RNZN Protector Project" Vessels

[Kirkhill]

One should at least put the equipment through reasonable shock/heat/waterproof testing (depending on it's criticality within the ship) before you stake your life on the gear.

For civilian projects on shore, (food processing plants no less) I have regularly spec'd commercially supplied electronics and enclosures that can be wetted with a 2" hose ( NEMA 4),  submerged for their service life (NEMA 6P), be guaranteed to be explosion proof (generate no sparks), be shock resistant, operate in environments of +50C to -50C, and have clients expect 10 to 25 years of useful life operating 24/7. 

They also don't appreciate being told not to worry if things go wrong - there's always insurance.  In addition to the increased premiums, there is loss of revenue generating production time, loss of reputation and market share, not to mention law suits from disappointed customers, as well potentially from upset neighbours and from affected employees and their families.

So much for what I do know about the Spec issue.

Now for what I don't know - when dealing with vessels with large open spaces (bulk carriers, ferries, RoRos, transports, LHDs, Aircraft Carriers, Multi-Role vessels etc) just how much compartmentalization can be supported?  In such vessels is it as useful to have highly compartmentalized crew and machinery spaces (even in civvy ships the machinery spaces are isolated) when you have an open deck 2-3 levels high running from stem to stern and across most of the beam?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kirkhill-

Thanks for the info in civvy specing.  Good stuff!

I also don't know much about how many ways you can carve up a Ship's interior.  What I would propose though is for the ship designer to ask himself three questions before he starts designing:

1) What is the ship supposed to do?  (This should give you your basic size and shape)
2) What is the worst thing that can happen to the ship while it is doing what it supposed to do?
3) From a design perspective, what is the most efficient (after all, even in the military, money is not infinite  ) way for the ship to survive number 2 and continue to do number 1? (This should start to tell you how to arrange the guts of the ship...)

Any thoughts on the above?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not only are watertight compartments important, the systems and redundant systems that pass through those compartments have to be of high, durable military quality -fire mains, conduit and cabling, air exchange and veting systems, and in some cases fuel lines. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Not only are watertight compartments important, the systems and redundant systems that pass through those compartments have to be of high, durable military quality -fire mains, conduit and cabling, air exchange and veting systems, and in some cases fuel lines. 

Agreed - but pass-throughs and penetrations are issues in civvy design as well.

 

[Navy_Blue]

It not that you didn't credit the crew SKT.  Its that you suggested the redundancy and MIL SPEC had something to do with it.  It was all crew I've been on board state of the art freighters and the equipment and safety are not lacking.  The only thing they don't have is crew.  You can't fight a fire or flood with 30 people or less.

I have seen what MIL SPEC buys us and its not that impressive.  I would have no problems sailing a civi spec AOR in operational situations.  Our defence systems would still be MIL SPEC we would still be broken into reasonable water tight compartments and we would have enough safety gear for all the crew.  MIL SPEC has less to do with this than we think.  The people making decisions about what a final ship looks like will determine what gear goes where and what type.  Feed through would be no less effective at preventing flood or smoke movement.  Fire mains and control valve would be no less effective either.  The gain would be access to readily available parts cheap with an acceptable loss in quality not safety.  Heres a little job for you guys walk around the boat and look at part numbers, MFG part numbers if there is no MIL front of it, its not MIL SPEC.  You will find most valves, vent trunking and piping has nothing to do with these regs.  Look at our weapon systems steering and consoles even cannon plugs on UPS's, they will have these MIL numbers.  We've been taught to believe that MIL spec encompasses all parts material and equipment.  If that were true we wouldn't be able to local purchase as much as we do.

I agree our warships Frigates, Destroyers and SCSC should still go MIL SPEC for the most part.  We need to be able to limp out of fights if we survive the first strike. 

All in all this has kinda drifted from the original topic of the thread.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You can't fight a fire or flood with 30 people or less.

Agreed.

