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

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
Good2Golf said:
If the Royal Research Society doesn't jump on the name for its icebreaker, perhaps HMCS Boaty McBoatface could be used for one of the more boaty-looking boats of the future fleet?  :D

RRS Usain Boat and RRS Boat Marley and the Whalers were my 2nd and third choices.
 
Just a slight tangent (or maybe just a tack) with an article that illustrates some of how the other half lives.  I knew the original Starbound (prior to her update) and a lot of Guido Perla's other ships, all of which, to my knowledge are still in service.

http://www.fishermensnews.com/story/2016/04/01/features/cp-starbound-conversion/384.html




Some takeaway numbers:

New build - 100 to 150 MUSD
Displacement - 4571 LT
Length - 300 ft
Power - 4650 kW (2550 kW shaft propulsion reserve, 1800 kW shaft cogeneration).

Service Life to Date - 25 years (All in the North Pacific and Bering Sea)


April 1, 2016 | Vol 72, No 04

s_topTEMP325x350-1036.jpeg



Starbound dockside at Dakota Creek Industries after completion of the lengthening project. Photo courtesy of Dakota Creek Industries, Inc.

In the past two decades, there has been a paradigm shift in global fishing regulations that has incentivized the construction of large fishing vessels capable of bringing ship owners higher profits through economies of scale. Following the moratorium on all large pelagic driftnet fishing vessels ratified internationally in 1991, new fishing regulations focus on catch quotas rather than fishing vessel size restrictions to ensure sustainable fisheries.

With vessel size restrictions lifted, owners can now opt to build large vessels incorporating machinery that extends their processing capability. Among the most common technologies driving interest in large vessels are fish meal plants that process fish scraps – typically thrown overboard in decades past – into fish oil and fish meal.

Fish oil can be used for auxiliary power and steam generation aboard fishing vessels and in a wide range of consumer products shore-side. Fish meal is used regularly as a fertilizer in agriculture, and its sale can increase the profitability of some vessels by almost 30 percent.

At the same time, the Pacific Northwest fishing fleet is aging, and many owners are faced with the fiscal realities of replacement in the upcoming decade. As a result of the 1991 construction moratorium that nearly halted new building in the 1990s, at the time of writing the average catcher is approaching nearly 40 years of age. If the size of the present fleet is to be maintained into the future, ship owners could find themselves playing catch-up and spending cumulatively on the order of $16 billion in upcoming years on new vessels. For owners of the largest ships, the cost of a new build is significant, with some estimates at upwards of $150 million for a new catcher-processor. As a result, owners are seeking alternatives to new building that extend the life and capacity of their vessels, meanwhile hedging the risks inherent to a $100 million or more investment in an industry with an erratic regulatory past, volatile product markets, and an uncertain future.

Aleutian Spray Fisheries' catcher-processor C/P Starbound, a formerly 240-foot catcher-processor, has been operating faithfully between Seattle, Dutch Harbor, and the Alaska Pollock Fishery since her launch in 1989. She was originally constructed at Dakota Creek Industries (DCI) of Anacortes, Washington and designed by Guido Perla & Associates (GPA) of Seattle. Starbound was built through the collaborative efforts of Aleutian Spray Fisheries (ASF) owner Henry Swasand, a Norwegian immigrant naval architect and unmistakably American fisherman, Guido F. Perla, a naval architect based out of the Ballard Fishermen's Terminal at the time, and Dick Nelson, an esteemed shipbuilder at DCI. Swasand had acquired a Bergen diesel engine in the late 80s and wanted a catcher-processor in his fleet capable of replacing the predominantly foreign-owned processors that dominated the Alaska Pollock Fishery at the time. Perla and Nelson were happy to oblige.

At the time of her construction, the original Starbound design was shortened by the removal of parallel midbody due to budgetary constraints on the project. The fish processing deck was scaled down accordingly. The reduction in length over Perla's original design meant that there was no room at the time for a fish meal plant that would later become the state-of-the-art for catcher-processors.

After regulatory shifts toward catch quotas that necessitated increased processing efficiency, the need for a fish meal plant became apparent to Starbound's owners, which still includes the Swasand family.

