• 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
Have any Images of Jetty B under construction been released as the government has seemed to stymie information since Covid
Not that I'm aware of. Don't apply intent here. Its a very boring infrastructure improvement that you can see from Admirals Road (outside the base) if you want. The only one who would provide updates in the media proper is the RCN and they have more important things to talk about with the public.
Second question about Jetty A . Has the project taken into account the extra length of the CSC's and will Jetty A be longer because of that?
A jetty is as long as they can fit into the space. It will be almost twice as long as it currently is because they are extending it all the way to B Jetty and all the way to the end of the harbour entrance. You'll easily be able to fit two large destroyers end to end. If they took an non-finalized ship design into account no idea. The question you should be asking is if they took the draft of the JSS into account for those jetties, and yes they did.

The new ammo jetty location has also been selected I hear as well.
 
Not that I'm aware of. Don't apply intent here. Its a very boring infrastructure improvement that you can see from Admirals Road (outside the base) if you want. The only one who would provide updates in the media proper is the RCN and they have more important things to talk about with the public.

A jetty is as long as they can fit into the space. It will be almost twice as long as it currently is because they are extending it all the way to B Jetty and all the way to the end of the harbour entrance. You'll easily be able to fit two large destroyers end to end. If they took an non-finalized ship design into account no idea. The question you should be asking is if they took the draft of the JSS into account for those jetties, and yes they did.

The new ammo jetty location has also been selected I hear as well.
Will Nimitz will still have to anchor outside the harbour after the jetty rebuild?
 
but...but...but...there's a Program Office and EVERYTHING!!!!
I’m pretty sure when it comes to the RCN budget that cutting CSC (and resulting Canadian jobs) won’t be palatable to the GoC and Foreign made subs will get the axe.

I could be wrong and Canada may wake up to how awful the world really is, but historically I sadly doubt I am.
 
I’m pretty sure when it comes to the RCN budget that cutting CSC (and resulting Canadian jobs) won’t be palatable to the GoC and Foreign made subs will get the axe.

I could be wrong and Canada may wake up to how awful the world really is, but historically I sadly doubt I am.
Sadly I can't disagree with you
 
That is one of the possible candidates on the list that the project office is looking at.
I hope its the front runner. For two reasons. Its currenly in production and it has VLS for TLAM's. Though the Japanese subs are gorgeous from what I've heard. LI batteries are still a bit experimental though.

All things being equal a single LI has power storage equal to four lead acid batteries currently in use by most DE boats. Which gives you some interesting design margins to play with. The Japanese say they don't even need AIP anymore with LI, because the space an AIP would take up is less useful then just adding more LI batteries with no change in underwater endurance (or even less endurance with an AIP and obvious increased engineering complication).

The negative is the LI batteries, overheat in a bad way (Old Galaxy phone situation). So when a lead acid battery overheats its not great but manageable. When an LI overheats it creates a cascading effect of causing the other LI batteries in the rack to start to overheat as well, and then kinda blows up. This is really bad on a submarine. As such there is some resistance (see what I did there) to LI in other navies right now as the technology is not quite mature in their minds.
 
@Underway Jettison-able racks? Or someway to vent individual racks to the sea?

There are a slew of concerns about LI batteries in ground combat vehicles simply due to the fire hazards and lack of ability to cool them — but given their efficiency, I’m curious if they could be effectively separated in manageable sizes in secure area that had access to seawater in extremis that could be a way to reduce fire/explosion risk to the boat of one segment was damaged.
 
@Underway Jettison-able racks? Or someway to vent individual racks to the sea?

There are a slew of concerns about LI batteries in ground combat vehicles simply due to the fire hazards and lack of ability to cool them — but given their efficiency, I’m curious if they could be effectively separated in manageable sizes in secure area that had access to seawater in extremis that could be a way to reduce fire/explosion risk to the boat of one segment was damaged.
As we've recently heard, bringing seawater into a sub isn't necessarily a great idea...
 
@Underway Jettison-able racks? Or someway to vent individual racks to the sea?

There are a slew of concerns about LI batteries in ground combat vehicles simply due to the fire hazards and lack of ability to cool them — but given their efficiency, I’m curious if they could be effectively separated in manageable sizes in secure area that had access to seawater in extremis that could be a way to reduce fire/explosion risk to the boat of one segment was damaged.
There is some work to look at them to see about options like requiring additional separation between the cells, some kind of cooling medium, and some other options. It increases the size but doesn't do much for the weight, so it's a pretty good options for vehicles. The LiFePO4 batteries (which aren't actually lithium ion) seem to be the safest option for now though.