I agree our warships Frigates, Destroyers and SCSC should still go MIL SPEC for the most part.  We need to be able to limp out of fights if we survive the first strike. 

All in all this has kinda drifted from the original topic of the thread.

Agreed again.  I also see your point about spending money on equipment that is, in effect, "overspec'd" for the job it is supposed to do.

 

[Kirkhill]

Although I am still partial to the Svalbard class vessel as a Northern Patrol/Jack-of-all-trades vessel just thought you might like to see how the Kiwis are making out.

Force Review 2002
Fleet Mix Study 2004
Contract Awarded 2004
1x 8000 tonne Multi-Role Vessel (19 knots - 53 sea crew + 307 others) delivered to NZ for fitting out in Sept 2006.  Commissioning Jan 2007 - Ice Strengthened for Antarctic service.
2x 85m Offshore Patrol Vessels (22 knots - 35 sea crew + 44 others)
4x 55m Inshore Patrol Vessels (25 knots - 20 sea crew + 16 others)

Total value of project NZ$500,000,000 or CAD$368,000,000

Canterbury Begins Final Pre-delivery Fit-out
 
 
(Source: New Zealand Defence Forces; issued Sept. 25, 2006)
 
 
 
Defence Minister Phil Goff today announced that the first of the Project Protector ships, the Multi Role Vessel (MRV), Canterbury, arrived in Melbourne yesterday from the Netherlands for the final phase of construction. 

"The Canterbury will remain in Melbourne for the next four months while weapon and military communications systems are fitted and the crew undergo training. Once the work is complete, the Canterbury will be commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy and begin its first voyage to New Zealand said Mr Goff. 

"During delivery from the Netherlands, the ship encountered a variety of weather, including a series of deep low-pressure systems with 8-9 metre swells and near storm force winds. I am advised that the ship performed exceptionally well in the conditions and provided a very comfortable ride. 

"The Canterbury will, for the first time, provide the New Zealand Defence Force with the capability to deploy personnel and equipment by its own means. It will greatly improve New Zealand's ability to respond to natural disasters in the Pacific and elsewhere, and will further enhance New Zealand's contribution to peace and security in our region and beyond. The MRV represents yet another significant and careful investment by this Government in our defence force". 

"The first of the Offshore Patrol Vessels, one of two being built by Tenix in Melbourne, will be launched in November. The second Offshore Patrol Vessel and the four Inshore Patrol Vessels, being built by Tenix Shipbuilding New Zealand, in Whangarei will be launched and delivered throughout 2007. The total project cost is NZ$500 million with more than $110 million coming to New Zealand industry", said Mr Goff. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

 

[Navy_Blue]

*Bump*

I again have resurrected an old thread bah ha ha ha.

I had the opportunity this week to be lectured in EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) and EMC (Electro Magnetic Compatibility).  In that time we had a guest speaker who cleared the fog away from things we do all the time that we are told not to do but are given no explanation as to why or why not.  "don't paint the ground straps"..."Don't hang on the wires."  We hear this from people who themselves really don't understand why they are telling us.  I might add that this should be a Topic lectured in NETP, before work ups and any major deployment it was a real eye opener.  From stewart to the CO and everyone in between we all do simple things that effect weather the ship is able to shoot a target at max range or max minus 10 miles.  The vast majority of the ships company I think is unaware of how much we affect EMI and EMC. 

Anyways in this thread I ranted several times why we should look for more Civi spec equipment but failed to realize how much this equipment would effect the operation of modern warships.  Most of our Mil Spec takes into account EMI and EMC.  Just these are probably more important than strength and ability to take shock and control damage.  I don't want to break OPSEC so I will just say our standards insure we can fight float and move all at the same time.

I feel I have truly been enlightened today.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Very good point on illustrating why Civ Spec and Mil Spec do not operate well together in a naval enviroment.

 

[geo]

and why mil spec costs much more............

and why it takes longer to deliver mil spec......

