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

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

Grimey said:
Absolutely! In my current job, a few years back I sourced a few boiler combustion control system I/O cards that had been out of production for years on eBay. The pics of same were invaluable in determining it was the right part.
Click to expand...
This is done all the time in civilian industry. Try keeping a very old HVAC computer and control system functional. The computer itself going with very old software and boards. It's pain but replace the whole is millions. We have an old retired guy come once or twice a year.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Wouldn't they start standing up stocklists for the AOP's as soon as the design is approved and building starts? Manufactures could give you information on normal wear rates and service items to use as a place to start your stocklist and projected needed stocklevels. Then add on normal items like bedding, PPE, replaceable electrical components (fuses, lightbulbs etc), machinary maintience items (zincs, filters, oils, impellers, etc) Then you start working on the more exotic items like specific valves, high wear pipe sections, spare glass and items unique to that design.
Click to expand...

Given the lead times on some of these vessels I wouldn't surprise me if some of the manufacturers were out of business by the time the hulls hit water and other equipment was already discontinued. Another reason for short, fast flights.

Spencer100 said:
This is done all the time in civilian industry. Try keeping a very old HVAC computer and control system functional. The computer itself going with very old software and boards. It's pain but replace the whole is millions. We have an old retired guy come once or twice a year.
Click to expand...

And this is a reason for low productivity in Canada. Plants aren't refreshed fast enough. Old plants are kept in service too long rather than being regularly replaced.
 
Establishing the SHARP (Ships Allowance Replenishment Program), ESL (Equipment Support List) and GS (General Stores List) are normally established during the initial provisioning of a ship. They can evolve and be different to hull number depending on the fitting out of the ship.

In the case of the AOPs being heavily ISSC it may take sometime for this to flesh out. Add into that that Logistics is not a major concern for the RCN and the global supply chain problems and you have a perfect storm for a ship with few spares available.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Wouldn't they start standing up stocklists for the AOP's as soon as the design is approved and building starts? Manufactures could give you information on normal wear rates and service items to use as a place to start your stocklist and projected needed stocklevels. Then add on normal items like bedding, PPE, replaceable electrical components (fuses, lightbulbs etc), machinary maintience items (zincs, filters, oils, impellers, etc) Then you start working on the more exotic items like specific valves, high wear pipe sections, spare glass and items unique to that design.
Click to expand...
@Halifax Tar explained it, but it seems like there were a number of items put on the ISSC that only kicks in for in-service, and also not on the CFM list, but some bright light decided that we would buy (so it's not on the project costs) or supply (but didn't tell the LCMMs). Some things we happen to have a lot of it in stock, but others we were already short on it for the inservice fleet, so don't suddenly have an entire ship set worth lying around.

Aside from some common to fleet fire fighting/DC equipment, it was a lot of common things like plates, cutlery etc. Doesn't sound exciting, but because of the sheer volume of it it's a lot, and not something the base log side is set up to do the buys for. And some of it kicked past the dollar amount the coast has delegation for, so had to get pushed up the chain.

Additional complications are that we had been told 5 years ago to assume the MCDVs would be retiring in our planning, so there is some common fleet equipment that we don't have for the AOPs because it's still in use on the MCDVs with no end in sight.

On the sparing side they seem to be providing the absolute bare minimum with initial provisioning and pretty minimal insurance items (ie long lead items that if they break, you are foxed, like spare gearing). JSS is doing the same, and didn't even want to get spare relief valves and other similar items because the LSAR said they were unlikely to fail in 6 months. They completely ignored any input that we had for things getting broken during STW or initial operation, and when we will pay huge amounts for the sea trials, they could be down for extended periods due to lack of a $10 part (that the class will need within a year or two anyway).
 
I get the cost bit of mundane items, as the QM of my unit, I took a look at the cost of a average set of "Desk toys" back in the day and it was horrendous. For a ship, throw in wear items like lines and fenders.
 