In 2015, GPA was contracted to begin design on a new 60-foot midbody section to extend Starbound to 300 feet overall. ASF's team of Cary Swasand and Starbound Captain Karl Bratvold, with Cory Kaldestad and Chief Engineer Henry Vanderbeek, approached GPA and DCI to perform the feasibility study and ultimately the conversion.

ASF deemed conversion preferable to new construction for several reasons. For one, Starbound had been impeccably maintained by ASF over her 25 years at sea, and where conversion may not have made sense for many older vessels because of corrosion and other wear-and-tear, Starbound's framing and shell plating was wonderfully preserved in spite of her age. In addition, the fact that Starbound's scantlings had originally been designed to suit a longer vessel made the lengthening even more feasible. Finally, conversion made great fiscal sense. ASF did not need additional capacity on Starbound for finished fillets and surimi – no provision was made during the lengthening to increase cargo space for this purpose. Rather, because the catch is limited by quotas both owned and leased, ASF merely needed to increase the capacity of Starbound for downstream products: fish meal and fish oil. A 60-foot midbody addition would give ASF a means of maximizing their profits for each catch quota at less than half the cost of a new vessel offering the same capability.

Prior to conversion, Starbound measured 240 feet overall with a beam of 48 feet and a load line displacement of 3,802 LT. After conversion, her overall length measured 300 feet and her displacement increased to 4,571 LT. The boat was cut at frame 64-1/2, deemed the best location for the cut because a cut there preserved an unloading elevator trunk serving the forward fish cargo hold and was located at the location of the side tangents where the parallel midbody could be integrated with the least impact.

Hull scans were taken at the location of the incision to establish the shell plating seam locations and the heights of the decks. Scantling design for the new midbody was carried out according to Det Norske Veritas' steel vessel rules.

A new Haarslev-designed fish meal plant, replete with two fish meal storage holds offering a combined capacity of 21,800 ft3, a structurally integrated raw material hopper, and a structurally integrated control room, were added to the new midbody below the main deck. A new Marel processing plant, with updated surimi processing capability provided by the addition of a new bank of plate freezers, was added to the fish processing plant on the main deck. On the upper deck, deckhouses were expanded to make room for a fire suppression room, a reverse osmosis fresh water plant room, two hydraulic machinery rooms, and two sugar storage rooms holding 40 metric tons of sugar. A break room was also expanded.

Elsewhere on Starbound, new rooms were added aft of the existing superstructure at the cabin deck to accommodate a stateroom with four more berths and a ship's office. An office was relocated from the upper deck to the cabin deck to make room for yet another new stateroom accommodating two more berths on the upper deck. Also on the cabin deck, in anticipation of the lengthening, ASF installed two new Rapp GSW10000 Gilson winches offering up to 50 tons of pull – an increase of 20 tons over the previously installed winches. The Gilson blocks were redesigned as sheaves hard mounted to the Gilson gantry at the urging of Bratvold and Vanderbeek, who realized the advantages in swing and noise reduction over their original pad eye and shackle-supported blocks.

A new hydraulic crane replaced the original deck crane on the starboard side of the vessel at the foc'sle deck and will serve as an unloading crane for fish meal stored in the fish meal holds below the main deck. By design, fish meal coming off the bagging line will be bagged and packed into 1.4 ton supersacks and then moved via conveyor to one of the fish meal holds (port or starboard, outboard of the plant). From the conveyor's terminus at the aft position in the holds, one of the 2-ton American Crane Co. bridge cranes will move the supersacks forward and aft and facilitate stacking within each hold. During unloading, supersacks can be moved fore, aft, and athwartships to the starboard unloading trunk, where the new Rapp crane will pick the bag and place it shoreside.

s_bottomTEMP325x350-7851.jpeg


(LEFT ABOVE) Starbound under construction at Dakota Creek Industries of Anacortes, Washington in 1989.
A final component of the Starbound lengthening was an extensive repower and total drive train replacement. Soon after Starbound began operating, the power required for towing her net so taxed the original 2,550 kW Bergen BRM-6 engine that the shaft-driven generator was effectively decommissioned in place. To accommodate increased power demand and reinstate the use of the shaft generator, ASF selected an MaK 9M32E delivering 4,650 kW of power. With the original Baylor M446LTT-324 shaft-driven generator overhauled and re-installed, up to 1,800 kW of power can be diverted to power Starbound's electrical equipment. 2,550 kW reserved for propulsion and delivered via a new Reintjes reduction gear with a new shaft and a new controllable pitch propeller. Pursuant to the repower, the exhaust system was also completely overhauled. A new boiler was installed.

