 70, provided the basis of mid-war development, Mks. VIII, IX and XVI being the most prolific versions of this family. Finally, the arrival of Rolls-Royce Griffon provided a basis for the final line of Spitfire development, exemplified by Mks. XII, XIV and their post-war derivatives. ...."


The Rolls-Royce Merlin:

Need Defined - 1932
Typed 1934
Models B through G tested prior to production as Merlin II ca 1937
Subsequent Models 1939 to 1947 ish: III, X, XII, XX, 45,46, 60, 61, 64, 66,67,76,85,100,130,140,500,600,700......And then there were the Griffon variants.



If you think that was unique check out the Mustangs, Liberators, Lancs and Hurricanes.  And it was not strictly an Air Force problem.  Check for number of Corvette, Frigate and Destroyer classes and their machinery suites.  Or check Shermans and Crusaders....


Projects weren't managed in WW2 so much as new kit was fielded as soon as it was available.  In all likelihood much of the kit would be destroyed before its owner complained about it wearing out.

Imagine the poor Erk, Stoker or REME fitter trying to figure out which piece of hardware he is trying to maintain today.

It took Supermarine Rolls Royce, a private company, 2 years just to get an engine from concept to prototype......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Another more modern example is the British preparation for the Falkland invasion, to be fair not all went as expected, the issue of deck tiedowns delayed the conversion of the containership far more than was expected.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands.

There weren't many "new" combat aircraft fielded by combatants during WWII. They just brought out more variants of what they were already building.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Although we are straying off topic....

Milnet.Ca Staff

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Matt, in defence of project managers everywhere I don't think 2-3 years definition on a project like this is unseemly.

The government set a intention (a desire) and a budget (tentative) then put it to industry to see what was possible.  Industry has responded and now the government has to cut the suit to fit the cloth available.  In this particular case our requirements are not common to those of many other nations.  Denmark, possibly Norway, Sweden and Finland,  and perhaps Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and the Falklands have some similar requirements (excluding Russia for reasons of purely personal animus).  At first blush Norway's Svalbard has appealed to me but the limits of its operational envelope have yet to be explored in the context of Canada's needs.

The fact that they have a testable hull-form at this point speaks to the continuation of this project.  This is not even like the CH-148 Cyclone where there was a choice of platforms ( and we decided to do the Monty Python and picked "something completely different").

The Navy has to define and choose a completely new hull form.  Industry has to prove that their proposed hull forms will get the job done.

In civvy street I have often been confronted with projects going through a 3 year plus definition phase (7 years are not unheard of).  And that is with well defined components, capabilities and structures.

This project seems to be moving reasonably well, IMHO.

Cheers, Chris.

I'm in project management as well (measured in millions as opposed to billions) and I write most RFP's in a couple of hours.  I'm not going to be silly enough to contend it's apples to apples, but a couple of hours to 3-years means that my process and theirs are completely different. 

If you look at this project from the outset, what would've happened if instead of doing what they did, they said:

We've secured from the taxpayers a budget of $1.5 billion for manufacturing costs.  25-year life cycle costs are not to exceed the capital cost.

Canada requires a minimum of 4 and maximum of 8 arctic patrol vessels.

Vessel Requirements (pulled out of my fanny):
Range:  X kms and X days at sea 
Ice:  Capable of traversing _____ ice.
Helicopter:  Ability to land, hanger and deploy ______ kg helicopter.
Landing Vessels:  Ability to deploy _______ vehicles into the following environments
Non-Crew Contingent:  Ability to carry minimum of 50 specialists
AAW Weapons:  Minimum of Heavy CIWS
ASuW Weapons: Minimum of training CIWS as needed
ASW Weapons: Suite recommended by supplier
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Canadian Content:
100% of Ships hulls must be fabricated in Canadian Shipyards
Minimum of 75% industrial offset

All competitors have 9-months to provide proposals.

All competitors will receive $X million if they provide a qualifying proposal.

From the competitors, a final 2 will be selected.

Information from all submissions will be reviewed by the naval board and an updated "preference list" will be issued within 60 days.

The final two have 90-days to update their submissions at which point a winning bidder will be selected.

Both finalists whether they won or not would again be compensated for their time and contribution.



Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So why are you adding an AAW and ASW weapons fit when the project does not require either?

 

[Larkvall]

So why are you adding an AAW and ASW weapons fit when the project does not require either?

Isn't it easier to add them now then to wait for the government to add them later?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Another more modern example is the British preparation for the Falkland invasion, to be fair not all went as expected, the issue of deck tiedowns delayed the conversion of the containership far more than was expected.

And they had to strip the entire army of Clansman radios and MILAN MRAAW etc etc just to make things work. A 'damn close run thing' indeed. Don't try this at home kids....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was commenting on the redesigns and alterations of the vessels used. Falklands, the good and the bad is a good 125+ page thread in itself and already done by better people than me at milphoto's

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Isn't it easier to add them now then to wait for the government to add them later?

The class is not meant to be a major surface combatant. Its sole purpose is establish a naval presence in the Arctic.

 

[RC]

AOPS project management is progressing.  The cause of the delay is the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, a political plan, which sucked AOPS in but hopefully won't cause significant delays as it can parallel the development of the ship for a while.  We'll see.

As for the timeline, it works about like this:

1 1/2 years:  Do we really want this program?  Do we have money for it?
1 year:  What exactly do we want?
1/2 year:  Develop a design for bid based on what we want.
9 months: Bid and bid evaluation.
3 years: Develop the design for construction and build it.


There is certainly opportunity for cutting that time down.  In my opinion it is during those first 2 1/2 years, but I disagree that going offshore will shorten that time at all since none of that time has to do with actually designing the ship.  You would save roughly 6 months by going offshore, while sacrificing all of the capabilities you wanted beyond what your base vessel happens to have.  Why not take 6 months more and modify a ship like Svalbard to do exactly what you want it to do?

As a side note, no building larger than a two car garage has ever been designed in a week.  It probably took a week for them to sign the build contract for the Empire State building.  While they might have doen the design before hand, that week doesn't really count as doing the design.

 

[Larkvall]

1 1/2 years:  Do we really want this program?  Do we have money for it?
1 year:  What exactly do we want?
1/2 year:  Develop a design for bid based on what we want.
9 months: Bid and bid evaluation.
3 years: Develop the design for construction and build it.

Sounds like a good make work project for desk jockeys.

Look at the time it took to design and build the Bluenose. We are moving backwards.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sounds like a good make work project for desk jockeys.

Look at the time it took to design and build the Bluenose. We are moving backwards.

: you can't compare a fishing schooner to that of a minor warship.