RNZN Protector Project" Vessels

[TAS278]

Regardless, Canada has developed one of the worlds better frigates. Unfortunately the resource/political support has not always been available to keep them in their best and brightest. One of the only major components keeping our Navy going is the great sailors we have operating our aging ships.

There are plans for the future for an upgraded ops room and the likes but most of us will be retired or almost retired when it comes to be

It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult to negotiate shipyard contracts when the country really has no direction for its military.

Just my 2 pennies

 

[mjohnston39]

BTW.... where did the "cats" end up?

The Fast Cats were bought for pennies on the dollar (IIRC 20M for ships that cost 400M+) by the Washington Marine Group. They are still in North Vancouver and word has it that Washington Marine is going to start a ferry business to the Island. It has hired the chief engineer from BC ferries and has been hiring some of the top ferry workers...

Mike

 

[Gino]

Three out of how many?

Paramax, what was formerly known as SPAR Aerospace.... after the success of the Canadaarm and some successful telecom satalites, I would venture to say that they were a competent agency to consider when looking at Bidds for the Org that would put the brains into the Frigates.

If you talk to our American friends, many will point out that a lot of the technological & scientific advances that the public benefit from today are derivatives of research & development made in the Space and Military fields.... Should Canada deny itself the oportunity to develop new technology - I don't think so.... but, as has been pointed out, there is no reason for this Famine / Feeding frenzy procurement system... The CF should be taking delivery of Trucks, ships, aircraft and everything else on an ongoing basis.

Hey, three's not bad when you didn't actually win the contract.  Anyway, the upshot is that I think we need three things to be in place before we will ever be able to build ships (in Canada) with any kind of cost effectiveness:

1)  A long term national shipbuilding strategy;

2) A government with the ability to think and plan beyond the next election; and

3) A government that will not change horses in mid-stream and cancel programmes just because they were initiated by a different political party.

 

[geo]

BC Fast cats...
now that's funny.
the Fast Cats were handicaped by BC Ferries and were never allowed to run "flat out" and now someone wants to run them in their original role?

Wonder if they're going to respect the speed limits that hamstrung them in the 1st place.

Gino...
Not dissagreeing with you
Defence procurement should be part of a national strategy that should not be hamstrung by party politics

 

[FSTO]

The problem with the Fast Cats was that they put them on the Departure Bay (Naniamo) to Horseshoe Bay (North Van) run and there was no real time saver using that route. If they instead put them on the Duke Pt to Tsawwassen which is 1/2 hr longer than the other routes, they could have cut that 1/2 hr out of the trip. Once again inability to think outside of the box (and the BC Liberal party election plan to get rid of the Cats (ala EH101)) killed the fast ferries.

If they had built 3 to 4 super-ferries we wouldn't be having this debate today.

 

[Kirkhill]

If they had built 3 to 4 super-ferries we wouldn't be having this debate today.

And the BC shipyards would be better placed to meet the needs of BC Ferries, the Navy and the Coast Guard.

 

[Navy_Blue]

It was mentioned here that civi standards would be less safe for our uses but cheaper.  I had the opportunity to go on a Berlin class AOR last summer.  This ship was build to civi spec's.  It was still equipped with a NBC citadel.  Flight deck and hanger.  The interior was like a cruise ship, no wire ways or piping but still had access to junctions and valves through panels.  For the purposes of the JSS civi standards would be mores than enough as long as there are accommodations for Damage Control and Fire Fighting.  You must realize that the living area of the ship was all above the water line and all the MSE spaces would resemble our own.  MIL SPEC Or Civi you still need to use fire retardant materials for a tanker. 

You save big on cost.  MIL SPEC is the biggest rip off.  We would have access to readily available parts and equipment lessening the need of our stores system to maintain stock(It barely does now).  Not to mention cut costs in half.  I'm sorry but what sailor hasn't seen that torpedo test the Aussies did?  Torp = sunk.  Mines, missiles and IED would all have devastating results requiring extensive time in dry dock.  MIL SPEC or Not.  JSS is not going to be an Assault ship.  key word is "support"... Logistics and C&C...in the rear with the gear.

Now frigates and combatants.  Yes they need to be built to a higher standard to lessen damage from all sorts of attacks.  Damage control is much more imperative and necessary if you want to limp out of a fight.  Save the MIL SPEC for the big guns. 

