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

Constructing the CCG Hero class [Merged]

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
172
Points
680
Journeyman said:
???  I am NOT a sailor or any sort.

I usually rely on credible site members to fill in the blanks and provide insights.  So, what are your thoughts on this Chief? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

New Dock has a long history of refitting federal and provincial ships, in fact they just did a refit on HMCS Goose bay. I guess they have no problem putting their reputation on the line unlike Davie.
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Journeyman said:
I usually rely on credible site members to fill in the blanks and provide insights.  So, what are your thoughts on this Chief? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

New Dock does acceptable work.

There's always at least one coast guard vessel in their yard or graving dock, and there's usually no complaints.

They don't live solely on government work either, plenty of privately owned vessels in the yard at any time.

The project will still likely overrun the budget.
 

Greater_Ape

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
Colin P said:
The 500's could been an excellent design if they had chopped off a deck, lengthened it back to the original design and added a large towing winch. Currently none of the west coast SAR/buoy tenders vessels are set up for large vessel towing and that is just plain stupid.

There are also the two new-to-us Emergency Towing Vessels that the CCG leased from Atlantic Towing.  They've got the equipment and the skills for towing everything up to and including oil rigs, but they cost $30K each per day to have sitting at the dock.
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Greater_Ape said:
There are also the two new-to-us Emergency Towing Vessels that the CCG leased from Atlantic Towing.  They've got the equipment and the skills for towing everything up to and including oil rigs, but they cost $30K each per day to have sitting at the dock.

Bare in mind, the day rate is all inclusive excluding fuel.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
712
Points
1,060
You might want to further bear in mind that even government ships cost money sitting alongside.

You start off with depreciation to compensate for equipment becoming worn and obsolete and having to be replaced.....

Oh wait!  Government materiel doesn't have to bear that cost after all.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,762
Points
940
We amortize that cost by doubling the lifetime of a ship.  ;D

Not to mention that almost 100% of sea going personal are not getting paid or improperly paid, so the costs of a CCG is far less.

Wages for a 1100 are about $9,616 a day (average crew wage $65,000 x 45 divided by 365 days, multiplied by 1.2)

That's for a ship that can break ice in the Arctic, resupply lighthouses, build beacons, buoy tend all over the coast and do SAR. Having been aboard when we tried tow the Exxon San Fransisco, they are not good tow vessels. 
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Colin P said:
Wages for a 1100 are about $9,616 a day (average crew wage $65,000 x 45 divided by 365 days, multiplied by 1.2)

Once you toss in all the other associated costs (overtime, training, benefits,  vessel maintenance, grub, etc) $30k is comprable to to the cost of running other similar sized vessels.

Believe or not, theres probably not much of a profit margin on this, the day rate is also comprable to what anyone else would pay for the vessel, and it was a race to the bottom for pricing when oil collapsed a few years ago.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,762
Points
940
1.2 is the standard calculation for HR costs. Food is likely $500 a day, Training only happens roughly once a year for 5 days for the majority of the fleet and is a cost not borne of the vessel. (people are required to get their tickets on their own time, unless your a ring wearer) Fuel costs per hour steamed are likely to be a tad lower, unless breaking ice.
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Colin P said:
1.2 is the standard calculation for HR costs. Food is likely $500 a day, Training only happens roughly once a year for 5 days for the majority of the fleet and is a cost not borne of the vessel. (people are required to get their tickets on their own time, unless your a ring wearer) Fuel costs per hour steamed are likely to be a tad lower, unless breaking ice.

I assume you're thinking of 5 year MED refershers, but there's a lot more training than that...

Fall arrest, confined space,  first aid, CPR, FRC,, etc, both the cost of the course, and the additional training days paid to the crew.

They usually pay for any courses required to upgrade marine tickets as well.

Even if it's not a cost borne by the vessel, it's paid by government.

Plus overtime for any work outside of normal working hours, and allowances paid (nothing sillier than "dirty" pay)

After allowances, overtime, and training days, my net pay was almost double my base salary when I worked for the coast guard.

That's personnel, but you've also got vessel maintenance cost.

Parts for routine maintenance and repairs, certificates to be renewed, annual maintenance done, refit completed, etc.

The $30k day rate is all inclusive, you get a crewed vessel, that performs to the specifications you contracted, you just pay for fuel.

