New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[MikeKiloPapa]

First of...thank you for a well thought out and reasonable response to my posts, the wording of which was needlessly hostile and confrontational....it was uncalled for and for that i apologize.

In other words, and I think you make that point too, even though they are of similar look and hull form, they are two different class of ships. And my point was that if you take parts of one and parts of the other, you end up with a third design different again from the other two, and thus not an "off-the-shelf" design.

Good point and i broadly agree.....however it must be said that modifying an existing design is usually cheaper and faster than developing a new vessel from scratch. A case in point :

What eventually became the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates actually started out as a smaller ship , then known under the euphemism "Patrol Ship". The initial design plans showed a vessel of about 4500-5000 tonnes FL and with a much more limited sensor and weapons fitout. By that time ca 2003, the design of the command and support ships (Absalon class) was almost completed and several scale models were undergoing trials in test facilities in both the Netherlands (MARIN) and in DK (Force Technology) .

The Maersk designed hull turned out to be very efficient and showed exceptional seakeeping qualities , and it was therefore decided to base the patrol ships/frigates on the same hull.
Thus we saved a significant amount of time and money on the design process by not having to start from scratch.
But even though the IH design used the Absalon as a starting point, the demand for greater speed, survivability and signature reduction  meant several notable changes had to be made and so the two vessels differ not only internally but also externally and below the waterline : Twice the power per shaft affects the flow around the hull and also the noise created....so to optimize IH for greater speeds as well as ASW quietening , the under water hull shape had to be redesigned , particularly the rear part.

What they do have in common is Standard Flex....which is not just the modules, but the underlying design philosophy that every piece of equipment aboard should be easy and as cheap as possible to maintain, upgrade or replace (accessibility).And of course they have a great degree of commonality in equipment, components and weapons.

Other than the protected spaces,

Which is pretty much the entire superstructure above the waterline ;-) ...but lets not quibble

Nothing wrong with that as it saves money, and I am sure your naval architect friends will confirm to you that the grade of steel used is related to the expected speed of  a given ship design. The faster the expected speed, the higher the grade of steel.

Money being the key word here....TBH i dont think speed had anything to do with the decision....the RDN wanted to use high strength steel but the tight budget meant they had to settle for a lesser grade.  As the Command-Support ship designation af Absalon suggests they were not meant to be first line surface combatants and so it was deemed an acceptable compromise.

As to the relation between steel grade and ship speed ....IDK .....operating environment ,  type and size of vessel , cost, and projected lifespan are all factors that affect which grade of steel you choose....so while speed might play a role i think its a minor one in this context....in civilian vessels, like say container ships, the hull plating is so thick it doesn't really matter much which grade they use(within reason )....in my experience the same type is used whether its a 15kt or 25kt ship.  Though to be fair i am pretty new to this business so i'm not exactly the ultimate authority on the subject.

Would I be correct in understanding that in the Absalon, that "extra" deck is only from the Engine rooms and forward, but that I was correct that the flex deck area is no more decks, in number, but much higher, than in the Iver?

In short, no.....its difficult to explain,...but here goes :the Absalon has 4 decks beneath her helo deck , whereas IH only has 3 .  The flex deck on Abs is 2 decks high..

Here is a preliminary draft of the Absalon ....its not completely accurate but it gives an idea of the general layout :
http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2003/_FlexStoetteskibePopUp.htm

would it be correct to say that, in the Absalon, there are no living quarters aft of the engine rooms, but in the Iver, there are such quarters?

Unfortunately no, as neither of them have any accommodation aft of the engine rooms , only workshops, stores/cargo rooms, the crew gym and the ships hospital.

We do not consider the TRIGON handling system to be a "traversing" system in Canada. The one system that is acceptable for us is an equivalent to our 'bear trap" and undermount system of rails below deck

I see no reason why the such a traversing system couldn't quite easily be fitted to any design you may choose, including IH/Absalon.....AFAIK none of the other designs  in the running is fitted with either bear trap or a RAST system, and i know all UK ships uses TRIGON as well.

That is because we tend to use our helicopter in weather like this, unlike every body else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p1xx0ysfeM

;D.....you know what i call that ?.....another day at the office ;-).....which in my case is bobbing around on the brine around Greenland ( and occasionally the Faroe Islands) Since a part of my job also involves being on the helo damage control/rescue team i am intimately familiar with helo shipboard operations in rough weather. we often practice in the kind of seas you post above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC2XIGMI2kM

As for TRIGON, well it is officially certified for use in sea state 6 and we have used it in way worse conditions than that..and on a ship smaller than the Halifax and Iroquois classes. It works just fine.

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

Do you mean that the magazine, handling room and hoist shafts are of the right size to take either a 76 mm or a 5 inch handling system

Bingo!..

