Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Navy_Pete]

If Kevin didn't get it after that, then there's just no explaining. It was crystal clear.

BTW Kevin, for those "remote" location Navy_Pete is talking about, think Star Trek TNG with Geordy (as the chief engineer) coming unto the bridge, going to one of the side consoles and saying "Computer, transfer engineering to bridge". That's how it is on the Halifax class right now. There are touch screens computers in various places that the engineers with the proper access codes can access and use to operate most of the platforms systems if and when away from the actual MCR compartment.

Ah man, can't believe I fumbled it and missed the ST reference. They really nailed how the DC organization works, although we still can't jettison the the engine room if we get a GT overload or high crankcase alarm. Maybe another example of how ST inspired actual technology?

Having tried to drive the plant off a laptop with a 16" screen from the MS tech office though, the console and screens is definitely a big advantage.

L3 Harris took our IPMS and scaled it up to the RN carrier. I got to play with it at a conference in the UK, and the HMI is identical, and pages are even named the same thing, so I guess we did something right. One of our revisions in the last few years completely reprogrammed the back end to allow for more flexibility and make it modular for scaling, so can't help but feel we partly financed that development. Not a bad thing though as it means that LLs will transfer both ways.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Perhaps another reason we should get ourselves a QE class carrier. At 2-3% GDP, it is clearly within our means.

 

[Underway]

Perhaps another reason we should get ourselves a QE class carrier. At 2-3% GDP, it is clearly within our means.

Only helos and UAV's though. Can't afford a fixed wing air det. Lol

 

[Navy_Pete]

Only helos and UAV's though. Can't afford a fixed wing air det. Lol

Or the sailors; that's a big ass ship, even with the smaller complement. The infra people will be struggling to keep up with the CSC/Sub infra requirements, even just the jetty/FMF aspect of that may break them lol.

 

[Maxman1]

Or the sailors; that's a big ass ship, even with the smaller complement. The infra people will be struggling to keep up with the CSC/Sub infra requirements, even just the jetty/FMF aspect of that may break them lol.

Then how about a Cavour class carrier.

 

[NavyShooter]

Then how about a Cavour class carrier.

We're having trouble crewing the ships we have, let alone a BHS of any sort.

 

[Grimey]

Ah man, can't believe I fumbled it and missed the ST reference. They really nailed how the DC organization works, although we still can't jettison the the engine room if we get a GT overload or high crankcase alarm. Maybe another example of how ST inspired actual technology?

Having tried to drive the plant off a laptop with a 16" screen from the MS tech office though, the console and screens is definitely a big advantage.

L3 Harris took our IPMS and scaled it up to the RN carrier. I got to play with it at a conference in the UK, and the HMI is identical, and pages are even named the same thing, so I guess we did something right. One of our revisions in the last few years completely reprogrammed the back end to allow for more flexibility and make it modular for scaling, so can't help but feel we partly financed that development. Not a bad thing though as it means that LLs will transfer both ways.

The RN evaluated SHINMACs as it was referred to back then, back in 1985. Remember the blue paper back RN engineering journals? We used to get issued those in the late 8os/early 90s, even on the old sweepers. Lots of good post-Falklands analysis stuff. Here's a link to the '85 evaluation: Man Machine Interface Design - Evaluating the Canadian Shinmacs Standard Machinery Control Console

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Only helos and UAV's though. Can't afford a fixed wing air det. Lol

I'd go along with that just to keep the RCAF greasy fingers out of the pie.