A few years ago when the larger companies were trying to see who had deeper pockets and offering ships at a loss in an attempt to drive competition out of business, a similar ship would have been $20k.

So if you include *all* associated costs, it's likely comprable to what it costs the government to run a similar sized ship.

You can't even compare the day rate of chartering a private vessel directly to the operations budget of a government vessel, as many associated costs are covered by other budgets.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Not a Sig Op said:
I assume you're thinking of 5 year MED refershers, but there's a lot more training than that...

Fall arrest, confined space,  first aid, CPR, FRC,, etc, both the cost of the course, and the additional training days paid to the crew.


Wait! What! No GBA+  ? ? ? ? ?


How'd you get so lucky.  ;D
 

Greater_Ape

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
My issue with the ETVs  is not the day rate, it's the fact that we're leasing a capability that in my opinion is superfluous.  We're not in the business of towing oil rigs.  I don't think the CCG or the public is going to get their money's worth with these 16,000hp Offshore Supply Vessels that are likely going to sit idle at the dock for months on end.
I think the money could have been better spent elsewhere.  But I'm an engineer so what do I know. When you spend most of your days below waterline you don't get to see the big picture  ;).
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
We're absolutely in the business of towing oil rigs in an emergency... or anything else stricken and potentially a hazard to life or the environment...

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/business/energy-environment/shell-oil-rig-runs-aground-in-alaska.html

Oil rigs aren't the primary concern though, tankers are.

Despite all the tanker traffic on the west coast, the coast guard had no vessels capable of effectively towing one in an emergency, and with that, very little experience towing vessels that size.

I don't know the full details of the contract, but there's no reason to expect their sole task will be towing... they're quite capable of performing many of the tasks other coast guard vessels perform... the Grenfel manages... she even manages to lay bouys.

Though ironically, many of those other vessels spend months idling at the wharf as well when they're on primary SAR standby.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,762
Points
940
The problem is that the CCG on this coast has no large ship tow capacity and there are very few tugs that do. The last incident with the Russian freighter, none the tugs available were certified to go that far out to rescue her. If LNGCanada continues to go ahead that will change for the North Coast as there will be several large modern escort tugs. When we rigged up the Pearkes to tow the Exxon tanker, we felt at best we would be able to hold her in position and that was in fairly calm weather. There has been a few incidents with pusher tugs out here with oil barges. We been lucky so far. The last freighter I am aware of going aground in the Queen Charlotte Islands was around 1956.
It would have been better to help Smit and Seaspan out here to acquire a large tug each that would do normal work within an zone and be able to go out to respond to calls. The other option is to buy and man with CCG personal, anchor handling vessels that could do CCG NavAid and SAR work as well. Problem with that is no one wants to work with CCG anymore, pays sucks compared to industry when they actually manage to pay you. When LNGC kicks in they are going to suck up even more ticketed CCG personal as well.
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Colin P said:
The other option is to buy and man with CCG personal, anchor handling vessels that could do CCG NavAid and SAR work as well.

Are those duties not included in the contract for these vessels?

No reason they can't do that work as long as they're within suitable range to respond for towing as well.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,762
Points
940
Not sure what the contract allows, but taking union jobs with non-PSAC employees would be seen as a threat to PSAC and the big ship CCG senior officers types alike.
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Colin P said:
Not sure what the contract allows, but taking union jobs with non-PSAC employees would be seen as a threat to PSAC and the big ship CCG senior officers types alike.

I haven't read the contract either, but I have read the solicitation  documents from the tender...

From the operations overview in appendix a...




"The contractor will provide two vessels crewed by certificated personnel and equipped to undertake emergency towing operations as per the contract.

The CCG will deploy and operate these vessels as units within the CCG fleet primarily tasked to the ER program to provide an emergency towing response when required.

The vessels will also be deployed to conduct preparedness activities related to the ER program such as exercising, training, community engagement, scientific assesment and monitoring, while maintaining the standby posture.

Concurrent with the ER deployment, the vessels will be multi-tasked to provide a level of SAR coverage within their area of operation will also support other programs and CCG activities."




The vessel itself was required to provide accomodations for for additional SAR equipment to be furnished by the government, as well as a 20' ISO container of environmental response gear.

2 FRCs with davit's were listed as a requirement, and bulwarks and a crane suitable for launch and recovery of bouys was listed as a desirable.

It also defines an operations area for the vessels, based on a suitable response time for towing.