I believe you will find that the Millenial 35 mm is much lighter than the 76 mm gun (even in the STANFLEX container) and that the 5 inch gun is much heavier than the 76 mm gun. As a result, if you install the 5 inch gun you have to replace the second 76 mm gun with the lighter millennial to maintain weight distribution and stability.

Well....there are really two issues here.....one is structural, the other revolves around stability.  Structurally speaking the forward A mount and surrounding deck is designed for the weight of the MK45, while the B mount is built to handle the 76mm gun. So structurally there are no problems with a 3"+5" setup.

In terms of stability , you have a point, at least in theory......however the actual difference in weight between the 35mm and 76mm is smaller than you'd think. In fact the Millenium mount is only about 3 tonnes lighter than the 8 tonnes Oto melara, and the latter has a lot of its weight placed down lower ( in the container) whereas the 35mm has all its weight placed on top.  That means that the impact on the ships stability would be relatively minor and the small reduction well within the safe design margins.

we have had some bad experience in Canada [no casualties - knock on wood] with ships getting squished or scraped by US carriers

Sounds dangerous.....could you elaborate ?

Please accept that I would be very happy to see our next gen warships all be Iver Huitfeldt's

I unfortunately think they are too old and too handicapped in the ASW department to really have a chance. However i do think OMT is your best bet of actually getting all 15 warships on the allocated budget. The IH probably represents the 95% solution and the question is if that is enough for Canada.

Don't know what your point is here, but I believed I did not make mine correctly.

Yeah...disregard that last paragraph of mine....i was just babbling....obviously answering a question you weren't asking.

My point was that the portion of the AOPS work Odense got did not include the most important aspects of the upcoming bid: the combat system integration and power plant design

Well how could they?....they are not a combat system integrator but a warship designer. So yes that might put them at a disadvantage compared to DCNS, TKMS , LM etc who has both capabilities in house. However OMT is quite used to working with these CSI companies like they did on the building of IH in DK....where system integrations was supervised and carried out by the RDN project office in conjunction with the combat system suppliers (and OSS/OMT). Having the navy directly involved and in charge of the CS integration also makes sure that it gets what it wants, and not what the combat systems integrator think the navy needs ( something a certain German CSI company is notorious for)

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

As for the other designs with a "flex deck", only the BAE Type 26 has such deck

It might be a bit of national bias showing here so forgive me , but i dont think you can really classify the T26,s Mission Bay as a flex "deck"... its more like an enlarged boat hangar. With an embarked helicopter and the standard 2 rhibs carried, it only has space for what...two 20' ISO containers at most ? I suppose it can also carry a UAV/USV/UUV but then again so can most other modern frigates/destroyers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would some pictures add to the discussion?

Iver Huitfeldt from the stern

And Absalon from the same view

The Absalon's stern with both doors open

The Absalon compartment drawing provided by MKP.

And the Flex-Deck as described by the Danish Navy

An amateur's scaled comparison of the Absalons and Huitfeldts

And a Halifax (Quebec) for a further comparison

With respect to the flying of helicopters - it appears that the Absalons and Huitfeldts both have larger flight decks than the Halifaxes (about twice as long, and 3 meters wider - 19m vs 16m) and the ships displace about 1/3 more at 6300 tonnes vs 4759 tonnes.

Just for reference - here is the original Sea King DDH - the 2800 tonne Assiniboine with a 13m beam.

 

[Kirkhill]

From my view it appears that the foc's'le from the B gun position forward is common but from the Bridge aft, including the Bridge, there is another deck that extends the tumblehome all the way aft raising the flight deck and hangars as well as the Bridge.

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

Would some pictures add to the discussion?

Iver Huitfeldt from the stern

And Absalon from the same view

The Absalon's stern with both doors open

With respect to the flying of helicopters - it appears that the Absalons and Huitfeldts both have larger flight decks than the Halifaxes (about twice as long, and 3 meters wider - 19m vs 16m) and the ships displace about 1/3 more at 6300 6650 tonnes vs 4759 tonnes.

