RNZN Protector Project" Vessels

[STONEY]

A few points to ponder for those who think that building a ship to mercantile standard is somehow a terrible thing.

1. Half of the vessel used by the Canadian Navy are built to mercantile standard.
2. Many of the worlds Navy's ,such as British,Dutch,Spanish,Italian to name a few , build many of there vessels to
mercantile standards ie HMS Ocean (helo carrier) , HMS Albion, Rotterdam, Galicia, San Girgio (assault ships)
3. Merchant ships are designed to spend far more of there time at sea than warships, therefore their equipment has to be designed to operate for long periods without failure with small crews.
4. When a ship is being built to mercantile standards, professional naval architects & inspectors employed by 
  classification society's like Lloyds ,who spend their whole lives at their job, oversee that vessels construction 
  to ensure it meets standard.
5. When a ship is built to navy standards, an officer on a 2 year posting to the project office oversees construction
  to ensure it meets standard.
6. Ships built to mercantile standards must meet an endless list of international standards for such things as , safety of life at sea,  pollution regs. , firefighting, stability while ships built to naval standards can waive these things for military necessity.

Cheers

 

[Neill McKay]

A few points to ponder for those who think that building a ship to mercantile standard is somehow a terrible thing.

1. Half of the vessel used by the Canadian Navy are built to mercantile standard.

Which half, though, is very significant.

6. Ships built to mercantile standards must meet an endless list of international standards for such things as , safety of life at sea,   pollution regs. , firefighting, stability while ships built to naval standards can waive these things for military necessity.

I think one salient item, absent from this list, is resistance to the effects of weapons.  That's really what the argument seems to hinge on.

 

[geo]

The nature of new naval weapons is such that even warships with milspecs "will" experience fatastrophic failures & go down....

 

[Lineman]

Since the CF may be interested in some sort of RORO transport and the new government is looking north would something along the lines of a "beefed" up MV Cariboo be of interest? It was built here in Canada at the Davies yard. Found it at Wikipedia Again just an observation from the outside looking in.

 

[Donaill]

I'm sorry. I must have mixed up my information. Does the U.S. not have a law that requires ships to be built in the U.S. if they are going to carry U.S. products? If my memmory is correct than they do, if so does it cover military ships as well? My point is that I see nothing wrong with awarding ship contracts to Canadian yards. It is time that we stopped shipping so much of our goods out only to buy them back at a higher price.
Canadians first. Everyone else can bloody well wait.

 

[Neill McKay]

I'm sorry. I must have mixed up my information. Does the U.S. not have a law that requires ships to be built in the U.S. if they are going to carry U.S. products? If my memmory is correct than they do, if so does it cover military ships as well?

I don't think there is, or reasonably could be, a law requiring any ship carrying US products to have been built in the US.  However, I believe it is at least a matter of policy, if not law, that US military equipment will be carried in US-flagged (and maybe US-built) ships.

Under the Jones Act, I believe ships in coasting trade (carrying goods between two US ports) have to be US-built and crewed (as well as US-flagged).  You may want to check that yourself, though -- I've never looked into it deeply enough to read the Jones Act itself.

 

[Kirkhill]

Neill:

That is my understanding of the Jones Act as well.

Donaill:

While I agree in principle with your "Buy Canadian" policy I have problems with it on two fronts. 

The first is that additional costs may be incurred to train, employ and maintain a Canadian capability.  That may not be a bad thing in itself. It is at least debatable.  However for DND, that is held to a tight budget that is broadly seen by the majority of Canadians to be a necessary evil at best, the reality is that they end up required to pay more for comparable equipment while not being given the extra funds necessary to buy at home.  This is despite the fact that 100 MCAD spent in the domestic economy is not the same as 100 MCAD spent internationally.

The second problem is that it is not the rest of the world that ends up "bloody well waiting".  It is the CF that has to wait for deliveries while people are hired and trained and facilities are built to build goods that are available, if not off the shelf, on short delivery from open production lines.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The problems I see with the ships built to mercantile standards and those built to naval standards are I find naval ships biult to mil specs have a lot more water tight bulk heads and hose stations then those ships not built to mercantile standards, if anything those should be a telling reasons right there.

