• 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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
11,335
Points
1,090
…and the actuarial insurance tables vetted by lawyers say a class action lawsuit would cost more than fixing the problem.

 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
346
Points
880
Which facts are you questioning? The issues aren't minor in nature, and not really comparable to first of class for the CPFs. It's also a commercial standard build so way less tolerance for major defects as there is less redundancy and way less compartmentalization.
What I'm saying is that builds regardless of what they are, pretty much always have issues, minor and major. Delivering a ship with broken equipment as long as both parties agree sometimes happens for many practical reasons. The issues are identified and rectified. One year warranty is standard same thing when we received the KIN Class for the first time back in the day. The bow thruster issue is being covered under warranty, the generator issue will be covered under the maintenance package. No company is going to stand up and say we'll fix it anyways even out of warranty. These ships even commercially built are large and complex in many ways and ultimately will have lots of ongoing defects. It seems that people think things don't break or something.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,040
What I'm saying is that builds regardless of what they are, pretty much always have issues, minor and major. Delivering a ship with broken equipment as long as both parties agree sometimes happens for many practical reasons. The issues are identified and rectified. One year warranty is standard same thing when we received the KIN Class for the first time back in the day. The bow thruster issue is being covered under warranty, the generator issue will be covered under the maintenance package. No company is going to stand up and say we'll fix it anyways even out of warranty. These ships even commercially built are large and complex in many ways and ultimately will have lots of ongoing defects. It seems that people think things don't break or something.
Sure, but things breaking is different than a design not fundamentally working. There are a few of those that are starting to get fixed on the new builds but we're on our own to fix it on the in-service ships (while not having the infrastructure etc to start doing ECs).

Some are known issues, that aren't being fixed in build, with the faulty design still being built, and passed over to in service, so it's strange. If ISI's lawyers are better at arguing it 'meets the contract' and we aren't pushing back, or paying to fix thing in build if required, still ends up with sailors with sub par equipment or things that don't work the way they are supposed to.

Politics also played into it; HDW shouldn't have been accepted at the time without the outstanding issues addressed, and caveats for the sea trials that still weren't done until after the warranty period was up.

Sure it's a complex ship that we're still learning but bad design is bad design.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
346
Points
880
Sure, but things breaking is different than a design not fundamentally working. There are a few of those that are starting to get fixed on the new builds but we're on our own to fix it on the in-service ships (while not having the infrastructure etc to start doing ECs).

Some are known issues, that aren't being fixed in build, with the faulty design still being built, and passed over to in service, so it's strange. If ISI's lawyers are better at arguing it 'meets the contract' and we aren't pushing back, or paying to fix thing in build if required, still ends up with sailors with sub par equipment or things that don't work the way they are supposed to.

Politics also played into it; HDW shouldn't have been accepted at the time without the outstanding issues addressed, and caveats for the sea trials that still weren't done until after the warranty period was up.

Sure it's a complex ship that we're still learning but bad design is bad design.
Sure and design flaws happen as well and are corrected and we carry on. Accepting the ship if the Navy is not happy is totally up to the Navy. We are often our own worse enemy for that at times. The ships are going to have teething problems but at the end of the day they will be rectified and the ships will carry on. That is the way of things as you probably are well aware.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
346
Points
880
If the HDW is a 'complex ship' then I hold even less hope for success for the CSC if they're to be built by ISI.

Buy the hulls in the UK from their production line, and pay the price to fit out here in Canada.
Well Brad its way more complex then any ship I've been on and pretty impressed with the level of automation and the diesel electric system. There's even no mold. A step in the right direction I would think. Just keep FMF away from her, not like she can be docked in the dockyard anyways.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
694
Points
960
If the HDW is a 'complex ship' then I hold even less hope for success for the CSC if they're to be built by ISI.