:goodpost:

Though its not exactly the most flattering pictures.....the Absalon in particular looks like an overweight car ferry from that angle ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know about that.  I've always seen that as her best angle.  But that may just be me.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.slideshare.net/Logimatic/seen-sailed  A fluff piece but full of useful data.  Iver Huitfeldt Class Frigate - Peter Willemoes

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

I don't know about that.  I've always seen that as her best angle.  But that may just be me.  ;D

Ahh...i see ....all about the (‿ˠ‿) ..eh!  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

I came across this Rand publication from 2016 on "Designing Adaptable Ships". It discusses Modularity, Flexibility and Adaptability as three separate, though inter-related, issues.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR696/RAND_RR696.pdf

It refers to an issue that has been broached here before: the cost of not using every available space

How Additional Space and Additional Ship Services Could Affect
Design and Construction Costs

As discussed in Chapter Two, our concept of flexibility—as compared
to modularity—involves bigger spaces and larger margins. Designing a
ship with more space than immediately needed and the ability to easily
add power, cooling, and other services to a ship space provides a level of
adaptability greater than what results from strict modularity. However,
Navy ship construction estimates are based primarily on the weight
of the ship, so the additional size and weight associated with more
modular, flexible ships comes at a cost. The basic trade-off is between
potentially greater construction costs for the additional space and margins
and the reduced costs of modernizing the ship in the future. This
trade-off is not well understood.
Maintaining adequate power and cooling margins to accommodate
future growth is also difficult. The margins set for new construction
are typically reduced early in a design when cost targets are threatened.
Adding power and cooling to an existing ship when adequate
margins are not available is very costly, if at all feasible.
Effect

I would argue that, self-evidently, the Navy Estimating Model is the problem and that a bigger ship with a higher full load displacement is not a more expensive ship.  If that were the case then Container Ships would cost more than Aircraft Carriers.

As I have said before, wrapping steel around an empty space is neither difficult nor expensive.  What goes into that space drives the costs.

In Canada we have already seen the impact of this model on the debates about the supply of ships with the Parliamentary Budget Office defaulting to the US Navy model and declaring that more money was needed for the ships to be produced.

But what if the ship includes unused space? - It is larger, yes, but it is also lighter - until it is filled with something.

The Europeans and the Civilian world draw different conclusions than the US Navy.

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

I came across this Rand publication from 2016 on "Designing Adaptable Ships". It discusses Modularity, Flexibility and Adaptability as three separate, though inter-related, issues.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR696/RAND_RR696.pdf

The Europeans and the Civilian world draw different conclusions than the US Navy.

Just to play the devils advocate here , the counter-argument might be that the US Navy has actual and recent naval combat experience.

Whereas (continental) European navies.....not so much.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol8num2/vol8num2art2.pdf

A related Canadian article from 2014 describing the difficulty of estimating costs of construction.  It does, however, make the point that less complex is cheaper.  I would argue that the least complex model is an empty hull - at which point you have an adaptable, flexible craft.

 

[STONEY]

I must say i was very impressed that the Iver Huitfeldt was able to steam 9,400nm  across the atlantic at an average speed of 27kts and not run out of gas. The vessel can sail across from Europe to America and back again and still have fuel left over. This would cut down on the number of RAS'S required. None of the many vessels i've sailed on including Cruise ships could match this . I QUESTION THESE FIGURES QUOTED IN A PREVIOUS POST, BUT IF TRUE VERY IMPRESSIVE.

CHEERS

 

[Kirkhill]

Point taken on that Stoney.

Here is what I understand to be the design standard:

The Danish frigate program targeted total life cycle cost and applied principles from
commercial shipping. In commercial shipping focus is on reduction of crew cost, fuel cost
and emissions. Understanding these commercial cost efficiency principles gave DALO
another perspective on the frigate program.

Striving for low fuel cost at cruising speed (18knots) while meeting the requirements
for fast acceleration and high top speed became a core part of the propulsions system
concept developed for the frigates.

The result was a propulsion system giving best-in-class fuel economy. At 18 knots cruising
speed, the frigate requires 31 tonnes of fuel per day giving an endurance of 9,300 nautical
miles. This endurance is 80-100% better than other new frigate designs on the market today.
Despite the excellent fuel economy at cruising speed, the frigate can reach 29.3 knots in less
than 120 seconds. A propulsion system based on a gas turbine could deliver a slightly higher
maximum speed but it was not selected as it significantly increases CapEx and fuel costs and
reduces endurance by approximately 50%
.
In short, Navy ships must be role models and set new standards by continuing to look at new
efficient ways of operating.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

And on the subject:

the Danish approach is quite different from that of the US Navy. To start with, most of the ship’s lower decks were designed by Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, with a focus on efficient, robust designs that are easy to maintain.

“The basic design is a Maersk design, with a hull similar to a container ship,” said Cmdr. Christian Horsted, the ship’s executive officer. “Things are very orderly, very well-arranged. It looks like the people who designed the ships have designed a lot of ships.”

Horsted pointed to the bridge and machinery room arrangements, which leave room to add improvements. “Things are really set up right,” he said, looking up at half-filled overhead wire ways. “The cabling runs leave lots of room for extra wiring for more sensors whenever they’re added.”