On the topic of our ship builders.  most of the experts and experienced people (Naval Eng and Architechs) used in the CPF program were Scottish and European and they moved here with there families hoping the program would be as successful as it was planned to be.  Irving Paid big bucks I think for those brains.  Buy now they would have moved on to bigger and better endeavours.

If you look at a few of the bidders for JSS you will see some forign firms involved aswell.

 

 

[Armymatters]

The problem with the Fast Cats was that they put them on the Departure Bay (Naniamo) to Horseshoe Bay (North Van) run and there was no real time saver using that route. If they instead put them on the Duke Pt to Tsawwassen which is 1/2 hr longer than the other routes, they could have cut that 1/2 hr out of the trip. Once again inability to think outside of the box (and the BC Liberal party election plan to get rid of the Cats (ala EH101)) killed the fast ferries.

If they had built 3 to 4 super-ferries we wouldn't be having this debate today.

On top of that, the Fast Cats were:
1. Gas-Guzzlers. The Fast Cats burn more than twice the amount of diesel fuel per passenger per trip than any of the other ferries in the fleet. In order to optimize speed, they had to be refueled in the middle of the day so they didn't have to sail with full tanks. This was due to the fact they had diesel engines, not the more efficient gas turbines for high speed operations.
2. Unreliable. The water intakes for the water jet propulsion have an appetite for logs, which caused breakdowns and various sailing cancellations. It should be noted that BC's local waters are full of stray logs and wood from the lumber industry along the coast (I have been sailing once down the Georgia Strait, and we always had someone on the bow looking out for logs so we didn't bump into them) and the flotsam has been a problem, albeit comparatively minor (to the other problems), for the fast ferries. Also of note is the fact that due to the high speeds the ferries operate at, the engines often ran flat out, causing various breakdowns of the engine plant. This problem can be attributed to the BC Ferries decision to go with diesel engines, not gas turbines.
3. Capacity handicapped.  Because of weight restrictions and size, the Fast Cats are unable to carry large trucks or campers and only 2 buses at a time. Truck traffic was to be fully routed through the Tsawwassen - Duke Point (Nanaimo) run, away from Horseshoe Bay and its wealthy outspoken residents. Also, it was intended that the fast ferries would be able to make more trips daily because of their speed and make up for their smaller size, as the fast ferries have a smaller capacity than the conventional vessels they were built to replace. For example, the C-class ship, Queen of Oak Bay, can carry 362 vehicles and 1,442 passengers to the PacifiCat Explorer's 250 cars and 1000 passengers. In the end, they proved to be not faster, not bigger, and a lot more costly to operate, which was the death knell for the ferries.

I would agree with Navy Blue that Civil standards for surface ships offer good value. However, for large combatants, such as destroyers, there is precedence for building them civil spec. The Japanese Kongo Class DDG (Japanese version of the American Arleigh Burke class DDG) is build to civil rather than military standards. The Japanese are planning to build 2 - 3 more Kongo's, on top of the 4 they already operate.

 

[Navy_Blue]

Army I'm sorry I can't agree with your interpretation of marine systems.  GT's would be no more fuel efficient on the Cats.  We run to LM2500 GT's on the CPF for when we need to go fast.  On the diesel Pielstik 20 cylinder our endurance is huge. 

In one night running one GT (because the Diesel was down) @ an average speed of 8 knots; we burned enough fuel to fill my Nissan Sentra for 6 years driving.  8 knots!!  We could burn that in an hour if we wanted to.  The Pielstik would burn a fraction of that. 

The cats burn more fuel because of the method of propultion and speed expected not the prime movers (by the way diesels love to be flat out).   Jets are not as efficient as screws.  Faster yes but use allot more power.  The physics of moving a hull through water has allot to do with speed and fuel efficiency as well.  One GT can get a ship moving 25 knots you need a second just to get you up 5 more knots.  Twice as much fuel for five knots.

Cats make more sence in long haul application where speed will translat in to saving hours not minutes. 

 

[Donaill]

Hmmm.  Doesnt the U.S. have a nice little act called the Jones Act? 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would agree with Navy Blue that Civil standards for surface ships offer good value. However, for large combatants, such as destroyers, there is precedence for building them civil spec. The Japanese Kongo Class DDG (Japanese version of the American Arleigh Burke class DDG) is build to civil rather than military standards. The Japanese are planning to build 2 - 3 more Kongo's, on top of the 4 they already operate.

