Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[CBH99]

I know nothing about shipbuilding or preventative/proper maintenance of ships - so pls forgive if this is a brutally elementary question…

But with all of these challenges of finding spare parts, or parts being partially repaired, difficulties in getting needed spare parts to a deployed ship, etc….

Are NATO warships built with ‘some’ commonality in mind on the non-sexy end of things? Same size flux capacitors & doo-hickey-doo’s to make maintenance easier & more streamlined?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I know nothing about shipbuilding or preventative/proper maintenance of ships - so pls forgive if this is a brutally elementary question…

But with all of these challenges of finding spare parts, or parts being partially repaired, difficulties in getting needed spare parts to a deployed ship, etc….

Are NATO warships built with ‘some’ commonality in mind on the non-sexy end of things? (Same size flux capacitors & doo-hickey-doo’s to make maintenance easier & more streamlined?

No.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I worked real hard to get things to be "one and done". Unfortunately, that requires people to do things right in the fleet, or giving the power to BLog to fix the ship's errors - meaning a different level of DRMIS access pushed to a lower level - we're trying some of that now.

Absolutely. I know the problem is generally in the fleet. Poor use of DRIMS and poor material management.

If we were ever able to find out how many A class parts have been thrown away, over the side or hoarded in the bowels of ship, Jesus would weep.

 

[CBH99]

No.

Is there a deliberate reason for that?

Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future? (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)


It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…

 

[Stoker]

Is there a deliberate reason for that?

Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future? (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)


It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…

We do sometimes reach out to our NATO allies for supplies, engineering support at times. Just last summer had to go our German support ship to source chemicals for our water as our stores system ashore couldn't do anything for us.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is there a deliberate reason for that?

Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future? (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)


It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…

Standardization is great in principle. Then people, politics and interests get in the way.

Look into the adoption of 7.62x51 as the NATO standard.

It would be awesome if NATO used all the same kit. It's makes so much sense.

 

[Navy_Pete]

On the returns side, we see on a regular basis valve bodies that have had the stem/head replaced, but the old body has been left in situ.

Obviously they think it's harder to swap out the whole valve body (4 bolts on each flange = 8 bolts) since the head of the valve only has 4 bolts.

I've lost count of how many times we've seen this happen.

Or, seeing a valve swapped out because it's 'leaking by' - indicating that they don't know how to replace the gasket.

Depends on the valve, but pretty common for most of the bigger valves to need rebuilt to make sure the sealing face is even. That can be as easy as some lapping to smooth out the valve face on a butterfly, but that still takes fair bit of skill. The rebuild kits usually include a sealing face and new butterfly, but something you need to do on a bench anyway. Not uncommon to see a butterfly mostly gone and just a spindle left with a bit of sad material kicking around it by the time it gets taken off, as we don't tend to get to things that are just 'leaking by'.

On smaller valves (usually 1.5" and below) it's simply cheaper to replace it then fix it.

Most of our valves are a metal on metal seal, so very few of them are simply a gasket replacement.

 

[childs56]

I know nothing about shipbuilding or preventative/proper maintenance of ships - so pls forgive if this is a brutally elementary question…

But with all of these challenges of finding spare parts, or parts being partially repaired, difficulties in getting needed spare parts to a deployed ship, etc….

Are NATO warships built with ‘some’ commonality in mind on the non-sexy end of things? Same size flux capacitors & doo-hickey-doo’s to make maintenance easier & more streamlined?

They may not be built to the same specs, but the majority of turbines, diesels, generators are commercially available. Many of the other parts may not be common but valves and things can be spec'd out to valve manufactures. If you are not on the "special" supplier list then they wont look at you. Many of the issues with DND parts procurement are due to the lack of common sense then actual shortages.

 

[Underway]

Is there a deliberate reason for that?

Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future? (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)


It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…

There are NATO standards for building ships. Like NATO standard power and standards for ammunition and fuel. That's to ensure interoperability for jetty power, and logisitical supply for consumables. But generally parts are not standardized by type they are standardized by function (must detect at this range, must resist this stress/strain etc...) .