As an economy measure, the ship also features a number of used items. The 76mm guns, and launchers for Evolved Sea Sparrow and Harpoon missiles, for example, are refurbished fittings from decommissioned ships.

The sophisticated combat suite, however, is all-new, featuring Thales Smart-L and APAR radars, other sensors and fire-control equipment nearly identical to Dutch De Zeven Provincien-class and German Sachsen-class frigates.

Yet while Nils Juel is operational — this reporter’s visit took place just after the ship completed several weeks taking part in a major exercise with the US Navy along the eastern seaboard — the ship remains, in some ways, incomplete.

The two 76mm guns, for example, are essentially temporary fittings. The forward mounting is sized to take a US Mark 45 5-inch gun, but no funds have been allocated to purchase the $50 million weapons. The second gun position also is intended to mount another close-in weapon system, yet to be purchased.

Amidships, the 32-cell Mark 41 vertical launch system is unused, awaiting not just operational certification, but also the purchase of additional components and Standard surface-to-air missiles.

Aft, atop the hangar, what appeared to be a 35mm Oerlikon Contraves Millenium gun was actually a dummy. The weapon is still being certified but, to keep the flight deck’s air worthiness certifications, a fake gun was installed to maintain wind current features.


The ship also is hiring more crew members. The original crew size of 100 was found to be “too lean,” Jensen said, and 17 more slots have opened, about half in the engineering department. But even with 117 crew members, the Danes will have a crew smaller than similar warships.

“We try to do the same things the Dutch and Germans do, but with fewer people,” Jensen said, explaining that the ship features a high degree of automation, as well as 50 cameras placed throughout to monitor spaces such as the engine rooms, hangar and missile decks.

The three frigates are manned with two and a half crews, allowing for one ship to be training, another to be deployed, with the half-manned ship undergoing maintenance. About half the crew aboard Nils Juel, including Jensen, returned this year from a deployment aboard the Iver Huitfeldt, and joined this ship a few months before the cruise to the US.

The ships also are being brought up to higher war-fighting standards, Horsted said, and are being certified by the British Royal Navy’s Flag Officer Sea Training organization. Among other things, that means improving damage control fittings and adding some internal features.

Improvements also need to be installed in the engineering control center, said Lt. Christian Jens, the ship’s electro officer. “We still need a secondary steering control installation and navigational equipment,” he said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/archives/2014/11/24/aboard-danish-frigate-clean-lines-and-room-to-grow/78531906/

Note that the article is from 2014 and some things, like the 35 mm guns, have changed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have to wonder are we trying to ask these ships to do to much? Does the Flex deck come at to much cost for the other factors? I don’t see what the flex deck brings that a charted/bought RO/RO does not bring or even a Mistral would do better.

Also all this modularity seem to minimize strength and water/fire integrity in case of major damage from a anti-ship missile?

 

[Kirkhill]

My reason for proposing the Flex Deck is that it is likely to be close to the point of need at the time that it is needed.  Whereas a charter will be weeks,  if not months away.  And even then it may not be possible to charter a vessel willing to stand in harm's way.

"Better a battalion in time than a division too late".

 

[Kirkhill]

I must say i was very impressed that the Iver Huitfeldt was able to steam 9,400nm  across the atlantic at an average speed of 27kts and not run out of gas. The vessel can sail across from Europe to America and back again and still have fuel left over. This would cut down on the number of RAS'S required. None of the many vessels i've sailed on including Cruise ships could match this . I QUESTION THESE FIGURES QUOTED IN A PREVIOUS POST, BUT IF TRUE VERY IMPRESSIVE.

CHEERS

Between San Juan, Puerto Rico to Ponta Delgado on the Azores, a distance of 2,400 sea miles, an impressive speed of around 27 knots was maintained. In addi- tion, it should be mentioned that the various stages of the voyage were undertaken under very varied conditions. The wind strength varied from calm to 22-24 m/sec with the resulting wave heights from zero meters to around seven meters. The total distance sailed on the trial journey was 9,050 sea miles.

Quote from the "fluff" piece I referenced above.    The vessel in question maintained 27 kts for 2400 nm.    The total distance sailed was 9050 nm but it doesn't stipulate average speed or if refuelling occurred

 

[STONEY]

Chris thanks for clarification. Still 2,400 nm at 27kts is still impressive as there are NUC  boats out there that couldn't do that.  Fluff piece or not there seems to be a lot more details on this vessel than the other frigates in the running  for our competition .  Cheers

 

[Good2Golf]

Chris thanks for clarification. Still 2,400 nm at 27kts is still impressive as there are NUC  boats out there that couldn't do that...

Range or speed?  Other than the Russian ice-breakers, I'm not aware of any nuclear-powered vessel sailing today that could not reach 27 kts?

Regards
G2G