Author Topic: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?  (Read 803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
I have read here about the progress on the new Navajo class at the US Navy.

https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/03/13/us-navys-new-class-of-towing-and-salvage-ships-honors-navajo-people/

It is relatively cheap, only two or three units might be required for service, engineering would be simple using existing designs,... wouldn't it be ideal to close the production gaps in the NSS?

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 140
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2019, 21:28:37 »
I think it is probably going to be one or more additional Harry DeWolfs.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 679
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2019, 22:29:00 »
One thing to keep in mind is even with a completed design, all shipyards have to do their own production engineering to tailor the build instructions to their own facilities.  That's from the sub assemblies, modules etc on up to the megablocks and final ship.  There are max size/weight restrictions at each stage, throughput requirements etc that need to be considered, so could range anywhere from minor changes to a completely new build process.  Sometimes there are also materials that you may not have the equipment to cut/weld efficiently, so may need to do some redesign. Also, depending on the age of the design, you may also need to update it to comply with the rules that apply (usually based on when you start construction).

Not necessarily the end of the world, but it's not necessarily plug and play.

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 25,512
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 372
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2019, 06:32:41 »
One of those would have been handy for us back in Feb/Mar 2014...  ;)

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC - 5320.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 270,062
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,423
    • Army.ca
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2019, 10:25:01 »
With the way we buy used equipment, a tow truck might be a good idea.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,168
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2019, 10:56:53 »
Do the AOP's have any towing gear planned?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,206
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2019, 11:06:05 »
One of those would have been handy for us back in Feb/Mar 2014...  ;)

That. Or a new AOR. Or even a decent preventative maintenance program...

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,112
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2019, 11:53:02 »
Do the AOP's have any towing gear planned?

All our ships have the ability to tow including AOPS.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,168
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2019, 14:05:23 »
We theoretically had the ability to tow on our 1100 class icebreaker, till we had to standby to tow the Exxon San Francisco, then we realized how out of our league we were. I am assuming you have bits and perhaps a bridle, but no dedicated winches?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,112
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2019, 15:03:54 »
We theoretically had the ability to tow on our 1100 class icebreaker, till we had to standby to tow the Exxon San Francisco, then we realized how out of our league we were. I am assuming you have bits and perhaps a bridle, but no dedicated winches?

Its not a ocean going tug or offshore supply vessel so no it is not specifically set up for towing large vessels. AOPS will have a towing bridle so it will be able to tow other ships as any other ship in the RCN can.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2019, 17:47:19 »
One of those would have been handy for us back in Feb/Mar 2014...  ;)

http://nextnavy.com/surface-navy-dont-defund-the-salvage-and-tug-fleet/

"When funded, the Navy’s fleet of eight salvage and rescue ships are always busy, and have, (...) been at sea, routinely chalking up type/class averages of more than 30% of the year at sea (it’s a rate most combatants would find hard to beat)."

"On March 6 2014, after a fire disabled (...) HMCS Protecteur (AOR-509), towing efforts by USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) and USS Chosin (CG-65) failed, and, in the end, it was a lowly Fleet Ocean Tug, USNS Sioux (T-ATF 171), that finally pulled the damaged auxiliary ship to safety at Joint Base Pearl Harbor, nine days after the accident. And it was the humble USNS Salvor (T-ARS-52) that finally brought the vessel home to CFB Esquimalt."

Moreover, it could be a nice platform from which launch and recover USVs or UUVs.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 17:52:21 by JMCanada »

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 679
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2019, 22:57:29 »
http://nextnavy.com/surface-navy-dont-defund-the-salvage-and-tug-fleet/
[snip]
" And it was the humble USNS Salvor (T-ARS-52) that finally brought the vessel home to CFB Esquimalt."

Moreover, it could be a nice platform from which launch and recover USVs or UUVs.

Aside from the equipment they have on the Salvor, the crew had an incredible amount of experience. They were pretty impressive to work with, but the key guys had 30+ years of doing this kind of thing, so this operation was a cakewalk for them.  Regardless of the available equipment, we would also need to figure out some way to get that experience if we did decide to get in that game.

The capability we do have is for emergency tows only (as per the CFCD), and is really meant to get another RCN (or similar sized ship) out from the ocean to close enough in for proper tugs to take over.  We have no real experience for doing it for any length of time, and would also be useless for any of the larger commercial ships.

Did a tow of PRE on the 280s, and we had to use our smaller lines for the tow (theres were too big for our bollards). It was okay on a glass calm sea at slow speeds, but don't think we'd have gotten far without snapping our lines in any kind of sea state.

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,722
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,823
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2019, 00:38:13 »
If you're going to tow anything for any distance and expect to be successful about it, you need a constant tension winch.

In the thread on the coast guard and their emergency towing vessels for the west coast, I'm very much in favour of the coast guard leasing anchor-clankers... mostly because the price is right at the moment, and they're able to fill a lot of other roles the coast guard has...

The winches on an anchor handler are generally huge though, as they're designed for Subsea work... not even talking about the bollard pull of the vessel or the line pull of the winch... I mean physically, the circumference of the drum is huge because of all the cable it has to hold (the last anchor handler I worked on, the winches were 2.5 decks high)

Not sure what role, if any, something like that would serve for the RCN... if they're towing, it's very much an emergency... given the number of vessels the RCN has, doesn't seem beneficial to invest in a dedicated deep sea tug...

Could find and lease a civillian tug in about the same time it would take an RCN tug to respond...

 That being said... a constant tension winch doest actually have to take up that much room... 100T winch with a few hundred meter of cable can fit in the area about the size of a pickup truck...

The better question, what does the RCN need and could you slap a winch on that?

The CFAV Quest is gone... is that a capability were missing? Would be be well served to build a survey vessel that could double as a tug? Maybe go nuts and triple as a dive tender?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 10:55:21 by Not a Sig Op »

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 25,512
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 372
Re: Oceanic tug & rescue vessel. A good option for production gaps?
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2019, 01:43:12 »
http://nextnavy.com/surface-navy-dont-defund-the-salvage-and-tug-fleet/

"When funded, the Navy’s fleet of eight salvage and rescue ships are always busy, and have, (...) been at sea, routinely chalking up type/class averages of more than 30% of the year at sea (it’s a rate most combatants would find hard to beat)."

"On March 6 2014, after a fire disabled (...) HMCS Protecteur (AOR-509), towing efforts by USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) and USS Chosin (CG-65) failed, and, in the end, it was a lowly Fleet Ocean Tug, USNS Sioux (T-ATF 171), that finally pulled the damaged auxiliary ship to safety at Joint Base Pearl Harbor, nine days after the accident. And it was the humble USNS Salvor (T-ARS-52) that finally brought the vessel home to CFB Esquimalt."

Moreover, it could be a nice platform from which launch and recover USVs or UUVs.

I vividly remember both USS Michael Murphy, and USS Chosin making their tow approaches. Chosin had us under tow for a few hours, until the line snapped and we had to haul it all back onboard the old fashioned way.