• 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
Navy_Pete said:
Standards don't really have much to do with it; the propane trainers don't behave like a real ship fire.  They don't get hot enough, they don't have the same smoke/thermal layering, and they don't go out if you do things properly.

Part of it is familiarity of what with how hot diesel fires actually get; people get understandably scared when they encounter that kind of heat for the first time on a real ship board fire.  Also the temperature differences can be several hundred degrees between the smoke layer and below it, so it teaches you pretty quick that you need to get low.

I think the propane trainers are great, but once everyone has the basics down, we need something closer to a real fire.  You can build a safe trainer that uses diesel pools and some other typical scenarios to train with, that would be great for the final confirmation.  Hopefully that's one of the positive things that will come out of PRO.

A few other navies that also went to full propane/nat gas trainers have found the same thing, so it's not just us.  There are some environmental and PR issues with getting diesel fire trainers going, but I think people get that it's not just for giggles.

There will be changes implemented in the current fleet and whats being built from lessons learned from the PRO fire. Same as when the HMCS Kootenay caught fire. Things such as during training we teach not to put the inductor in the AFFF can, when we have a real fire guess what pers do.The attack team leaders course out here is very tough, but a diesel fire aspect of it would add realism but would come with significant risk to personnel.
 
Training is a good start, but also a good chance to re evalute the 'how'. 

I agree there is a risk to personnel, but I would compare this to the army doing live fire exercises or maybe live agent exercises.  You make it as safe as possible, but our job is inherently risky, so better to be going through it for the first time in a controlled environment rather then out in the middle of the ocean, and it also builds confidence that the gear will do the job.  The propane trainers are great for getting used to tactics and the equipment, but not good if people are scared when they meet the real thing.

There are a number of industrial FF schools that already have it setup like that, so not like we'd be breaking new ground.  There are a lot of ways to set it up to so that you could very quickly blanket it with foam and vent all the hot gases if something went wrong.  Also, it'd give the old sailors a chance to go on about how the old diesel trainers were more realistic in their day and how soft us kids are.  ;D
 
There are indeed pro's and con's with the present DCTF and propane fires.  It is convenient in instructing to bring the fires up or knock them off at the word of command as compared to the old trainer with live fire.  It is, however, as pointed out not good for showing the students what a real "I want to, and will kill you if you fuck up" live fire is like. I remember the experience of my OSQAB training and going into the engine room fire for the first time.  It was alarming to say the very least to see or more aptly not see anything due to the black smoke and as you creeped towards the seat of the fire to begin to see a angry orange glow as if the entrance to hell was coming for you, and the heat...  If you didn't do things right, it would flash over your heads and come around you from the sides.  Nothing like the real deal to teach you properly.  With the propane being force fed it is hard to show how the new techniques disrupt the thermal layers, knock down the flames and provide effective gas cooling.

They are talking about some live fire capability with wood as the fuel source similar to what is being used at Waverley so I am told.  I have not seen what they have there so cannot speak with any authority as to what exactly they are doing there.  It is a step in the right direction at any rate.

We have heard things from the PRO incident but have had no concrete briefings or after action reports.  If what we have heard is correct, things do need to change to prepare for the next time.  And there will be a next time one day.  Yes, it needs to be as realistic as can be.  I know from personal experience that if you train like it's real, when it's real, it feels like training.
 
As far as I know, the BOI findings for PRO are still making the rounds.  The actual fire investigation etc is done; there might be an unclass version of the presentation at the next tech seminar in March.

Not sure where PRO BOI is in the approval process, but did hear that the ALG BOI findings only recently got the final stamp, although I've yet to personally put eyes on it.

There were some design reviews right after the PRO fire though for AOPs and JSS, so the SMEs looked at it.  CSC is still early enough on that there is no design, but we are actively working on a number of things to include in the SOR wrt MMS fires, and possibly some improvements to the FDSAC system on the frigates that have been sitting at EC part 1s for a while.
 
The RN uses propane and pans with vegetable oil to add the heat and black smoke conditions you would want in a fire.  if your crash stops could drop lids on big pans of vegi oil the system would still be safe and you might use the same trainer.  Just thought.

:salute:
 
Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.

Irving named prime contractor for Canadian surface combatant warships
Owner of shipyard building new combat vessels will oversee project, hire subcontractors

By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Jan 20, 2015 4:29 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 20, 2015 4:34 PM ET

The Irving Shipyard in Halifax will build Canada's next generation of combat ships for the Royal Canadian Navy, and will also serve as prime contractor for the job worth nearly $26-billion.