Buy the hulls in the UK from their production line, and pay the price to fit out here in Canada.
Not a viable suggestion would suggest that the hull construction is reasonably routine it is the stuff that goes inside that is going to cause problems. Besides, that would give you first delivery in or around 2035. Do you think our existing fleet can last til then?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,040
Sure and design flaws happen as well and are corrected and we carry on. Accepting the ship if the Navy is not happy is totally up to the Navy. We are often our own worse enemy for that at times. The ships are going to have teething problems but at the end of the day they will be rectified and the ships will carry on. That is the way of things as you probably are well aware.
My issue is really that you are calling it 'teething problems'.

Using a car analogy, paint not sticking to a bumper on a new production model of car is a teething problem; poor finish quality on trim is a teething problem, something like the brakes not working is a major safety issue.

The fire suppression issue that was found in the summer was a show stopper, and the class would never have been allowed to go to sea without it being fixed if had known about it on HDW or MAR. They are basically tied up now until the engine cooling issue is fixed, and there are other design flaws that need sorted before they can do helo ops.

Sure, it'll get fixed, but it's not just something cosmetic or inconvenient, and it doesn't get better as we poke at it. None of the design is innovative, unusual or unique as it's all commercial standard gear, and it's actually less complex in comparison to the smaller CCG science ships that VSY built. It's impressive only because we are used to beaten to heck old ships that don't get properly maintained. 🤷‍♂️
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
346
Points
880
My issue is really that you are calling it 'teething problems'.

Using a car analogy, paint not sticking to a bumper on a new production model of car is a teething problem; poor finish quality on trim is a teething problem, something like the brakes not working is a major safety issue.

The fire suppression issue that was found in the summer was a show stopper, and the class would never have been allowed to go to sea without it being fixed if had known about it on HDW or MAR. They are basically tied up now until the engine cooling issue is fixed, and there are other design flaws that need sorted before they can do helo ops.

Sure, it'll get fixed, but it's not just something cosmetic or inconvenient, and it doesn't get better as we poke at it. None of the design is innovative, unusual or unique as it's all commercial standard gear, and it's actually less complex in comparison to the smaller CCG science ships that VSY built. It's impressive only because we are used to beaten to heck old ships that don't get properly maintained. 🤷‍♂️
Fire suppression is MBS and I assume the ship requires so many working generators to also meet MBS. The cooling problem and whatever else that needs to be repaired will be eventually and the ships will carry on. I'll take your word on the CCG science ships being more complex and you are right its impressive to us as its new gear and its a good go for a young sailor. Regardless of their limitations, issues I'm still pretty impressed with them and they will end of serving us well in the end.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,079
Points
1,090
The argument has long been that as part of the NSPS, we have to learn how to build ships again.

We would honestly have been better off 're-learning' by punching out 4 new Halifax Class hulls, and transferring the 'gear' from our 4 worst condition ships into the new hulls as they're built. Then switching the production line to whatever we end up with as CSC's...instead of wasting the effort on the AOPS.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,718
Points
1,160
The argument has long been that as part of the NSPS, we have to learn how to build ships again.

We would honestly have been better off 're-learning' by punching out 4 new Halifax Class hulls, and transferring the 'gear' from our 4 worst condition ships into the new hulls as they're built. Then switching the production line to whatever we end up with as CSC's...instead of wasting the effort on the AOPS.
The government wanted the RCN in the Arctic, whether you agree or not, that is why the AOP's and to be fair, any other nation would have already have navy ships or armed CG patrolling up there.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,340
Points
1,160
Maybe we should just be spending our money, our very limited money, on actual warships.

Maybe the RCN should just have accepted the Svalbard design as it was offered and accepted the least cost solution - A more capable Orca.

The money, and time saved could have been spent on AORs, CSCs or other stuff.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,742
Points
1,040
We'll be happy we spent the time and money on them when CSC is built. Lots of experience was gained in that shipyard which will do us well as those get on the line.

Besides some of the modular capability that's coming for those ships is... surprising.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,529
Points
1,260
Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)

Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)

I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....

You know the rest...

You, good Sir, missed your calling lol
 
Top