Halifax Tar said:
I bring 80 liters of diesel in jerry cans with me when I drive to Ont so I can avoid spending money in any Irving gas station I drive by.
Click to expand...
Road tripping to Halifax to see the son for Christmas and sadly didn’t have room for yellow Jerry cans…got bent over by Irving in Edmumdston to the tune of $2.52/L…Ottawa was $2.09/L when we left. 😔 🐼
 
If you want an really in depth analysis of the AOPS program so far check out this link.

Maritime Engineering Journal - AOPS Special Edition

Its extremely good covering the Nav Arch hull design differences with Svalbard and how they came to their particular hull form, power plant, Combat Systems, ships crew experiences, project management issues, dealing with COVID, tests and trials and a whole lot more.

In particular I liked the section on Critical Design Specifications (CDS) and how some of the could have been written better, and ways to approach writting them for future projects.

All in all everything you wanted to know about AOPS but were afraid to ask!
 
Thanks, interesting write up, I liked that they identified they needed more space and added length to the design, this is different to the CCG 500 Class, where they went shorter and the design suffered stability issues as they crammed to many asks in to little hull.

Also interesting that the class was identified as capable of freeing up 3 Halifax's for other duties.

I suspect the article understates the frustration with DWAN and the training materials.

I wonder if they want to revisit the wording on page 21 about specifications, given the problems cropping up.....

The part on the hull design and tradeoff is quite interesting and I agree I think they made the right choices, although I wonder if they could have gone with more power with the same engine room design? I guess the question is that in sustained operation in ice, or near top speed, are you in the 80%, 90% or 100% of your power rating? That impacts the longevity of the machinery.

I note a lot of comments by crews on the good livability of the class. A study should be conducted on how this affects personal decisions on retention and desire to go to sea.

I see the Combat Systems section glosses over the inability to manage the gun range/safety template issues, something that should have been caught during the design stage.

Interesting the learning experience of operating in ice, regarding things like sea chest warming and such. I think the AOP's has pushed the design concept of a ice capable naval patrol ship and it will likley influence future similar designs. It would be nice if we were able to licence the design to another nation to help recoup costs.
 
When you build ships every 15 years, you can keep the skills and suppliers up to date, but when you do it every 40 years, skilled trades retire and there is no one to teach the skills to the new guys. We end up paying 3 times the going rate for those skills because the lack of ship building trades they can demand what ever they want.


As for BAS HVAC, we are doing that at one of the buildings have to replace the computer, the old one runs on windows XP, the software is the same age, the controls are older. So looking to replace it for 60 000 square foot 7 story high building, will be over 50k when done. Plus updated computer.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Thanks, interesting write up, I liked that they identified they needed more space and added length to the design, this is different to the CCG 500 Class, where they went shorter and the design suffered stability issues as they crammed to many asks in to little hull.
Click to expand...

Colin Parkinson said:
The part on the hull design and tradeoff is quite interesting and I agree I think they made the right choices, although I wonder if they could have gone with more power with the same engine room design? I guess the question is that in sustained operation in ice, or near top speed, are you in the 80%, 90% or 100% of your power rating? That impacts the longevity of the machinery.
Click to expand...

I found that interesting as well. The particular comparison to the Svalbard and how its more optimized for patrol and cuts through ice where the AOPS bends the ice was interesting. The power difference often comes with range. AOPS needs a lot more range than Svalbard does, as well the more traditional propulsion methodology I believe changed that equation as well. Design tradeoffs are really intersting to read about.

Colin Parkinson said:
Interesting the learning experience of operating in ice, regarding things like sea chest warming and such. I think the AOP's has pushed the design concept of a ice capable naval patrol ship and it will likley influence future similar designs. It would be nice if we were able to licence the design to another nation to help recoup costs.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I think we've realized from this project that arctic vessels need to specific build to their environment moreso then other seagoing vessels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
Going Dutch
Replies
0
Views
340
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Underway
    • Like
    • Love it!
    • Insightful
RCN Dead Reckoning
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Kirkhill
    • Like
The Arctic
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
55K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Blackadder1916
    • Like
    • Insightful
What will medicine on the battlefield look like?
Replies
9
Views
725
KevinB
KevinB
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top