Ferry runs every for 52 years through the high seas every day. Frigates don’tt do that. Structurally they fine The problem isn’t time but spare parts and hopefully not some piss poor fire procedures and training.
"Unfit sea" is a medical term for people, not an engineering term. The engineering term is "safe at sea" which PRO was.
Four I think (no reference on that). One system for the training facility + 3 for the ships.
Totally correct. here is the reference: CSC: Canada buys OTO Melara/Leonardo 127mm/64 LW gun – Canadian Naval Review
You without a doubt have substantially more experience than I ever will in this area Stoker, and I respect that but when you look at it detached and standing from afar I just don’t know how it will be accomplished.
When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
Building essentially a civilian standard AOPS and building a warship CSC are totally 2 different things.
I have a fairly unique viewpoint on the PRO fire and the lead up to it. Lets just say I will agree to disagree with your opinion on RCN technical risk assessments.
Uhhh I'm going to have to disagree. While spare parts are an issue, structure is also a huge issue, including both major auxillar/ancillary systems, as well as the hull itself.
I'm confident that they are not going to be delivering HMS Glasgow this year. Or perhaps even next year. That's a pretty skeletal ship at this point, still needs all the cabling, equipment, lighting, hotel services. Oh and a mast!
e can agree to disagree a I suppose.
About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.
FYI, I’m a retired 1st class engineer (transport Canada), just so you know point of view, and I assume that most people aren’t idiots. And in the BC Ferry service we had a highly motivated, intelligent group.
I talked to plenty who were there and I was Sea Training at the time and read the BOI. Damage Control and Engineering is my bread and butter in my daily job. The AOR was old but it wasn't unsafe for sea, you can do all the risk assessments and mitigations in the world but accidents do happen even to new ships. Was there a risk assessment done on the particular item that failed no there wasn't, and why would it be needed?
"Our frigates are fine." I'll simply agree to disagree.
I think you can do better than this, knowing that many of those who maintain the ships are on this forum. We aren't reddit or twit-er so lets not behave like that here please.
You’re right, that was uncalled for and I apologize unreservedly. And thank you for the missing piece of why ships are corroding to badly. Hopefully the CSC will take measures to mitigate this problem.
A slow steady progression of new ships coming 'online' over the span of 15 years will give the Navy a chance to look ahead past the CSC's and the AOPS and plan for the replacement of the MCDV's (if any) which will give more shipyards work, sustaining the life of the 'yards and their skillset, then replacing more CCG ships, and hopefully, by the time the last CSC rolls onto the launching ship, the Navy will have started looking at the generation of ships that needs to follow that to get them started.
