Continental Defence Corvette

[Halifax Tar]

I guess what I was trying to ask and didn't do a good job of was, can you 'tell' by looking at the shells if there would be the potential that there was an issue with the proximately fuses or is the only way to know that there was an issue was to fire them?

Probably a better question for @AmmoTech90.

 

[Rainbow1910]

How old will our 57's be by the time we build the CDC's (if they get built) and we decide to reuse the 57's on the new CDC's? Would we be risking the same scenario as you describe above?

The Danish 76mm guns/mount stockpiles seem to be from likely the 1970's to 1980's, and very likely seems to have been a combination of improper maintenance or breakdowns due to age. From what I can see, the mounts/guns off the Halifax are partially original as BAE Systems received a contract to upgrade them from Mk 2 to Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 config for the FELEX upgrade package. The guns/mounts went abroad from 2010 to 2016, before being returned to Canada. They are likely still good if we keep rotating our ammunition stocks however by the time the Halifax class are retired, penny pinching for a relatively cheap system being reused seems like a poor bargain.

 

[Stoker]

How old will our 57's be by the time we build the CDC's (if they get built) and we decide to reuse the 57's on the new CDC's? Would we be risking the same scenario as you describe above?

Like the 76mm and the 5" they replaced the 57's will probably be returned to the manufacturer.

 

[Kirkhill]

With the deepest respect, I really don't care if we are the worst or not. We just need to be better. IMHO this is an example of where Canada needs to choose, militarily, what it wants to be. Do we want to meet the standard or do we want to exceed it ?

What is the role of the standard?

If I need one unit permanently available and I only have one unit in inventory then I need that unit to be available 100% of the time.

But if reality intrudes and I can only make it available 33% of the time then I need three units. And if, over time it becomes harder to meet the 33% standard and availability starts heading towards 25% then I need to add another unit to my fleet.

Is a standard a standard for a standard's sake or does it reflect a real world imperative?

 

[Halifax Tar]

What is the role of the standard?

If I need one unit permanently available and I only have one unit in inventory then I need that unit to be available 100% of the time.

But if reality intrudes and I can only make it available 33% of the time then I need three units. And if, over time it becomes harder to meet the 33% standard and availability starts heading towards 25% then I need to add another unit to my fleet.

Is a standard a standard for a standard's sake or does it reflect a real world imperative?

You can substitute my use of the word standard with average.

 

[AmmoTech90]

AMMO Does get produced in batches and are tracked by batch lots, to track things like this. It would be interesting know what came out of any batch lot reporting. @AmmoTech90 you are better at this than me if you want to weigh in...

Yep ammo is produced in lots, sometimes batched together. You are only allowed to use so many different component lots (say battery, booster, electronics) in a single overall lot. Sometimes it's one component lot, sometimes it's more depending on the exact item. The idea behind this is, if you can track the failure source down to a single component, only the full items that have the component need to be restricted/repaired/destroyed. This is also why there can be a mass restriction on all lots at first, until the problem is found. The risk assessment from the initial failure also has an impact on the initial action. A few more SAA misfires than normal on a weekend range, probably a local restriction on that lot and inform higher so other areas can be monitored. A grenade goes bang when the pin is pulled, all grenade training stops across the CAF. You have several premature detonations with 105 How HE and that entire model of fuze is restricted.

I guess what I was trying to ask and didn't do a good job of was, can you 'tell' by looking at the shells if there would be the potential that there was an issue with the proximately fuses or is the only way to know that there was an issue was to fire them?

You can look and, in the old days you could sometimes see. This was when prox fuzes had a liquid electrolyte that could leak. Most now are powered by a thermal battery with a solid electrolyte that is melted by a squib, or by a turbine. Obvious signs of corrosion would remove a specific item from service, and all similar items would be inspected to see if it is only a problem with that item, or the entire nature, or maybe the magazine is leaky.
In the CAF there are periodic inspections on all natures of ammo. A statistically significant sample is taken and inspected. Sometimes it is only visual, sometimes more invasive. Link ammo is tested to see that it flows smoothly. I've taken fuzes apart and checked the torque on internal fasteners (gets boring fast after the first 20). X-ray and high performance liquid chomatography is also used.
Proof is also a quality assurance tool that involves functioning the item in controlled, monitored conditions. For C4 we made little balls of a particular weight, conditioned them to various temperatures and then detonated them. Smoke grenades we timed the delay, timed the emission duration, and assessed the quality of the smoke. PETE Nicolet (used to?) proofs the big stuff as they have instrumented ranges. Often proof tests are carried out only when there is a problem as it is very expensive and the need for it can be reduced by good periodic inspections.

 

[AmmoTech90]

To add, you can also have premature functioning of shells depending on the filling. The Brits have/had a particular shell that has internal felt pads at the bottom to act as shock absorbers.