New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

I do not know why they don't build a loading arm at the VLS deck that can reach all the hatches to load remove and load missiles. A bit of a pain but workable to make a set up that works. Then you can jackstay, helo over Missiles to the for deck/ launch deck. Use your fancy lift arm to load your self. You could even stack missile reloads on the deck if required.

A missile is a fairly fragile item and if things go wrong it will be very unfun and expensive.

 

[Underway]

I do not know why they don't build a loading arm at the VLS deck that can reach all the hatches to load remove and load missiles. A bit of a pain but workable to make a set up that works. Then you can jackstay, helo over Missiles to the for deck/ launch deck. Use your fancy lift arm to load your self. You could even stack missile reloads on the deck if required.

Tried it and discarded it. The 280's had such a device and it was deemed to risky to reload a VLS at sea. To much chance of a misalignment from what I understand leading to a restrained firing or just damage to the missile canister.

 

[NavyShooter]

Having loaded missile cannisters into the Halifax class, and watched them be loaded into the cells of a US Arleigh Burke while deployed (we were alongside, so were they) I will observe that when alongside, with the right crane operator, things go very smoothly.

The AB was being reloaded after strikes on Libya - she came alongside for about 6 hours, and in that time she fueled concurrently with ammunitioning ship. They had a lineup of tractor trailers with BGM-109 cannisters on the beds. It took about 10-12 minutes per missile to pull the empty cannister and put the new one in its place.

Having watched how we do it at CFAD, vs how it can be done in theatre was amazing. The Navy would be absolutely incapable of considering the concept of 'speed' and 'concurrent activity'. They did in 6 hours what would have taken us 2-3 days.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Having loaded missile cannisters into the Halifax class, and watched them be loaded into the cells of a US Arleigh Burke while deployed (we were alongside, so were they) I will observe that when alongside, with the right crane operator, things go very smoothly.

The AB was being reloaded after strikes on Libya - she came alongside for about 6 hours, and in that time she fueled concurrently with ammunitioning ship. They had a lineup of tractor trailers with BGM-109 cannisters on the beds. It took about 10-12 minutes per missile to pull the empty cannister and put the new one in its place.

Having watched how we do it at CFAD, vs how it can be done in theatre was amazing. The Navy would be absolutely incapable of considering the concept of 'speed' and 'concurrent activity'. They did in 6 hours what would have taken us 2-3 days.

No cigarettes in your pocket old boy! You're handling boxes of 5.56 lol

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No cigarettes in your pocket old boy! You're handling boxes of 5.56 lol

Not to say that we should be nonchalant when handling ammunition, some of the regulations seem to date back to the days of black powder…

 

[NavyShooter]

No cigarettes in your pocket old boy! You're handling boxes of 5.56 lol

One box per person. Must have a shot mat at the foot of the ladder...must have safety dude with a fire hose....

Did you know that when I was tasked to come up with a plan for re-ammoing MON in 2013 with our 680 rounds of Force Protection Ammo that we had to move from D-40 to the ship (all within dockyard) I initially proposed that it be hand-carried with a fire-truck following to ensure safety and to provide the immediate ability to extinguish any fires that might occur if the ammo box got dropped?

(Proposed specifically to poke holes in how stupidly the RCN does ammo transfers....)

That said, there have been 2 Halifax explosions...both military ammunition/explosives related, so I do understand some of the caution.

 

[Halifax Tar]

One box per person. Must have a shot mat at the foot of the ladder...must have safety dude with a fire hose....

Did you know that when I was tasked to come up with a plan for re-ammoing MON in 2013 with our 680 rounds of Force Protection Ammo that we had to move from D-40 to the ship (all within dockyard) I initially proposed that it be hand-carried with a fire-truck following to ensure safety and to provide the immediate ability to extinguish any fires that might occur if the ammo box got dropped?

(Proposed specifically to poke holes in how stupidly the RCN does ammo transfers....)

That said, there have been 2 Halifax explosions...both military ammunition/explosives related, so I do understand some of the caution.