Care to provide a source for that?

 

[Kirkhill]

They do indeed have the Jones act.  Would you care to expand on how it fits into this discussion?

 

[Neill McKay]

Hmmm.  Doesnt the U.S. have a nice little act called the Jones Act? 

Yes, but that applies to a ship visiting two US ports, not to one visiting a US port and then a foreign port.

 

[Armymatters]

Care to provide a source for that?

Sure:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/kongo.htm

The Kongo is an improved version of the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke class, displacing 9,485 tons (full load). It is a substantial departure for Japan in terms of size and capability in its surface fleet. There also are qualitative differences between Japan’s modern ships with their well-trained crews and the older, less capable ships of other East and Southeast Asian navies.

Although derived from American Arleigh Burke class, numerous changes include a far longer helicopter deck aft, less horsepower and a slightly different weapon suite. Some of the differences between the JMSDF Kongo's and the USN Burkes are that the Kongo's employ a separate fire-control system for the 127-mm gun, which has a faster firing rate than the USN standard Mk 45 127-mm gun, a back-up surface/air search radar, a more elaborate EW system and while they have the capability to act as a helicopter platform they do not have a haul down system. Full displacement on the Kongo's is larger, 9,485 tons to 8,500 tons and is some 78 feet longer and 2 feet wider.

Construction was done to mercantile rather than military standards. The Italian Oto-Breda 127mm/54 calibre Compact gun, firing 45 rounds per minute [to 8.7nm anti-surface, 3.8nm anti-aircraft] is the main gun armament aboard Japanese Kongo class Aegis destroyers. This turret was designed for reduced manning, and the distribution of personnel to inside the turret became unnecessary, as it is controlled with remote control. It is possible to land helicopters on the rear deck, but because the VLS launchers in the rear deck, there is no equipment to support the helicopter.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Then thats characteristically irresponsible of the Japanese. It might be cheaper to get them at sea but when the things that go boom start being tossed about, how long do you thing mercantile standard built ships are going to last? Might as well build them right the first time to maximize saving lives. Its almost criminal (IMO) to advocate the Navy to use ship's built to these standards.

 

[geo]

Well... the UK had HMS Sheffield up to Mil Spec for the Falkland war and that Exocet did a commendable of frying it nevertheless.... something about the Magnesium alloys used in the ship's construction.

Remember that the Japanese self defense force was somewhat restricted in the kind of war fighting capabilities it could posess.... by act of their Parliament even.

Is it possible that the Japanese have looked at the nature of surface combat on the deep blue and concluded that modern technology has made it such that even Mil spec ships WILL GO DOWN in an engagement?

 

[Navy_Blue]

I Personally don't believe our MIL SPEC standards are what they used to be.  We don't get what you pay for anymore.  Our parts are grossly over priced and the companies providing them are laughing all the way to the bank. 

 

[cobbler]

Well... the UK had HMS Sheffield up to Mil Spec for the Falkland war and that Exocet did a commendable of frying it nevertheless.... something about the Magnesium alloys used in the ship's construction.

The Sheiffield was only samaged by the missile, what sunk her was the storm which hit whilst she was in tow. Most of the crew survived, and the majority of those that didnt were overcome by toxic gases when the remained in the ops room. The damage control saved the ship, and her mil spec construction surely kept her in one piece when the exocet struck amidships, in a civvie spec ship things would have been much uglier.

 

[geo]

Ahhh... good to know. After the fire, understand that the RN had to rethink the use of Magnesium in their ship's construction.... revised milspecs to reduce or eliminate this flamable metal.

 

[Armymatters]

Ahhh... good to know. After the fire, understand that the RN had to rethink the use of Magnesium in their ship's construction.... revised milspecs to reduce or eliminate this flamable metal.

Also, the fire on HMS Amazon in 1977 drew attention to the risks of using aluminium in the superstructure. During the fire, the superstructure deformed enough so that the ladders were rendered unusable so the crew could not get up to the areas that were on fire and put them out. That is partially why our CPF's are built and designed with essentially zero aluminium in the superstructure. A bit of trivia regarding naval ship building and design.