A major decision in the federal government's nearly $26-billion program to build new combatant ships for the navy has been made behind closed doors and announced only quietly today at a meeting of defence industry insiders.

The government announced Tuesday that Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax will be the prime contractor on the 15-ship Canadian surface combatant program.

That program is seen to be the crown jewel in the government's $35-billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy to rebuild the capital fleet. Irving was long ago selected to build all the military's combat ships, but Tuesday's announcement also puts Irving in charge of almost the entire project.

That status theoretically affords the privately held company the opportunity to take profit as both shipbuilder and prime contractor. It would also give Irving significant power or sway in decisions about which subcontractors are invited to participate in the program, and at what price.

The government has not said how much the contract is worth, but the value of the prime contractor position is significant enough to have attracted the interest of large defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, DCNS, Thales and others. Some of those companies will likely also bid on other key parts of the ship program and had their own stakes in being named prime contractor.

Prime contractor does the hiring

The position is best explained as akin to the general contractor in home building or renovation. The general contractor oversees the project but also hires all the subordinate trades, including roofers, plumbers, carpenters, drywallers, electricians and others.

The government in effect has decided to make Irving both carpenter and general contractor. It's done this after soliciting the defence industry for feedback about the way ahead.

As part of the shipbuilding procurement program, the government has been consulting with industry.

There were at least five options under consideration, all but one of which included competition as a key part of the process. The fifth, a "shipyard-led process," appears to leave much of the decision-making up to Irving, making the builder responsible "for demonstrating that each of the selections satisfies Canada's operational and contractual requirements," according to public contract documents.

It's not clear to what extent these processes have evolved since they were first made public in 2013.

Alan Williams, the Defence Department's former head of procurement, said the strategy is guaranteed to be confusing.

"No one really understands what's going on, and I think [the government] prefers to keep it that way," he told CBC News.

Williams said the government should have held a competition to determine who would be prime contractor on the multibillion-dollar project.

"A prime [contractor] determined by the government is a problem in the sense that it has determined who is going to be accountable for the product, and where it is going to be built."

Under such a system, teams of contractors would group together and compete with other teams to win the government's business. The only restriction in this context is that Irving would always remain the builder. In this case, that process is skewed, Williams said.

"In other words, $26 billion or so will go to Irving and they will decide who will get to help build these ships, under what terms and conditions.

"Of course, their primary interest and responsibility isn't to the Canadian taxpayer, isn't to the government, isn't to the navy, but it's to their shareholders."
Competitive process more cost-effective?

Much of that would also be true if another company were made prime contractor, but Williams said a fight between rivals to win the government's work would encourage better outcomes at lower costs.

"It would be much more cost-effective through a competitive process."

The decision to make a builder the prime contractor was always an option under the shipbuilding program, but the decision to award it to Irving surprised some defence insiders.

A source familiar with the government plan suggests the decision is smart, because it makes Irving accountable to the government for the entire project.

Typically, large projects of this sort have one team in charge of project definition and design and another in charge of the build and the complicated combat systems integration process. The transition between teams sometimes becomes difficult and hard to manage, as one group is forced to implement another contractor's plan.

In this case, the source says, the government has reduced that risk by having one company run both sides of the effort.

Article Link
 
This actually makes sense; they can design the build around their facilities and production line, kind of like figuring out how to build a cabinet with what tools you have at home.  Most of the other systems come as a modular package that can be 'plugged in', and individual systems would have their own SMEs regardless.

Hopefully they unfox the IP setup though, that's nuts.
 
Scaling back...

Reuters

Canada set to scale back big plan for navy ships, go over budget

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian officials said on Friday a C$26.2 billion ($21.5 billion) program to build 15 naval ships could end up below target and over budget, the latest challenge to Canada's troubled military procurement process.

In 2010, the Conservative government announced the program to replace three destroyers and 12 frigates with 15 modern warships.

But officials told a briefing that the plan was now to build "up to 15 vessels" and the exact number would not be known for another few years. Construction is set to start early in the next decade and end in 2040.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Chief Stoker said:
So what do you base this on?