However sizes are often standardized. If you need a generic 3" gasket (or metric one) and are with a NATO task group likely you can find one amoungst the fleet. But if you need a 3" gasket that fits this exact type of pump you're probably hooped.

This may change when Canada, UK and Australia all have the Type 26 baseline for frigates. Should increase the parts avail when sailing in company with those other countries.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Is there a deliberate reason for that?

Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future? (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)


It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…

Most combat systems are like that, and has it's up and downsides; ITAR rules is one that comes to mind when they are too rigidly done (ie a bolt available at home depot is suddenly ITAR when catalogued under an NSN associated with a system because someone didn't vet the list on the US side).

If we have something unique to our ships, it's usually because it's so old we are the only ones still using it. Our readiness issues are more to do with lack of personnel/resources and lack of planning over a really long time than equipment selection.

Everything starts as COTs/MOTs and we aren't a big enough customer to sustain any business. So things like the new Cat DGs are COTs engines widely used in a number of applications that we built a special box around and mounted on shock mounts, with a few thousand other units in service. A lot of OEMs also have common components on their equipment, so for example most diesels have a common family with a high degree of shared parts (60-80%).

For major pieces of equipment there are notices sent out when there are obsoloscence things coming up pretty routinely, and that works for major items, but for all the valves, sensors etc etc (especially things bought from resellers vice the OEM) we frequently only find out it's not avaiable when we need to replace it, and that might be 20 years past the original buy. Doing that proactively takes a lot of time/effort, and we don't have capacity for either.

In theory AJISS is supposed to be doing that for everything down to the last nut and bolt, but I don't think we'll pay for that so don't expect it to be any different.

 

[Prairie canuck]

In the event of a needed force response in the north and since the AOPS crane is rated at 20 tonnes the only armoured vehicle it could transport and unload is the TAPV and BV's. So, would some trials of a dozen or so TAPVs with Mattracks or something similar on the TAPV not be of interest? Also as some have suggested some trailers equipped a variety of armaments (such as mortars and base tents etc) would go along with the same project.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don’t think the hull shape would support Mattracks, no?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In the event of a needed force response in the north and since the AOPS crane is rated at 20 tonnes the only armoured vehicle it could transport and unload is the TAPV and BV's. So, would some trials of a dozen or so TAPVs with Mattracks or something similar on the TAPV not be of interest? Also as some have suggested some trailers equipped a variety of armaments (such as mortars and base tents etc) would go along with the same project.

The landing craft they have will only support ATV's and the crane may be rated at 20T but at what reach? At best might be a pickup or a BV 206 but would require a better landing craft, at which point your running out of deck space. The AOP's is a small but definite leap up for supporting small amphibious ops. Canada really needs a ice class landing ship likely run by a Canadian RFA.

 

[Prairie canuck]

The landing craft they have will only support ATV's and the crane may be rated at 20T but at what reach? At best might be a pickup or a BV 206 but would require a better landing craft, at which point your running out of deck space. The AOP's is a small but definite leap up for supporting small amphibious ops. Canada really needs a ice class landing ship likely run by a Canadian RFA.

Could the AOPS design be "stretched" to include a 100 lane meters vehicle deck, a much larger crane, additional hanger space for a second helicopter and larger landing craft? Ya I know, engineering, hull design, etc. Let's just use 30m as a number for discussion purposes. I imagine it might require widening along with stretching. It would be a very modest landing ship but 2 or 3 would add a modest capability not now available.

 

[Prairie canuck]

I don’t think the hull shape would support Mattracks, no?

They may need spacers to get them away from the hull or maybe not. Maybe drive one to a Mattracks dealer and try them on for size?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Could the AOPS design be "stretched" to include a 100 lane meters vehicle deck, a much larger crane, additional hanger space for a second helicopter and larger landing craft? Ya I know, engineering, hull design, etc. Let's just use 30m as a number for discussion purposes. I imagine it might require widening along with stretching. It would be a very modest landing ship but 2 or 3 would add a modest capability not now available.