Aside from the vessel, the other major deliverable was a training program on board the ship, to teach coast guard officers towing... minimum space on board for the program was 6 desirable was 12... the two vessels they got  should have far more bunk space available than that.



Really sounds like they're planning on doing a lot more then leaving them idling at the wharf...
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,408
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
The problem is that the CCG on this coast has no large ship tow capacity and there are very few tugs that do. The last incident with the Russian freighter, none the tugs available were certified to go that far out to rescue her. If LNGCanada continues to go ahead that will change for the North Coast as there will be several large modern escort tugs. When we rigged up the Pearkes to tow the Exxon tanker, we felt at best we would be able to hold her in position and that was in fairly calm weather. There has been a few incidents with pusher tugs out here with oil barges. We been lucky so far. The last freighter I am aware of going aground in the Queen Charlotte Islands was around 1956.
It would have been better to help Smit and Seaspan out here to acquire a large tug each that would do normal work within an zone and be able to go out to respond to calls. The other option is to buy and man with CCG personal, anchor handling vessels that could do CCG NavAid and SAR work as well. Problem with that is no one wants to work with CCG anymore, pays sucks compared to industry when they actually manage to pay you. When LNGC kicks in they are going to suck up even more ticketed CCG personal as well.

An interesting article by Robert Allan:

'In conclusion, it is certainly feasible to consider a system of large rescue tugs to aid in the protection of the B.C. coastline,
but the economics of that operation are not trivial and the probability of an incident is very low.'

https://ral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BCSN-14-12-Coastal-Protection.pdf
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
daftandbarmy said:
An interesting article by Robert Allan:

'In conclusion, it is certainly feasible to consider a system of large rescue tugs to aid in the protection of the B.C. coastline,
but the economics of that operation are not trivial and the probability of an incident is very low.'

https://ral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BCSN-14-12-Coastal-Protection.pdf

The article assumes the sole task of a tug would be towing.

Towing is just a *capability* of the vessels they've leased, and the same of any future vessels they buy to do the same job.

The vessels are and will be multi-tasked.

For anyone interested, the tender solicitation

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-MB-003-26699
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,762
Points
940
No Robert is quite clear that any such vessel should be able to be multi-tasked, but with deep sea towing as the primary design consideration. So you give up some other capability, such as icebreaking or buoy stowage, fuel economy. Also you have to teach and practice open ocean towing. Robert told me (we have cabins on the same island) that the Gordon Reid/John Jacobson was supposed to be bigger and the CCG deleted larger towing gear to save money. 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
712
Points
1,060
Is this something of the type envisioned?

tk7C9353.jpg


NoCGV Harstad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name: NoCGV Harstad
Namesake: The town of Harstad
Builder: Søviknes yard
Commissioned: January 2005
In service: 2009[1]
Identification:
IMO number: 9312107
MMSI number: 259050000
Callsign: JWBR
Pennant number: W318
Status: Active

General characteristics
Class and type: Offshore Patrol Vessel
Type: Patrol and Oil recovery vessel
Displacement: 3,121 long tons (3,171 t)
Length: 270 ft (82 m)
Beam: 51 ft (16 m)
Depth: 6 m (20 ft)

Propulsion:
Two Rolls-Royce Marine diesel engines, 4000kW each
Two screws; one azimuth thruster, 883kW
Speed: 18.4 knots (34.1 km/h; 21.2 mph)

Boats & landing
craft carried: 2 x MOB boats type NORSAFE

Complement: 26

Armament: 40 mm Bofors

Notes:
Crane: 15m/5 tons
Modified to support the Nato Submarine Rescue System
NoCGV Harstad is a purpose-built offshore patrol vessel for the Norwegian Coast Guard. She is named after the city Harstad in Northern Norway. As of May 2018, the commanding officer is Lt. Cmdr. Kyrre Einarsen.[1]

Harstad was built as a multipurpose vessel, but optimised for emergency towing of large oil tankers (up to 200,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT)), oil spill clean-up and fire fighting. The most common duty will be fishery inspection and search and rescue in Norway's large exclusive economic zone. The steadily increasing traffic of large oil tankers along the Norwegian coast explains the need for this type of vessel.

The vessel is built of high-end design. Designer is Rolls-Royce Marine AS, Dept. Ship Technology - Offshore Type: UT 512

showphoto.aspx


Or perhaps the Natural Gas powered Barentshav?

1149821.jpg
 
Top