With Starbound's conversion complete, she will no doubt provide years of faithful service to ASF and her crew. When she was first constructed, Starbound's legacy as an American designed, built, and owned vessel was foremost in the minds of Swasand, Perla, and Nelson. As Perla puts it: "American history is based on smart people getting together to achieve a goal and [the Starbound lengthening project has] honored that history of American ingenuity."

Matthew Groff is a graduate of Webb Institute and naval architect at Guido Perla & Associates (GPA) in Seattle, WA where he assumed the role of project manager for the Starbound project in October 2015.
 
I was getting a size reference from wiki on handymax and came across this interesting tidbit:

The cost of building a handymax is driven by the laws of supply and demand. In early 2007 the cost building a handymax was around $20,000,000. As the global economy boomed the cost doubled to over $40,000,000, as demand for vessels of all sizes exceeded available yard capacity. After the Global Economic Crisis in 2009 the cost fell back to $20M.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handymax

Interesting how the cost even for a "simple" ship can change so much.
 
1980 to 2000 steel at $300 to $400 per ton

CADC-g007.gif


2000 to 2001 steel declines to $225 per ton

CADC-g008.gif


2001 to 2004  steel spikes at $760 per ton

PR_FM.png


2012 steel at $500 per ton

2016 steel at $50 per ton

https://www.quandl.com/collections/markets/industrial-metals

Supply and demand - and the absence of China means

http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/06/uk-government-starts-search-for-buyer-for-tata-s-british-steel-interests/



 
Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Who’ll fix Canada’s new ships an open question

THE CHRONICLE HERALD
Published April 8, 2016 - 7:56pm

The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is the biggest capital project the Canadian government has ever undertaken, but the $39-billion price tag is only a portion of what will be spent on the ships over their lifespans.

Early projections put the personnel, operation and maintenance costs for the Canadian Surface Combatant ships alone at $65 billion over 30 years. No one knows for sure how much of that figure reflects the maintenance and repair costs but suffice to say a lot of money will be spent to keep the fleet up to snuff. Which raises the question: who will do the job?

According to the Department of Public Services and Procurement website, the repair, refit and maintenance contracts for all vessels bought under the NSPS will be competitively sourced through the normal procurement process, and will be open to all Canadian shipyards (including Seaspan and Irving, the two main shipbuilders.) The government has already announced the process for a $1.5-billion-plus contract that will cover repair, refit and maintenance for both the Arctic-Offshore Patrol Ship and Joint Support Ship for 35 years. The job, also known as in-service support, will be awarded in 2017, with the first two vessels in each class set to come into service in 2018 and 2019.

While the maintenance contracts can go to any of Canada’s handful of shipyards, Ken Hansen, former navy officer and Dalhousie security analyst, said the two yards actually building the NSPS vessels have significant advantages in bidding.

Whether or not that’s a bad thing depends on perspective.

“If you’re looking at them from the point of view of efficiency, then no. If you’re looking at it from the point of view of fairness, then possibly,” he said.

As the prime contractor for the warships, Irving will do some of the hiring of subcontractors, but maintenance contracts fall to the Naval Shipbuilding Projects Office, an arm of government. And the navy can do much of its own maintenance and repair.

Most ships’ crew can handle minor emergency fixes and other first-line maintenance. The government also operates two large dockyards, called Fleet Maintenance Facilities. The largest, FMF Cape Scott, is located in Halifax and a second, FMF Cape Breton, is in Esquimalt, B.C. They employ hundreds of skilled workers, both civilian and military, and have historically been responsible for what’s known as second-line maintenance. That includes repair, maintenance tasks that can’t be contracted out because of security concerns or lack of capability in the private sector. Large refits, modernization and life-extension projects have generally been done by private companies.