I'm not sure what they do on vehicles, but you can add some things like fire insulation at some boundaries to at least slow the heat from spreading to the crew area, and some fitted systems to flood the battery enclosure and act as a heat sink, but generally bit tricky in a vehicle where it might all get hit from a shock like an explosion or IED or similar. With ships they are big enough that you can keep the fitted systems separated from the compartment so if the batteries go off from battle damage the business end should be okay and it's more the piping in the area that gets damaged.
 
@KevinB like @Navy_Pete said there are ideas to deal with battery Thermal runaway (the proper term, I was doing some research today). LI however don't do well with.. a) high temps, b) pressure changes, c) moisture. All which are present on submarines to one degree or another.

There is another odd issue is batteries are used to keep the sub properly balanced (they are very heavy) and LI batteries swapping out change the wieght of a sub significantly. If you design the submarine from scratch then no problem but retrofitting creates other issues that need to be considered. All in all nothing that can't be dealt.
 
@KevinB like @Navy_Pete said there are ideas to deal with battery Thermal runaway (the proper term, I was doing some research today). LI however don't do well with.. a) high temps, b) pressure changes, c) moisture. All which are present on submarines.

There is another odd issue is batteries are used to keep the sub properly balanced (they are very heavy) and LI batteries swapping out change the wieght of a sub significantly. If you design the submarine from scratch then no problem but retrofitting creates other issues that need to be considered. All in all nothing that can't be dealt.
Thermal runaway is one issue, and can be a result of various circuit faults, a lot of which where due to internal faults from QA issues on cheaper batteries, or from some mechanical damage in things like phone from them flexing. Some of them were happening because the charger circuits were failing and they were overcharging, damaging the circuits, and eventually failing catastrophically.

And to make life more fun, the fumes coming off of it are usually combustible and toxic, so it can build up to explosive levels and light off, while also poisoining anyone in the vicinity. So part of the safety considerations is the compartment size the batteries are in. Sometimes that goes into a small water tank to basically absorb the gases while hopefully cooling things, but it's not really meant for something like a submarine.

Pretty uncommon now, but some of the lithium metal batteries would actually be class D fires. Even the normal ones that turn into a class A fire is really messy though as it's somewhat self sustaining and pumping out incredible amounts of heat, so you are doing less 'fire fighting' than cooling the heat. Fire departments are reporting it takes something like 4 or 5 pumper trucks of water to control an EV car battery fire, which obviously always isn't available.

It's pretty complicated, because there are a lot of different types of battery chemistries, with some proprietary types, different ways to set up the cathode/anodes etc. And with some pretty major fires on container ships from them, some of them are almost unsellable because no one will actually ship them due to liability.

You can also get things like really dramatic shorts from shrapnel damage, and with li-ion batteries that can be a pretty dramatic explosion just because of the power density. I remember seeing a test on laptop battery, which I believe was a stacked plate type arrangement, and there was a bright white flash as it turned into plasma with a pretty good blast, and then bits of it burning flying around the test chamber.

With the wet cell lead-acid batteries, they have their own hosts of risks, including things like hydrogen off gassing building up, violent reaction with sea water etc, but they are pretty stable and have good cycle/recharge characteristics. The whole stability thing for subs is really complicated as well, as they need to think about neutral buoyancy and balance, while trying not to get crushed, run into something, and stay quiet. They are a special breed.

One of those things where the technology was introduced, and the safety regulations are being figured out after the fact. Less because people didn't know, and more because the energy density provides huge benefits, it wasn't until there were some pretty major issues that the response went from 'Shut up, nerd' to 'what are the options to make it safer'. But because there are a lot of really sketchy products already sold and in use, it's a challenge. It's annoying as hell as well because people want a simple rule of thumb, which is only possible if you are really restrictive (or an idiot).

Our organization is great at saying they want evidence based decision, right up until the evidence doesn't support their previously decided upon COA, or doesn't exist because no one has ever done the research (and then won't fund testing).

Sorry for the rant, this one has eaten up a lot of my life in the last few years, and get a lot of flak from every side for trying to be reasonable and find the middle ground.
 
Back
Top