 

[Armymatters]

The problems I see with the ships built to mercantile standards and those built to naval standards are I find naval ships biult to mil specs have a lot more water tight bulk heads and hose stations then those ships not built to mercantile standards, if anything those should be a telling reasons right there.

Then again any modern anti-ship weapon can turn a mil-spec ship into a pile of scrap metal at the bottom of the ocean pretty quickly. This is what a MK 48 torpedo can do to a destroyer:
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/gallery/slideshow_010202.shtml
The torpedo broke the ship's keel, which caused the hull to fracture into two sections (bow and stern). The stern sank immediately after being hit, while the bow section stayed afloat for a few moments before going under.
To make the point very clear, this is what a AGM-84 Harpoon missile can do to a destroyer (scroll down to see the damage):
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/reinli/472/id34_m.htm
http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/military_service/p-3.htm
Then again, that ship was hit by 3 Hellfire missiles, 3 Harpoon missiles, and a single 2400lb bomb. She didn't sink until navy technicians came onboard and and planted some scuttling charges to sink her. But you get the picture: Modern weapons can do a whole lot of damage to mil-spec ships, so much that it may make it uneconomical to repair the damage and the ship is best sent to the scrap heap. There is even is a story of a Harpoon being accidentally misfired in 1982, which went off to destroy 4 cottages, and damaged a further 130. Lucky, no one was hurt.

 

[Navy_Blue]

STONEY I don't know how you can say the military can wave fire fighting standards and safety on warships.  Like EX said we have far more water tight compartments.  Our damage control equipment is everywhere.  I'd rather fight a fire on a CPF than a MCDV.  But we all know if an MCDV sees any action we're in allot of trouble.  

The point about Officers overseeing  our projects is not entirely true either.  Irving Hired allot of high priced help to build the CPF and over see the project (I don't think it helped much).  Our officers tend to have pressure from above to keep projects moving and let QC standards slide.  Its our own fault most time the ships come out below standard because we don't fight it and the ship yards take advantage of that.

There is no reason you couldn't build a ship to be strong and still use civi parts and equipment.  The maintenance and replacement cost is where we would see savings.  Especially over the long term.

Armymatters, Our frigate have the ability to take damage and limp out of a fight.  Your link about the harpoons demonstrates this point.  We have enough redundant systems to get our surviving crew away from danger.  Thats why we should continue to build them the way we do.  However ships meant to be for Logistics like the JSS should be kept in the rear and therefore could be built to civi standards.

 

[Armymatters]

I would have to agree with the point on logistics ships easily. Quite a few other navies (including the Royal Navy) use purchased civilian tankers for AOR operations. Perhaps purchasing a couple of commerical tankers and refit them for AOR ops to replace our current AOR's may in fact be economical? They will need some work (fitting the fueling hoses and rigs, perhaps adding a helo deck, but the helo deckcan be omitted), but can be done, in Canadian shipyards.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This argument is becoming ridiculous. I would humbly submit all of you who are talking about Milspec versus commercial standards construction like it is nothing at all have never fought a fire at sea.  I have...

Helmets on boys... war story time.  In 2003, I was the Air O on HMCS OTTAWA.  We were coming back from Panama when we suffered an engine room fire.  A big one.  Like "balls of flames shooting out of the top of the uptakes" big.  Five attack teams, 27 cans of AFFF, 180 Chemox cannisters, 1 gas turbine Engine and 4 hours later, we got the situation under control.  Our butts were saved by Milspec redundancy, luck, good training and excellent leadership.

Now, the rest of you can sail around on luck, good training and good leadership if you want to.  Me- I will also take the most overbuilt and bulkheaded ship over the "cheapest" ship- everytime.

Cheers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As SKT points out its doubtful a naval vessel built to mercantile standards would have fared as well, so for those of you who advocate mercantile standards to our ships please think before posting again. Yes its cheaper but is it worth the cost in lives?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There is even is a story of a Harpoon being accidentally misfired in 1982, which went off to destroy 4 cottages, and damaged a further 130. Lucky, no one was hurt

Care to document that?

 

[Armymatters]

Care to document that?