Though it’s unclear exactly how much work will be done by the navy’s fleet maintenance facilities, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence said in an emailed statement Friday that the government has established a Future of In-Service Support (FISS) program help transition from the current to future stat of providing in-service support.

“It will encompass the full spectrum of design, management, training and execution of all engineering and maintenance activity, ranging from what is done on board ships by the crew, to the delivery of more complicated aspects of maintenance done by the fleet maintenance facilities, to the work done by industry,” she said.

FISS will facilitate the integration of skill sets and infrastructure between the Crown and industry, ensuring critical repair capabilities are retained within the navy.

“Fleet maintenance facilities are a strategic asset for the government of Canada, and will continue to have a critical role in providing in-service support of the future fleets.”

Hansen said handing over repair and maintenance of navy vessels to the private sector is a trend that has been established by the in-service support contracts for the Victoria-class submarines and Kingston-class vessels, and that plans to maintain the NSPS ships in the same manner is another step away from reliance on the fleet maintenance facilities. This, he said, fits in with the “more teeth less tail” military models favoured by both the current and format government. In-Service support is also often framed as a cost-saving measure in that taxpayers aren't paying for the bigger workforce inside DND, but Hansen said that logic is a bit of a smokescreen, and that costs tend to rise as it becomes more difficult for private industry to complete the work as ships age.

“The pattern is now set, moving almost all maintenance and upgrading and major repair work out of DND and into commercial yards, and that means what is left for the FMF is the very short term, very specialized stuff. They used to be much more capable than that and the evidence with that is in the number of people they employ,” Hansen said.

Roger Chiasson, a retired navy captain and the former commanding officer of FMF Cape Scott, disagrees. He said in-house support will continue to play an important role as a lot of second-line maintenance requires very quick turnarounds that private industry is not equipped to do. Moreover, there are situations where contracting work out privately would be extremely unwise from a security standpoint.

Fleet maintenance facilities employ fewer people than they did when Chaisson ran FMF Cape Scott in the early 90s. Then there were 1,500 regular employees and about 200 others, compared to 1,200 there now.

But the change occurred as a result of contracting out non-core capabilities and natural fleet changes and does not indicate a trend that will result less reliance on navy-run dockyards in the future, he said.

“That decline stopped five to 10 years ago. Both dockyards have been in very steady shape as far as employee levels for quite a few years,” he said.

“There are situations where you can’t expect (private industry) to respond with the speed or the skillsets that are required to meet the threats. The whole idea of the navy having a support element is to be able to respond to whatever the government requires of you.”

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1355421-who%E2%80%99ll-fix-canada%E2%80%99s-new-ships-an-open-question
 
Don't quite get what you're hinting at Colin.

Even though the Fleet Maintenance Facilities are named after the old depot ships (HMCS CAPE SCOTT and HMCS CAPE BRETON), they are shore based facilities. The actual depot ships were retired in the late 60's and early 70's, even though CAPE BRETON was, for a while, permanently moored at the tip of "C" jetty in Esquimalt so that some of its shops could continue to be used and so it could be used as barracks (The Naval reserve officers used to be quartered on board during the summer in the 70's and early 80's - when the actual ship was disposed of as artificial reef).

So we have not had depot ships for almost 40 years now. I have never heard any one claiming this imposed any limitations on the fleet.

One thing the article does not mention either is that more than just second line maintenance used to be done in the dockyards. When the DELEX refits on the IRE's and MACKENZIE's were done on the West Coast, it was a Dockyard job. Similarly, the various long refits, including SOUP, on the "O" boats on the East Coast used to be done in-house at the Dockyard, as were the "emergency" refits on the IRE's and IRO's that went to Gulf War I.
 
Cape Breton was still there in 99 when I was on my 3's.  I think Colin might be referring to Fleet Maintenance Group (FMG).  Their loss was a blow.
 
Hopefully FMF will having nothing to do with the PM contract for AOPS or the tankers. ISSC is way better to deal to get repairs done than dealing with FMF.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Cape Breton was still there in 99 when I was on my 3's.  I think Colin might be referring to Fleet Maintenance Group (FMG).  Their loss was a blow.