Construction is set to start early in the next decade and end in 2040.

that's 20 years to build all the ships that means the first ships will have about 10 years left in their life span before replacement programs should be going
 
MilEME09 said:
that's 20 years to build all the ships that means the first ships will have about 10 years left in their life span before replacement programs should be going

When the CSC start being built the latest technology will be used and as successive ships are completed they will have the latest equipment. I would hardly call that obsolete. HMCS Halifax was laid down in 1987, and last of class HMCS Ottawa came out in 1996, are they obsolete? Unless we build the CSC in two yards like the Halifax Class, that's the time it will take.
 
Honestly we should be using more then what yard, should something like this not be a national effort, not which ever company profits the most from it?
 
Chief Stoker said:
When the CSC start being built the latest technology will be used and as successive ships are completed they will have the latest equipment. I would hardly call that obsolete. HMCS Halifax was laid down in 1987, and last of class HMCS Ottawa came out in 1996, are they obsolete? Unless we build the CSC in two yards like the Halifax Class, that's the time it will take.

Well that depends upon what sort of gauge you're using to quantify that question.  I am, at present, on my 6B's.  I won't speak for the CSE world or the Grimy side either, but, on my end of the stick.  The terms that were used to describe HAL is that she (as a CPF) was designed for a 25 year lifespan, at point which she is nearly at.  Therefore, she is nearing her end of life usefulness at a rapid pace.  IF, the CSC does start to make her appearance around 2025 as hoped for, that will make HAL in the 35 year mark (if not more).  10 years isn't a long time and I doubt she honestly has that long left, from a HT standpoint.  Her sisters won't be far behind at that point either.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Well that depends upon what sort of gauge you're using to quantify that question.  I am, at present, on my 6B's.  I won't speak for the CSE world or the Grimy side either, but, on my end of the stick.  The terms that were used to describe HAL is that she (as a CPF) was designed for a 25 year lifespan, at point which she is nearly at.  Therefore, she is nearing her end of life usefulness at a rapid pace.  IF, the CSC does start to make her appearance around 2025 as hoped for, that will make HAL in the 35 year mark (if not more).  10 years isn't a long time and I doubt she honestly has that long left, from a HT standpoint.  Her sisters won't be far behind at that point either.
The purpose of FELEX has been specifically to upgrade the systems to extend the useful lifespan of the ships to 40+ years. A refitted ship will never be "new" as one designed and built from scratch (and there are limits to how much life you can squeeze out of an old hull with successive refits), but at the same time refitted ships don't have to go through the same kind of teething pains as all-new classes do when they're first introduced. When you change out all the weapons, sensors and combat systems on a ship while substantially overhauling the engineering systems, at some point you're just talking about the hull itself being old (though, to be fair to your 6B instructor, that's exactly what a Hull Tech would be concerned with).
 
hamiltongs said:
The purpose of FELEX has been specifically to upgrade the systems to extend the useful lifespan of the ships to 40+ years. A refitted ship will never be "new" as one designed and built from scratch (and there are limits to how much life you can squeeze out of an old hull with successive refits), but at the same time refitted ships don't have to go through the same kind of teething pains as all-new classes do when they're first introduced. When you change out all the weapons, sensors and combat systems on a ship while substantially overhauling the engineering systems, at some point you're just talking about the hull itself being old (though, to be fair to your 6B instructor, that's exactly what a Hull Tech would be concerned with).

And poor old HAL, when she was young had the crap run out of her.  There's no way they'll be able to or at the very least should try to make the hull last 40 years.  They may "want" to extend the life that long, but the design wasn't intended to go that long.  And I don't believe they will.
 
jollyjacktar said:
And poor old HAL, when she was young had the crap run out of her.  There's no way they'll be able to or at the very least should try to make the hull last 40 years.  They may "want" to extend the life that long, but the design wasn't intended to go that long.  And I don't believe they will.

For Canadian warships, the hull will always be the deciding factor as the hull thickness decreases overtime and being prone to cracking with the stresses of being at sea. As we seen with Iroquois, the hull just wore out.
 
As always.  Their minds, eyes and senses may be sharpened with the nice new IMPS/BDCS and combat suites, but their bodies are frail.
 
jollyjacktar said:
And poor old HAL, when she was young had the crap run out of her.  There's no way they'll be able to or at the very least should try to make the hull last 40 years.  They may "want" to extend the life that long, but the design wasn't intended to go that long.  And I don't believe they will.

There are some pragmatists around town who use the term "self-divest"...  :nod:

Regards
G2G
 
Back
Top