 

[Kirkhill]

and why its important to figure out when milspec is a mission critical requirement....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

For damage control and safety of the ship you aree risking the lives of your crew if you decide not to go mil spec.

 

[Stoker]

For damage control and safety of the ship you aree risking the lives of your crew if you decide not to go mil spec.

So are you saying that since the MCDV's are a mixture of mil spec and civilian standards in regards to DC and safety, they are at risk?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Compared to ships built strictly Mil Spec, they are more at risk then they should be.

Although being an MSE type you should know the benefits of Mil Spec over non mil spec being the DC experts (along with HTs) on ship...

 

[Navy_Blue]

An MCDV has an issue with many enclosed void spaces behind panels and bulk heads.   In a ship board fire, those spaces could be a nightmare to overhall.  That would be my main concern with MCDV's civi spec stuff. 

For the the 280's and most importantly for the CPF's Our cost is greatly increased in having to account for every piece of gear what it does and how it affects all the other gear.  We have incredibly sensitive equipment and things as simple as a rusty joint or missing bolt on a cover can drastically impede the ability of that equipment to operate to its full potential.  Ever wonder why an engineer would make a connection box that has 20 or more bolts.  I always thought they didn't want the cover to fall off in an explosion.  I always thought it was ridiculous.  I don't anymore. 

Mil Spec has more to do with parts, equipment, installation, palcement and maintenance than it does with DC.  I don't think anyone ever thought there would be 100 Dell computers spread thoughout the ship in the 70's and 80's when they designed the ship.  The yard probably approved emitions for one PC but when you combine 100 what is the effect??  You think anyone ever took the time to test the plasma TV in the cave?? or the XBOX and PS2's in all the messes??   Sure they meet civi standards for emissions but we don't use Radio Shack Walkie Talkies to talk to the world or a 700x zoom on a Sony Camcorder to look for incoming missiles.

 

[geo]

(which is why the space shuttle, amongst other milspec pieces of kit, continues to operate with truly antiquated computer hardware)

 

[Stoker]

Yes this has been an issue for me for a number of years. I was aboard Glace Bay when I was in the shore office in 95. I was very surprised that the ship wasn't built entirely mil spec then. There is a number of pieces of equipment we use for DC on the ship that are not mil spec however does the job, for example the IFDMS system is something a building would have. Of course these items are being rapidly unsupportable, since some of these systems were purchased in some cases five years before the ship was built. We all know that the platform is not having a midlife refit, however a list of obsolescence items are formulated every year of systems that need to be replaced, this year the top two is the computer aided monitoring system (386 computer) and the radars. If you look at the ships design, no citadel, some bulkheads that not water tight or smoke tight, hatches with no tell tales, no firemain jumper stations, a whole firemain system built out of mild steel and dissimilar metals, I can go on. Now with all these so called flaws, the ship is still safe to go to sea, we are Loyd's certified as any civilian ship, however our survivability is way down in a conflict. In 99 on exercise in the Baltic, we has a 1000Kg mine explode about a mile away, the shockwave when through the ship and we had tank sensor problems ever since. If we were to build the ship to mil spec entirely, we would be talking a platform at double the cost at least, but if a mine explodes under the ship, I don't think it would matter if we were mil spec or not.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So receiving lower quality equipment is fine with you?

 

[Stoker]

So receiving lower quality equipment is fine with you?

Of course not, however I have to deal with what we got on a daily basis. I have avenues to try and improve equipment on the ships EC's, UCR's and SOCD's , which I have done and continue to do.  I however never felt that I was in danger on the ships, even when I was in 14 meter seas 1200 miles off the coast or fighting a flash fire on one of our main diesels.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Our point is given the choice,naval architechs should design warships both major and monro as well as auxxillaries and any other vessel destined for the navy with Military Specifications and get rid of Civ Spec altogether. Those of us that sail would be safer.