Ya we are comical at times. I remember standing watch in a tower at the PDC with grenades, linked and ball while chain puffing a DuMaurier Lights, for some reason I didn't spontaneously combust.

They way the RCN see it you would expect the woods to be exploding from Sept - Dec with all the hunters packing ammo and smoking.

But you're right, we did blow up good portions of the city a couple times lol

 

[FSTO]

Ya we are comical at times. I remember standing watch in a tower at the PDC with grenades, linked and ball while chain puffing a DuMaurier Lights, for some reason I didn't spontaneously combust.

They way the RCN see it you would expect the woods to be exploding from Sept - Dec with all the hunters packing ammo and smoking.

But you're right, we did blow up good portions of the city a couple times lol

Au contrair mon ami. The first one was the dasterdly French and indifferent Belgians!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ya we are comical at times. I remember standing watch in a tower at the PDC with grenades, linked and ball while chain puffing a DuMaurier Lights, for some reason I didn't spontaneously combust.

They way the RCN see it you would expect the woods to be exploding from Sept - Dec with all the hunters packing ammo and smoking.

But you're right, we did blow up good portions of the city a couple times lol

Actually it was civy's that blew up the city with their handling and navigation. Can't blame that on the RCN. The USN had a very bad accident in Pearl Harbour while loading ammunition onto LST's West Loch disaster - Wikipedia

 

[Underway]

UESO here...

Reloading missiles takes only a few hours if the weather is nice, and a good portion of that time is flipping the ship.

If you have two cranes you can do missiles and torps concurently and it takes about 6 -8 hours.

The limiting factor is crane operations IMHO. Good operator things are slick. Cranky operator things take much longer.

I'm not going to disagree with the ammo safety irritation. Things are better in the fleet since I joined though. We are no longer applying CFAD rules to transfers within the ship and within dockyard.

 

[Navy_Pete]

UESO here...

Reloading missiles takes only a few hours if the weather is nice, and a good portion of that time is flipping the ship.

If you have two cranes you can do missiles and torps concurently and it takes about 6 -8 hours.

The limiting factor is crane operations IMHO. Good operator things are slick. Cranky operator things take much longer.

I'm not going to disagree with the ammo safety irritation. Things are better in the fleet since I joined though. We are no longer applying CFAD rules to transfers within the ship and within dockyard.

Ironically a lot of the CFADs don't seem to have dedicated fire detection/suppression systems in the magazines, and the standoff distance for some of the potential blasts is insane.

Edit: Insane as in huge, not unreasonable. If something goes wrong good luck getting outside the blast area. Still don't understand why we treat small arms ammo (espcially in small quantities) like it's blocks of really unstable HE.

 

[Stoker]

Ironically a lot of the CFADs don't seem to have dedicated fire detection/suppression systems in the magazines, and the standoff distance for some of the potential blasts is insane.

Edit: Insane as in huge, not unreasonable. If something goes wrong good luck getting outside the blast area. Still don't understand why we treat small arms ammo (espcially in small quantities) like it's blocks of really unstable HE.

I guess CFAD never read Hatchers notebook in relation to small arms ammo.

 

[Underway]

Ironically a lot of the CFADs don't seem to have dedicated fire detection/suppression systems in the magazines, and the standoff distance for some of the potential blasts is insane.

Edit: Insane as in huge, not unreasonable. If something goes wrong good luck getting outside the blast area. Still don't understand why we treat small arms ammo (espcially in small quantities) like it's blocks of really unstable HE.

This is one of the challenges in building the new Ammo Jetty on the West coast. Their NEQ numbers (basically how many kg of explosives for those who don't know that acronym) the jetty can take is restricted by how close they build it to the edges of the base. There is a subdivision not to far from there so the closer the jetty is to that the lower the amount of ammo they are allowed on the jetty at one time.

Conversly if they try to build the jetty to maximize NEQ it will be out of the bay and subject to greater wind/weather reducing the days where you can actually do good work on an ammo transfer.

JSS and CSC both require a very high NEQ to be loaded. Some big time design tradeoffs. Or they change NEQ policy and assume more risk.

