• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

Does anyone has info about the inside of this class of ship ? I was wondering how the messes look like (is it built like fregates where you have racks or it is like our new suppliers with individual rooms with beds ?).

How about a gym space ?

Thanks
 
Could we add something like the Spike ER to add a bit of punch? Seems like the cost and footprint are fairly modest compared to the increase in leathality...

https://www.janes.com/article/84817/philippines-navy-demos-new-spike-er-capability
 
Jokerniemi said:
Does anyone has info about the inside of this class of ship ? I was wondering how the messes look like (is it built like fregates where you have racks or it is like our new suppliers with individual rooms with beds ?).

How about a gym space ?

Thanks

The cafeteria is a combined Jr's and C & PO's. Wardroom like a CPF is one deck up. Some cabins are two man and four man. There is a 20 man mess for scientists, ERT team, Sea training etc. Yes there is a nice gym space. Its not like the Asterix.
 
Swampbuggy said:
It’s also likely that the CSC will have a diesel electric plant, as well, (...)

I have just realized this recently.
The diesel-electric plant on the CSC is designed to provide a low noise  print. If AOPS is not really intended for ASW ... which are the other benefits expected from the use of such plant ?
 
JMCanada said:
I have just realized this recently.
The diesel-electric plant on the CSC is designed to provide a low noise  print. If AOPS is not really intended for ASW ... which are the other benefits expected from the use of such plant ?

They are more versatile than conventional propulsion systems. You bring on more or less diesel alternators as needed that provides power to the propulsion motors. Its also more efficient as you come down in speed you can take off diesels as needed. They are also less susceptible to damage and requires far less maintenance.
 
Electric motors are used for most icebreakers these days (and in the sense I use "icebreakers", the AOPS are such vessels) because if you get a large chunk of ice going under the hull and jamming momentarily in the propellers, you don't break the props, gears or diesel engines. An electrical motor, just like the one in the hand held fans you played with as a kid, will simply get stopped or slowed down momentarily, then pick its speed right back up without any damage. Sure, it instantaneously increases electrical resistance and causes a brown out in the electrical system - but no damage.

The same thing happening in a mechanical ship's propulsion plant would see the diesel engine trying to put out power on one side of the gearbox, with the propeller shaft being stopped by the ice on the other side: It would grind the gears.

Also, what the Chief said.

BTW, the CSC, if it follows the Type 26 pattern (and it should since Canada has specified an even higher speed) is not a "diesel-electric" propulsion system. It's will be either a CODLOG or CODLAG system, meaning electric propulsion through a normal shaft (as opposed to MCDV's for instance, which have "Z" drives) for low speed ASW and Gaz turbine for high speed. The difference between the "LOG" and "LAG" is in the first instance, it is either electric or the GT that propels the ship - but not both together, while the LAG is a combination of both working together to effect propulsion.

CODLAG has worked quite successfully on the British Type 23 frigates (DUKE class).
 
Chief Engineer said:
They are more versatile than conventional propulsion systems. You bring on more or less diesel alternators as needed that provides power to the propulsion motors. Its also more efficient as you come down in speed you can take off diesels as needed. They are also less susceptible to damage and requires far less maintenance.

Chief, you'll be able to answer this I am sure.

Does the CSC/Type 26 design use podded propulsors?  Not in the sense of Z-Pods but more like "compartmentalized" pods.  Just thinking about that Norwegian frigate and the comments made in the reports about her shaft and the stuffing boxes possibly contributing to the speed with which she went down.  With pods you just need to punch cables through the bulkheads - not a mechanical shaft.

Gensets and separate pods eliminate the need for those long, vulnerable shafts.

Edit:  Never mind.  OGBD to the rescue.  Thanks.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
...will simply get stopped or slowed down momentarily, then pick its speed right back up without any damage. Sure, it instantaneously increases electrical resistance and causes a brown out in the electrical system..

Wouldn't the back-EMF drop to zero and resistance drop to only the actually value across the coils, therefore causing the current to spike up, possibly limiting the ability of the generator to maintain the voltage, causing a brown out?

Pedantic, I know...
 