No problem:
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/History/1945_1989/Missile%20Incident.htm

HARPOON missile on the loose destroys residential area in North Western Zealand

For unknown reasons the Danish guided missile frigate PEDER SKRAM accidentally launched an SSM missile.
- Fortunately, no one was killed in the incident, but 4 weekend cottages were completely destroyed and another 130 received large or minor damages.

The breaking news of the Danish broadcasting at noon September 6, 1982, was that the frigate PEDER SKRAM for unknown reasons had launched a HARPOON missile.

The missile detonated just a few minutes later in the center of a residential area; just 100 meters from an elder retired couple.

By Johnny E. Balsved

It is a unusual incident no doubt. At least we have proven the Harpoon missile has an actual land attack capability!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Back in 1982, they didn't. Only with the introduction of the Harpoon II did the Harpoon become capable of attacking land targets as well.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Armymatters,

Thank-you for the reference on the Harpoon incident.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Can someone elaborate on exactly what differentiates the two specifications?


Matthew.  ???

 

[Navy_Blue]

MIL SPEC Did not save you on the Ottawa fire your skilled HQ1 and attack teams saved you.  Just because something is built to civi standards doesn't mean it can't have same redundancy we require.  If a civi tanker had the number of crew we do they could handle a fire like that too. 

MIL Spec equipment is typically hardend and tested to hold up to shock, heat and battle conditions without failing.  Redundancy has nothing to do with it.  If your redundant equipment is in a different space (which it would be) from the fire it would not be affected.  Also there is no reason you couldn't have adequate supplies of fire fighting equipment.  MIL Spec is just tested to a higher standard and therefore more costly...allot more costly.  Its also harder to get parts for replacement. 

from the site concerning the US military:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Standard

The proliferation of standards had drawbacks, however. It was argued that the large number of standards, nearly 30,000 by 1990, imposed unnecessary restrictions, increased cost to contractors (and hence the DOD), and impeded the incorporation of the latest technology. Responding to increasing criticism, Secretary of Defense William Perry issued a memorandum in 1994 that effectively eliminated the use of most defense standards. This has become known as the "Perry memo". Many defense standards were cancelled. In their place, the DOD encouraged the use of industry standards, such as ISO 9000 series for quality assurance.  Weapon systems were required to use "performance specifications" that described the desired features of the weapon, as opposed to requiring a large number of defense standards. In 2005, however, the DOD partially reversed itself and issued a new memorandum that permits use of defense standards without obtaining a waiver, but did not reinstate any cancelled defense standards.  According to a 2003 issue of Gateway, published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center [2], the number of defense standards and specifications have been reduced from 45,500 to 28,300. However, other sources noted that the number of standards just before the Perry memorandum was issued was less than 30,000, and that thousands have been cancelled since then. This may be due to differences in what is counted as a "military standard".

 

[SeaKingTacco]

MIL SPEC Did not save you on the Ottawa fire your skilled HQ1 and attack teams saved you.  Just because something is built to civi standards doesn't mean it can't have same redundancy we require.  If a civi tanker had the number of crew we do they could handle a fire like that too. 

Where did I not credit the Ship's Company?  Please re-read my post...

I offer caution when one wants to build warships to civilian standards- particularly if one also expects to save money on crewing, too.  To me, civilian standard construction is building a ship to the minimum acceptable tolerance with the minimum required redundancy- anything more than that costs the owner money.  This is not to say that civilian built ships are inherently unsafe- as long as no one is throwing burning or explosive things at the ship.  Also, should a fire break out on a civilian ship, no one expects the ship's company to do much other than fight the fire if it is small and abaondon ship if it is not.  After all, it is insured, right?

Warships do not have that luxury. We do not abandon warships until they are basically useless and past saving. Often, warships are called upon to continue fighting or sailing, even if heavily damaged or actually on fire.  If you advocate building warships with fewer bulkheads and less redundancy in order to save on construction costs and also try to simultaneously reduce crew size, I think you have the recipe for disaster brewing.

If you are saying, use off the self-equipment where prudent to do so in order to save money, I can't help but agree with you.  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.

I have to say Navy Blue- you sail more often than I do.  If you have the confidence to stake your life and the lives of your shipmates on an equipment procurement plan as you have laid it out, I  am not really in any position to argue with you.