My issue with NEQ is that it doesn't account for sensitivity of munitions and likelyhood of an accident. I think the Technical Authorities are using it to broadly and there needs to be more granularity. But I'm don't have the fancy ammo badge on my chest so my opinion is certainly subject to change if someone were to point out info I missed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I guess CFAD never read Hatchers notebook in relation to small arms ammo.

Nor likely SAAMI testing results

 

[AmmoTech90]

Ironically a lot of the CFADs don't seem to have dedicated fire detection/suppression systems in the magazines, and the standoff distance for some of the potential blasts is insane.

What! Spend money on log stuff! Inconceivable!

The CAF won't buy enough trucks to keep the combat arms supplied. Why would they spend on non deployable facilities.

Safety dorks are going to safety dork. However it is a slippery slope for soldiers, sailors, and aviators to start cutting corners. 5.56 is ok to abuse, 20mm is just bigger 5.56, 57mm is just bigger...etc. I have seen people do redicuously stupid things because, "I didn't thing x would happen." 30 years of seeing people hurt but abusing arty sims, every safety brief mentions how dangerous they are...shocked, burnt, Pikachu face after trying to burn one is the result.

IM is cool. See my comment above about spending money on log stuff....

 

[Kirkhill]

MAERSK doesn't design ships nor build them. They are a shipping company not a shipbuilding one and buy ships off the assembly line in Korea generally.

As far as ships being modified, the hull design for CSC and JSS aren't changing and the internal layouts are staying relatively the same (with a few modifications) from 1 deck down. AOPS was a scratch build.

MAERSK used to build ships at Odense in Denmark. The yard was called the Odense Steel Shipyard. The last ships designed and built by Maersk at that yard were the Ivar Huitfeldts in 2012. When the yard closed the design business continued as OMT - Odense Maritime Technology.

Odense Steel Shipyard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OMT – · Welcome · Odense Maritime Technology

odensemaritime.com

Arctic offshore patrol vessels for royal canadian navy – OMT

odensemaritime.com

HMCS Harry DeWolf is an Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship designed by OMT and built by Irving Halifax Shipyard.

Next-generation frigate for royal navy – OMT

odensemaritime.com

OMT is part of the team selected by UK Ministry Of defence as the winner for the Type 31 General Purpose Frigate programme.

Edit: It was Maersk's experience turning out multiples of ships to a single design that was generally credited with its ability to produce the Absolons and the Huitfeldts at the costs they did - well below naval norms.

191	Support ship	Absalon (L16)	Danish Navy	6,300	25 February 2004
192	Support ship	Esbern Snare (L17)	Danish Navy	6,300	24 June 2004

714	Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate	Iver Huitfeldt (F361)	Danish Navy	6,645	21 January 2011
715	Peter Willemoes (F362)	Danish Navy	6,645	23 June 2011
716	Niels Juel (F363)	Danish Navy	6,645	12 January 2012

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Also equipping them with old weapons and sensors from predecessors if I recall correctly?

 

[Kirkhill]

Also equipping them with old weapons and sensors from predecessors if I recall correctly?

You mean they designed them and constructed them so that they could equip them with what they had and then replace them with upgrades when they became available? And supplied them with lots of extra freeboard.

 

[Rainbow1910]

It was Maersk's experience turning out multiples of ships to a single design that was generally credited with its ability to produce the Absolons and the Huitfeldts at the costs they did - well below naval norms.

I wouldn't be so quick to lump praise of Maersk for being so competent and skilled that they managed to keep costs down through their expertise alone, there was serious cost saving measures put into place that most people seem to forget.

Like the fact that the Iver Huitfeldt class was not solely built in Denmark but rather was constructed in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania before transported to Denmark for assembly and fit out of the modules. Employing the StanFlex system allows for the use of modular systems which further separates the cost of components from the overall cost estimates of the ship. As was mentioned above also making use of older weapons and systems from other ships. All of this shouldn't be disregarded as its major cost savings which skews the realistic cost of these vessels if you wanted to build them anywhere else and in a normal manner. They also worked in the use of civilian building standards wherever possible which is another way to slice costs off a program.

