New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Underway]

Does that have an impact on top speed? I would think so, but rely on your expertise.

Max speed calculation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Longships are faster than stubby ones (physics!). Of course, there are sea-keeping characteristics involved which is why we don't have pencil-shaped ships.

All that being said moving a big object requires power. More weight requires more power for the same speed. I don't believe the CSC will have the power to reach its max speed for its hull form. I suspect not as Halifax classes are listed to be faster with a shorter hull. Given more weight, it would make sense all other things being equal the ship would have a lower max speed, definitely lower acceleration.

I would think a CSC hull form given enough power could go 30+ knots before it tops out as they are a similar size to an Arleigh Burke, which uses four GT's to make 30+ knots. Burkes can outrace a CPF over longer distances. (CPF's have them in the sprint though as their acceleration is significantly higher).

However, CSC just needs to reach the min speed of the requirements 27 knots and doesn't require the massive power to go faster. At some point, you just have diminishing returns as the fuel is burned away at a ridiculous rate.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Max speed calculation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Longships are faster than stubby ones (physics!). Of course, there are sea-keeping characteristics involved which is why we don't have pencil-shaped ships.

All that being said moving a big object requires power. More weight requires more power for the same speed. I don't believe the CSC will have the power to reach its max speed for its hull form. I suspect not as Halifax classes are listed to be faster with a shorter hull. Given more weight, it would make sense all other things being equal the ship would have a lower max speed, definitely lower acceleration.

I would think a CSC hull form given enough power could go 30+ knots before it tops out as they are a similar size to an Arleigh Burke, which uses four GT's to make 30+ knots. Burkes can outrace a CPF over longer distances. (CPF's have them in the sprint though as their acceleration is significantly higher).

However, CSC just needs to reach the min speed of the requirements 27 knots and doesn't require the massive power to go faster. At some point, you just have diminishing returns as the fuel is burned away at a ridiculous rate.

'Full power' is a bit of a moving target and completely depends on the environmental conditions. There are a bunch of limiting conditions and sometimes you hit 'full power' well below 'top speed' (ie when it's hot outside you exhaust gas temp is a problem, and you lose efficiency because the intake air is less dense). Alternately, on a nicely cold day with flat conditions you can exceed 'top speed' with a bit of room to spare on the engine parameters. Usually that's when everyone in the MCR gets kind of giddy, the trial becomes a GT nerd-fest, and the team figures out how to tweak the engines manually to go even faster.

The effective ship length changes as well with the displacement, so it's a bit of black magic to figure all that out.

I'm sure whatever the top speed is the ship will have a bit of a power margin above that if it's a deliverable, but they'll be watching the design margins to make sure they can safely make it.

Pretty crazy though when you are running in that area; doubling your power will only get you a few extra knots, and it goes up exponentially from there.

 

[Underway]

'Full power' is a bit of a moving target and completely depends on the environmental conditions. There are a bunch of limiting conditions and sometimes you hit 'full power' well below 'top speed' (ie when it's hot outside you exhaust gas temp is a problem, and you lose efficiency because the intake air is less dense). Alternately, on a nicely cold day with flat conditions you can exceed 'top speed' with a bit of room to spare on the engine parameters. Usually that's when everyone in the MCR gets kind of giddy, the trial becomes a GT nerd-fest, and the team figures out how to tweak the engines manually to go even faster.

The effective ship length changes as well with the displacement, so it's a bit of black magic to figure all that out.

I'm sure whatever the top speed is the ship will have a bit of a power margin above that if it's a deliverable, but they'll be watching the design margins to make sure they can safely make it.

Pretty crazy though when you are running in that area; doubling your power will only get you a few extra knots, and it goes up exponentially from there.

Haha GT nerdfest made me laugh. The whole ship cheers on the MCR in their efforts. Gotta go faster than Freddie, break the record!

The best way I ever saw this doubling of power math was on the MCDV's. 8 knots = 1 Diesel alternator. 12 knots = 2DA, 14 knots = 3 DA, 15 knots = 4DA.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Haha GT nerdfest made me laugh. The whole ship cheers on the MCR in their efforts. Gotta go faster than Freddie, break the record!

The best way I ever saw this doubling of power math was on the MCDV's. 8 knots = 1 Diesel alternator. 12 knots = 2DA, 14 knots = 3 DA, 15 knots = 4DA.

If it's not a state secret...what was Freddie's record???

With reference to doubling engine power, there's also the Ivar Huitfeldt vs Absalon example. It took exactly twice the engines and commensurately twice the power to make the hull go from a 24kt top end to 30 kts. I think that's fascinating.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Haha GT nerdfest made me laugh. The whole ship cheers on the MCR in their efforts. Gotta go faster than Freddie, break the record!

The best way I ever saw this doubling of power math was on the MCDV's. 8 knots = 1 Diesel alternator. 12 knots = 2DA, 14 knots = 3 DA, 15 knots = 4DA.