It would be a bad idea to add that much to the ship, she be an absolute pig to manoeuvre and likely it would reduce her ice class and make her slower.
Way better go for a dedicated design for landing ship and then work the design to meet a certain ice classification.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

A NATO standard in Canada and used by Canadians is a huge pipe dream. ( We Canadians can only dream of pipe lines)

The NATO standard would have to include made in Canada engines, steel and made in a Eastern Ship yard, but would prefer a Quebec ship yard.

I think and believe nothing will ever change that.

I think a reasonable answer would be a hull made overseas and shipped across for finishing with Canadian made content. Follow the UK plan for ship building and save the cash. Have a supply chain outside of Canada just in case something is needed when on patrol. Canada can always borrow and replace the parts instead of waiting for our supply chain to FedEX it over the ocean if needed.

But never will happen, our MPs would never go for a plan for anything outside of the their ridings.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A NATO standard in Canada and used by Canadians is a huge pipe dream. ( We Canadians can only dream of pipe lines)

The NATO standard would have to include made in Canada engines, steel and made in a Eastern Ship yard, but would prefer a Quebec ship yard.

I think and believe nothing will ever change that.

I think a reasonable answer would be a hull made overseas and shipped across for finishing with Canadian made content. Follow the UK plan for ship building and save the cash. Have a supply chain outside of Canada just in case something is needed when on patrol. Canada can always borrow and replace the parts instead of waiting for our supply chain to FedEX it over the ocean if needed.

But never will happen, our MPs would never go for a plan for anything outside of the their ridings.

FYSA doing the fit up after the hull is built is a massive increase in LOE (5-7 times the labour). If you think about how hard it is to move a big couch into a house, and then how easy it would be to do before when the walls are on, its kind of like that, only worse. Huge amount of extra rigging for absolutely everything along a tortured path.

During the modular build they do all the equipment and piping installation, so it's mostly just completing the cable runs when the blocks go together.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

FYSA doing the fit up after the hull is built is a massive increase in LOE (5-7 times the labour). If you think about how hard it is to move a big couch into a house, and then how easy it would be to do before when the walls are on, its kind of like that, only worse. Huge amount of extra rigging for absolutely everything along a tortured path.

During the modular build they do all the equipment and piping installation, so it's mostly just completing the cable runs when the blocks go together.

My thought was if they could ship a US Navy DDG on a heavy lift ship they could do the same for any ship. Our ships are much smaller etc

 

[Underway]

A NATO standard in Canada and used by Canadians is a huge pipe dream. ( We Canadians can only dream of pipe lines)

The NATO standard would have to include made in Canada engines, steel and made in a Eastern Ship yard, but would prefer a Quebec ship yard.

I think and believe nothing will ever change that.

I think a reasonable answer would be a hull made overseas and shipped across for finishing with Canadian made content. Follow the UK plan for ship building and save the cash. Have a supply chain outside of Canada just in case something is needed when on patrol. Canada can always borrow and replace the parts instead of waiting for our supply chain to FedEX it over the ocean if needed.

But never will happen, our MPs would never go for a plan for anything outside of the their ridings.

Be careful what you wish for.

Australia did that twice. The Hobarts were a friggin mess when the showed up and one of the reasons for the massive cost increases and project delays was the Ozzies fixing all the crap that Spain screwed up in the hull.

Same thing for their resupply vessel which almost sunk within sight of Sydney on its trip over to Australia. Then a year later it had an internal fuel FLOOD on RIMPAC.

NATO standard ship build isn't a thing BTW, and has nothing to do with where the ship is built. Germany, UK, France, US, Canada, Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania and Turkey all build their own ships in their own shipyards. The Dutch, Norway and a few other have the hulls built elsewhere and then final refit is in their own yards.

Having a shipbuilding industry that can do the start to finish build is a strategic industrial capability.

I think that its cheap ass, small country thinking, to not want our own shipbuilding.