They also obfuscated costs by from what I understand as accepting the ships in an incomplete condition, adding weapons systems later using the STANFLEX system. If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing reports saying that the Danish Navy saved up into the hundreds of millions by reusing components through STANFLEX from other vessels while some of these systems weren't even certified for operations initially. HDMS Niels Juel participated in Exercise Bold Alligator in 2014 (she commissioned in 2011) in a seemingly rather incomplete state. As mentioned above, her 76mm guns, torpedo tubes, alongside the launchers for ESSM and Harpoon were refurbished fittings from decommissioned ships. Mark 41 VLS was empty and awaiting operational certification, requiring additional components and their missiles to be fitted/procured. Their 35mm Oerlikon gun aft was actually a dummy fitted to maintain the flight decks wind characteristics as it was still undergoing certification. Their original crew requirements were found to not be working and they needed to bring aboard additional personnel largely focused in their engineering departments. They said that they were in the process of improving the damage control fittings aboard by adding some internal features while they didn't have a secondary steering control installation aboard and required additional navigational equipment.

Aboard Danish Frigate, Clean Lines and Room To Grow

ABOARD HDMS NILS JUEL IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY – It is striking how the now-familiar smooth, angled architecture of tod...

www.defensenews.com

I am not trying to say that these vessels won't be effective combatants eventually but its clear to see how heavily that cost cutting measures were integrated into the design. These kinds of costs obfuscate the realistic sticker price of these vessels and makes fair comparison elsewhere difficult. I have no doubts Maersk's experience did help somewhat but as I hope I've shown, it doesn't seem to be the driving factor on cost savings here.

 

[Underway]

I wouldn't be so quick to lump praise of Maersk for being so competent and skilled that they managed to keep costs down through their expertise alone, there was serious cost saving measures put into place that most people seem to forget.

Like the fact that the Iver Huitfeldt class was not solely built in Denmark but rather was constructed in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania before transported to Denmark for assembly and fit out of the modules. Employing the StanFlex system allows for the use of modular systems which further separates the cost of components from the overall cost estimates of the ship. As was mentioned above also making use of older weapons and systems from other ships. All of this shouldn't be disregarded as its major cost savings which skews the realistic cost of these vessels if you wanted to build them anywhere else and in a normal manner. They also worked in the use of civilian building standards wherever possible which is another way to slice costs off a program.

They also obfuscated costs by from what I understand as accepting the ships in an incomplete condition, adding weapons systems later using the STANFLEX system. If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing reports saying that the Danish Navy saved up into the hundreds of millions by reusing components through STANFLEX from other vessels while some of these systems weren't even certified for operations initially. HDMS Niels Juel participated in Exercise Bold Alligator in 2014 (she commissioned in 2011) in a seemingly rather incomplete state. As mentioned above, her 76mm guns, torpedo tubes, alongside the launchers for ESSM and Harpoon were refurbished fittings from decommissioned ships. Mark 41 VLS was empty and awaiting operational certification, requiring additional components and their missiles to be fitted/procured. Their 35mm Oerlikon gun aft was actually a dummy fitted to maintain the flight decks wind characteristics as it was still undergoing certification. Their original crew requirements were found to not be working and they needed to bring aboard additional personnel largely focused in their engineering departments. They said that they were in the process of improving the damage control fittings aboard by adding some internal features while they didn't have a secondary steering control installation aboard and required additional navigational equipment.

Aboard Danish Frigate, Clean Lines and Room To Grow

ABOARD HDMS NILS JUEL IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY – It is striking how the now-familiar smooth, angled architecture of tod...

www.defensenews.com

I am not trying to say that these vessels won't be effective combatants eventually but its clear to see how heavily that cost cutting measures were integrated into the design. These kinds of costs obfuscate the realistic sticker price of these vessels and makes fair comparison elsewhere difficult. I have no doubts Maersk's experience did help somewhat but as I hope I've shown, it doesn't seem to be the driving factor on cost savings here.

I'm going to put this answer in my favourites. Good post!