It was pretty funny to be in the MCR when we were doing it on the 280s; they had these stupid little joysticks that would snap off at the drop of a hat for a manual input, so in the manual remote mode you'd have a bunch of old school stokers crowded around with one person trying to get another few hundred RPM in. It's was pretty fun, and we managed to hit 28.1 knots on IMCS (with an astern wind for help on an almost mirror flat day), but you could literally watch the analogue fuel gauges drop on the service tanks. Think I still have a page print somewhere in my ph6 package.

Far less dramatic on the CPFs as the LM2500s have a lot more safeties built into the controller. With the 280s if you went full local there was a knob to turn that was connected directly to the throttle via a cable. Aside from the on-engine fuel controls, there wasn't anything really in place, so the pucker factor was a lot higher.

 

[Dana381]

I heard lots of stories like this when I lived in P.E.I. The fisherman there had a horsepower race. You would hear of guys removing a 150HP Perkins engine and putting a 400+ HP Cat engine with new bigger props and all and only gaining 1-2 knots max speed. The hull has a limit that is near impossible to best, especially in a wooden lobster boat. All they accomplished was lightening their wallets to pay the much bigger fuel bills.

 

[FJAG]

Max speed calculation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Longships are faster than stubby ones (physics!). Of course, there are sea-keeping characteristics involved which is why we don't have pencil-shaped ships.

All that being said moving a big object requires power. More weight requires more power for the same speed. I don't believe the CSC will have the power to reach its max speed for its hull form. I suspect not as Halifax classes are listed to be faster with a shorter hull. Given more weight, it would make sense all other things being equal the ship would have a lower max speed, definitely lower acceleration.

I would think a CSC hull form given enough power could go 30+ knots before it tops out as they are a similar size to an Arleigh Burke, which uses four GT's to make 30+ knots. Burkes can outrace a CPF over longer distances. (CPF's have them in the sprint though as their acceleration is significantly higher).

However, CSC just needs to reach the min speed of the requirements 27 knots and doesn't require the massive power to go faster. At some point, you just have diminishing returns as the fuel is burned away at a ridiculous rate.

So Scotty recalibrating the dilithium crystals in the warp drive to get beyond warp factor 9.99 is a real thing, eh?

 

[Underway]

If it's not a state secret...what was Freddie's record??

30+ knots

So Scotty recalibrating the dilithium crystals in the warp drive to get beyond warp factor 9.99 is a real thing, eh?

No, because USS Enterprise NCC-1701 maxed out at warp 8.0 unless acted upon by some external phenomenon.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I heard lots of stories like this when I lived in P.E.I. The fisherman there had a horsepower race. You would hear of guys removing a 150HP Perkins engine and putting a 400+ HP Cat engine with new bigger props and all and only gaining 1-2 knots max speed. The hull has a limit that is near impossible to best, especially in a wooden lobster boat. All they accomplished was lightening their wallets to pay the much bigger fuel bills.

There are a series of tug boat races in various spots that get up to blistering speeds like 8, and maybe even 9 knots.... pretty funny to see, but I love to see them work and just spin around on a dime.

 

[Grimey]

It was pretty funny to be in the MCR when we were doing it on the 280s; they had these stupid little joysticks that would snap off at the drop of a hat for a manual input, so in the manual remote mode you'd have a bunch of old school stokers crowded around with one person trying to get another few hundred RPM in. It's was pretty fun, and we managed to hit 28.1 knots on IMCS (with an astern wind for help on an almost mirror flat day), but you could literally watch the analogue fuel gauges drop on the service tanks. Think I still have a page print somewhere in my ph6 package.

Far less dramatic on the CPFs as the LM2500s have a lot more safeties built into the controller. With the 280s if you went full local there was a knob to turn that was connected directly to the throttle via a cable. Aside from the on-engine fuel controls, there wasn't anything really in place, so the pucker factor was a lot higher.

Not quite true. The knob (really a glorified reostat) on the LOP provided an analogue signal to the servo stepping motor directly above the LOP. The back of the servo had a gear wheel that had the PLA cable attached to it. The servo had a handle that, with the electric brake released, gave you full mechanical input to the GT. On HUR in the late 90s, the servos were plagued with ground faults which often caused engine trips. Solution during specials was to throttle the GT completely in hand. Left Singapore like that in ‘97 with the opposite shaft locked. Pucker factor? You have no idea

 

[FJAG]

30+ knots


No, because USS Enterprise NCC-1701 maxed out at warp 8.0 unless acted upon by some external phenomenon.

View attachment 65823

I humbly stand corrected. It seems it wasn't until the NCC-1701E that one exceeds the 9.99 barrier. So that would be Geordi doing that.

Is the Orville really faster than the USS Enterprise? - Science vs Hollywood

Warp drive - Wikipedia

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) - Wikipedia

 

[Good2Golf]

There are a series of tug boat races in various spots that get up to blistering speeds like 8, and maybe even 9 knots.... pretty funny to see, but I love to see them work and just spin around on a dime.