Baz said:
Wouldn't the back-EMF drop to zero and resistance drop to only the actually value across the coils, therefore causing the current to spike up, possibly limiting the ability of the generator to maintain the voltage, causing a brown out?

Pedantic, I know...

I think that would depend on the quality of the soft-starter/inverter to be able to manage the variable load.  I believe that the worst case scenario would see a draw equivalent to that of the locked-rotor seen at initiation of start up.  Not an electrician but have worked with and specced more than my fair share of heavy motor / inverter combinations.
 
Regarding propulsion systems, the F-110 frigate (similar to type 26) is the spanish next ASW frigate and is expected to use a CODLOG plant, but a CODLADOG plant was alternatively proposed (see picture with both options): combined diesel-electric and diesel Or Gas  :nod:

The design has been maturing for about 10 years... but the lack of funding has kept it on hold. The design AFAIK was not offered for the CSC because RCN was suppossedly asking for an off-the shelf design.

Latest rumours say they (5 units) will get funding by Dec. 28th. Considering that date is Spain's Fool's day... probably they will have to wait to 2019 to actually get the funds.  ;D

EDITED: this been said, I would bet we will see first F-110 commissioned before first CSC.
[first line also edited].
 

Attachments

  • f-110-20151124-rev-01-releseable-19-638-1.jpg
    f-110-20151124-rev-01-releseable-19-638-1.jpg
    159.3 KB · Views: 200
Interesting graphic

https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48406357_10157013346644533_5452765319359627264_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=c6c2cd137783e68833b4c1ebd69ee428&oe=5C99D284
 
Baz said:
Wouldn't the back-EMF drop to zero and resistance drop to only the actually value across the coils, therefore causing the current to spike up, possibly limiting the ability of the generator to maintain the voltage, causing a brown out?

Pedantic, I know...

No, an ice chunk jamming in the props is taken into account when designing the system.

Worst case, your protection trips and shuts off the motor.

As an example, one vessel I worked on had a "boost" module for her generator exciter for exactly the scenario you described.

If the exciters couldn't handle the load, the boost module kicked in for a up to a preset time.

The timing on the motor protection would be set a bit shorter, so either the ice chunk came out and the motor began to spin normally, or the motor tripped off before the boost module shut off.

That was an older vessel, other vessels will probably handle it differently, probably just current limitation in the propulsion drives/trip off the drives, but ice jamming will be considered in the design if it's classed as an ice breaker.

Conventional propulsion vessels classed as ice breakers will have some sort of design consideration to deal with it as well, probably either a clutch designed to slip at high torque or sacrificial "shear pins" like a snow blower.
 
Colin P said:
Interesting graphic

https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48406357_10157013346644533_5452765319359627264_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=c6c2cd137783e68833b4c1ebd69ee428&oe=5C99D284

I find it interesting to see that #6 is still being referred to as ROBERT HAMPTON GRAY. Has there ever been anything official from the RCN confirming that name?
 
Swampbuggy said:
I find it interesting to see that #6 is still being referred to as ROBERT HAMPTON GRAY. Has there ever been anything official from the RCN confirming that name?

Yes its official.
 
“The gap is not fully solved, we still have about an 18-month gap to address, but (there’s) a good commitment from the government to continue to work with us on that in the new year, ”McCoy said.

To eliminate the gap and avoid layoffs entirely, McCoy said, the shipyard would need a contract for eight AOPS and continuous Halifax-class work.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/the-year-in-shipbuilding-271085/
 
Uzlu said:
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/the-year-in-shipbuilding-271085/

So we'll put our crack team to the task and get two more for the price of 5?
 
On the labour side of things, over the summer Irving and the shipyard union reached a new, four-year collective agreement, following months of challenging negotiations, narrowly avoiding a strike.

Interesting, with all the projects, years of work, and Irving attempting to close the "gap" there is the Union flexing. Bet 4 years from now there will be a slow down, threats of a strike.
 
MilEME09 said:
And why is it the schedule for tge CSC cant be pushed up?

No rushing the CSC.  Need to do a really good job on the prep work before you even cut the steel.  Time spent on the front end will save millions of dollars, time and headaches down the road. 
 
Back
Top