Considering the expeditionary nature of many of our naval taskings, would some sort of mobile unit that can repair the ships overseas be worthwhile?

As I see (correct or not) our oversea ships are either dependent on our allies or on a civilian dockyard for anything the crews can't handle alone. I suspect the damage repair we saw our HT do a little while back is likely one of the bigger jobs they have had to do and likely getting close to the maximum.

I can see the advantages in having a depot ship (built from a commercial hull) with cranes, workshops, spares to support our missions, it's mobile, not really dependent a great deal on shoreside and offers some security of components and sensitive equipment. The downside is that our fleet deployments are likely not big enough to justify the above.

what triggered the question was the growth in support from commercial firms and depletion of the skills and people in house. 
 
jollyjacktar said:
Cape Breton was still there in 99 when I was on my 3's.  I think Colin might be referring to Fleet Maintenance Group (FMG).  Their loss was a blow.

My bad, Jollyjacktar: Didn't quite express myself right. The "early 80's" reference was for its use as barracks for Naval Reserve officers (I think that ended in 86, after which everybody was sent to Venture directly), not the year of disposal of the ship herself. You are right on disposal date: She was sunk as reef in 2001.

And Colin, having some sort of mobile support unit might be a good idea, but we already are having a hard time providing the various type of engineers with a proper shore/ship employment ratio. If we do that and get them to sea even more than current rates, I think we'll get a mutiny on our hands.  :nod:
 
Just wait....we're going to see a bunch of engineering types coming available in the summer due to the re-org of the schools under NPTG.  We'll see a surge of (mostly) MS-CPO2 Engineering types and a few operators coming up for grabs. 

Imagine standing up a new version of the old FMG?
 
Good2Golf said:
If the Royal Research Society doesn't jump on the name for its icebreaker, perhaps HMCS Boaty McBoatface could be used for one of the more boaty-looking boats of the future fleet?  :D

Regards
G2G

p.s.  I agree with OGBD that whatever costing is presented should have as a primary purpose, to appropriately inform decision makers and public alike, on the costs of programs that the Government is about to invest in.  That said, the Government should also, for perspective's sake, provide information that indicates what an equivalent amount of life-cycle costs would be for the existing fleet.

Your wish may come true.  Boaty McBoatface did win the online poll (what else did they expect by asking the internet  ::)) and apparently the adults are not amused.  Surprise.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/boaty-mcboatface-boat-1.3541002

So the name might be up for grabs.  :nod:
 
They may just have to do a "John Scott" and live with the result of their own choice to put it up for grab on the internet.

Then again ... we all know that  the U.K. is not  a democracy, but  an "Aristocratic government tempered from time to time by general elections".  [:D
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
They may just have to do a "John Scott" and live with the result of their own choice to put it up for grab on the internet.

Then again ... we all know that  the U.K. is not  a democracy, but  an "Aristocratic government tempered from time to time by general elections".  [:D

I gather the guy that suggested it as a joke is sorry he did.  He voted for "David Attenborough".  I've heard of General Elections, he's a troublemaker...
 
Did we lock down the name for i-AOR yet? ;D
 
Good2Golf said:
Did we lock down the name for i-AOR yet? ;D

I'm seconding this one:
jollyjacktar said:
Your wish may come true.  Boaty McBoatface did win the online poll (what else did they expect by asking the internet  ::)) and apparently the adults are not amused.  Surprise.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/boaty-mcboatface-boat-1.3541002

So the name might be up for grabs.  :nod:
 

Attachments

  • HMCS-BMBF.gif
    HMCS-BMBF.gif
    24.5 KB · Views: 447
Will Resolve  even be an HMCS as opposed to an MV? When is the last time the RCN leased a ship and commissioned it with its own RCN designated name? HMCS Magnificent? Which was not, by the way, privately owned... 

BTW, found a neat image of the Resolve Project  today, rescuing what appear to be migrants at sea ... very Canadian....
 

Attachments

  • Resolve.PNG
    Resolve.PNG
    924.2 KB · Views: 1,797
Back
Top