The Netherlands has an annual tugboat regatta, and the best part is the bollard pull competition…not speed.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not quite true. The knob (really a glorified reostat) on the LOP provided an analogue signal to the servo stepping motor directly above the LOP. The back of the servo had a gear wheel that had the PLA cable attached to it. The servo had a handle that, with the electric brake released, gave you full mechanical input to the GT. On HUR in the late 90s, the servos were plagued with ground faults which often caused engine trips. Solution during specials was to throttle the GT completely in hand. Left Singapore like that in ‘97 with the opposite shaft locked. Pucker factor? You have no idea

Thanks! Was a bit fuzzy on the specifics after a few years. Those ground fault trips were nuts, there was an intermittent one on ATH that would randomly trip on the the mains. The IMCS tech finally managed to catch it come in and fix it, think it was on a fuel valve indicator switch or something, but took over a year. Hard to track down a fault that will ruin your day then disappear.

 

[suffolkowner]

Cost of used icebreakers Ottawa is purchasing from Quebec shipyard nears $1B mark | Globalnews.ca

The most recent cash infusion came last week as the government handed Davie another $68.9 million to continue converting and upgrading the icebreakers.

globalnews.ca

another $68.9M increase for the 3 Viking refits, from $610M original to $912M.

Still wish they would pull the trigger on the Aiviq

http://www.davie.ca/pdf/Aiviq.pdf

Trump Administration May Lease Icebreakers for U.S. Coast Guard

The Trump administration is considering options for leasing one or more foreign-built commercial ice...

www.maritime-executive.com

Trump administration may hire private ship to fill Arctic ‘icebreaker gap’ by year’s end

The Trump White House is racing to lease an icebreaker, and one of the candidates is a ship with a notorious Alaska past owned by a Republican mega-donor. Sen. Dan Sullivan said he spoke to the White House national security advisor and learned the administration is considering leasing a medium-wei

www.rcinet.ca

Aiviq: Pride of Shell’s Alaskan drilling fleet – Professional Mariner

www.professionalmariner.com

 

[Good2Golf]

You know when your gensets are 3512s, you’re big kid on the block…

 

[Stoker]

Cost of used icebreakers Ottawa is purchasing from Quebec shipyard nears $1B mark | Globalnews.ca

The most recent cash infusion came last week as the government handed Davie another $68.9 million to continue converting and upgrading the icebreakers.

globalnews.ca

another $68.9M increase for the 3 Viking refits, from $610M original to $912M.

Still wish they would pull the trigger on the Aiviq

http://www.davie.ca/pdf/Aiviq.pdf

Trump Administration May Lease Icebreakers for U.S. Coast Guard

The Trump administration is considering options for leasing one or more foreign-built commercial ice...

www.maritime-executive.com

Trump administration may hire private ship to fill Arctic ‘icebreaker gap’ by year’s end

The Trump White House is racing to lease an icebreaker, and one of the candidates is a ship with a notorious Alaska past owned by a Republican mega-donor. Sen. Dan Sullivan said he spoke to the White House national security advisor and learned the administration is considering leasing a medium-wei

www.rcinet.ca

Aiviq: Pride of Shell’s Alaskan drilling fleet – Professional Mariner

www.professionalmariner.com

Its impressive but only breaks 1M of ice.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Its impressive but only breaks 1M of ice.

Which is exactly the same capability as the Coast Guard medium icebreakers (class 1200 - or Pierre Radisson class, as you wish to call them) they are meant to replace while they go into very extensive refits or retirement. It is also a higher ice class than the AOPS.

 

[Weinie]

Its impressive but only breaks 1M of ice.

Stoker, I have the signed 5/500 of your avatar that was given to me by Silvia Pecota, signed by her and Kate Steen(the model). I met Kate on several occasions, she is gorgeous.

 

[Stoker]

Which is exactly the same capability as the Coast Guard medium icebreakers (class 1200 - or Pierre Radisson class, as you wish to call them) they are meant to replace while they go into very extensive refits or retirement. It is also a higher ice class than the AOPS.

AOPS will break 1.2M compared to 1M for Aiviq. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[suffolkowner]

AOPS will break 1.2M compared to 1M for Aiviq. That's what I'm talking about.

That does seem strange, is it a purposeful design thing as far as actual icebreaking versus I don't know ice cruising or maybe just downplaying that function? Maybe it does more than 1m in actuality?

Davie originally wanted to do the Aiviq and the three Vikings but Aiviq was not approved, probably because someone thought that the Louis St Laurent and Terry Fox could soldier on forever and that the Diefenbaker would be coming online as well.

http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Project-Resolute_Briefing-Presentation.pdf

What ever happened with the river icebreaker we were looking at leasing?

Also I am going to have to google your avatar now