New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[AlexanderM]

Well, there probably isn't any, I'm saying, in theory, it should be possible to suspend the shell in magnetic fields, this isn't new, in terms of general technology.  The plasma is generated by a solid armature which is instantly vaporized by the current.  It would be engineered not to require orders of strain that could be harmful to the system.  If there is a wear problem at that point, then a small sleeve would have to be engineered to be easily replaced. 

Here is a guy, with very low tech, that made it work vaporizing aluminum.  Point being, if this guy can make it work, it isn't that difficult to create the plasma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5etWUFz8UnI

 

[Kirkhill]

So G2G, at 50 MJ, and with diesel having an energy density of some 36 MJ per liter, I take it that that means about 1.3 l of diesel per shot.

Or putting it another way, a one minute bombardment of 42 rounds (each one equivalent to a Tomahawk  if I read Wikipedia right?)  would use about as much fuel as fills my Jeeps tank?

So fuel isn't a limiting factor.  Generation isn't a limiting factor. Energy storage doesn't appear to be a limiting factor.  Nor does the speed of discharge (based on the fact that prototype guns have functioned).

I take it from this discussion that the limiting factor currently is "barrel" wear.

Questions:

How many shots can they get out of one barrel?
How much does a barrel weigh?
How much does a barrel cost?
How long does it take to change a barrel?
How about a Gatling or even a Mitrailleuse solution?

Can barrel wear's effects on accuracy be counteracted by a "smart" projectile?

How long to answer those questions to the satisfaction of an accountant?  ;D

 

[AlexanderM]

Yes, barrel wear seems to be the issue. 

Engineer the armature so that it is easily vaporized, so little strain on the system.  Attach the armature to the bottom of the shell, it's just going to be vaporized anyway.

Suspend the shell between magnetic fields to reduce barrel wear.

If the strain on the system is still too great, turn down the power, reduce the amount of material to generate the plasma, to reduce pressure. 

And, consider some venting if needed.

One would just have to play around with it until one finds the right power level, right amount of plasma material, right amount of venting, if needed.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kirkhill, diesel and other similar lower-pressure "propellants" that are not able to produce high specific impulses (fast burn rate) pressures would limit the muzzle velocity attainable, but yes, in term of physical energy content, that's about right (from a pure state of energy point of view). The challenge is in containing the muzzle pressures required to create acceleration on the order of 2500-3500 m/s. To attain a 3000 m/s muzzle velocity requires about 100 G's of average acceleration.  My background is electrical, vice mech or chem eng, so won't get out of my lane regarding peak pressures in indirect fire systems, but a rail gun is going to be much closer to an average acceleration, since Lorentzan force isn't affected by Boyle and Charles (PV=nRT, etc...)  The muzzle velocities generally attainable by chemical/expansive force do not appear capable of achieving projectile ranges close to rail guns...seems like rail guns have something like a anticipated practical advantage of three to five times that of conventional gun systems.

AlexandreM, if you vaporize the armature into a plasma you will lose the physical force of the B-field on the actual projectile, an the plasma arc will itself be expelled from the rail structure and the E and B fields collapse. From the video, I'm not convinced the effect was a projectile being accelerated by a plasma "armature" as much as pressure within the rail structure. The projectile for a true rail would be significantly faster than for a coil gun.

Regards
G2G

 

[Journeyman]

AlexandreM, if you vaporize the armature into a plasma you will lose the physical force of the B-field on the actual projectile, an the plasma arc will itself be expelled from the rail structure and the E and B fields collapse...

I'm feeling that having relied upon Corbett and Mahan for Naval insights has left me a tiny bit unprepared for this discussion.    :stars:

 

[AlexanderM]

You do know that the plasma continues to carry the current, right?

 

[Good2Golf]

Yup, pushed right out the rail by the B-field.

Thing is, the rails are not meant to contain physical compressive pressure internally, just to keep the rails in longitudinal alignment to maintain physical contact with the armature.  Your believing that the projectile would somehow stay ahead of an atomized armature is not really acknowledging how quickly a 10T mag field will push the ex-armatures plasma past the projectile itself.

Localized arcing and plasma generation is one thing, losing the physical force of an armature to accelerate the projectile is another...

Regards
G2G

(Mods: I'll stop here, but even so, it may be worthy of a prune to a separate thread.)

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill, diesel and other similar lower-pressure "propellants" that are not able to produce high specific impulses (fast burn rate) pressures would limit the muzzle velocity attainable, but yes, in term of physical energy content, that's about right (from a pure state of energy point of view). The challenge is in containing the muzzle pressures required to create acceleration on the order of 2500-3500 m/s. To attain a 3000 m/s muzzle velocity requires about 100 G's of average acceleration.  My background is electrical, vice mech or chem eng, so won't get out of my lane regarding peak pressures in indirect fire systems, but a rail gun is going to be much closer to an average acceleration, since Lorentzan force isn't affected by Boyle and Charles (PV=nRT, etc...)  The muzzle velocities generally attainable by chemical/expansive force do not appear capable of achieving projectile ranges close to rail guns...seems like rail guns have something like a anticipated practical advantage of three to five times that of conventional gun systems....

I got that bit about not being able to channel the energy chemically.  I was just looking at the energy cost of charging that capacitor bank for a shot/volley.   

It doesn't appear that the energy demand on a 6000 tonne vessel with fuel for 8 to 12,000 km of "steaming" would be particularly high in comparison to the energy necessary to shove the hull through the water.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I'm feeling that having relied upon Corbett and Mahan for Naval insights has left me a tiny bit unprepared for this discussion.    :stars:

Journeyman:
30 years in the Navy and I feel the same way...and I am an engineer!

 

[AlexanderM]

There are ideas out there for a solid armatures made of carbon/copper composite, which are designed not to break down during firing, therefore minimizing both plasma formation and damage to the weapon. 

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm

 

[AlexanderM]

This may or may not be helpful, but if one could use a superconductor doped carbon material for both the rails and the armature, one might just end up with a system that could withstand the firing of the weapon without much damage. 

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2174&context=engpapers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddoping%2520carbon%2520alloys%2520with%2520superconductor%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEkQFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fro.uow.edu.au%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2174%2526context%253Dengpapers%26ei%3DGT6-UKaGBczFiwK4iYCwBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHJvVygJi9DX9sHVGX1DDRAiLI83g%26sig2%3DoEmzi1EKpKmUUUx3ffGDZg#search=%22doping%20carbon%20alloys%20superconductor%22

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bigger picture stuff - seems Canada's now seeking MORE outside help ....

.... The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to request that interested companies provide feedback and recommendations by way of written response to the questions posed in the RFI document ....  The questions posed are regarding a potential solicitation for the provision of Independent Third Party expertise and support to Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) project offices.

Over the coming years, Canada will need to negotiate and manage several contracts under NSPS: ancillary contracts for understanding the ship design, engineering contracts for maturing the ship design, and build contracts for building and delivering the ships. In anticipation of these contracts, Canada has identified key areas where the support of an Independent Third Party Expert would help ensure that Canada achieves the most equitable, effective, and robust contracts possible, which contain acceptable levels of risk and provide value for money. Key areas identified include benchmarking of industry norms, shipbuilding expertise, and complex negotiation support. The knowledge and expertise provided by PWGSC and the Independent Third Party Expert would not overlap. Rather, the Third Party's contributions would supplement PWGSC's knowledge
and expertise in these areas ....

A bit more detail in the RFI document (8 page PDF at Google Docs) here.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From the PWGSC Info-machine....

The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, and the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), are pleased to announce the second round of industry engagement sessions for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project. This is part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS), which will create jobs and economic growth across Canada.

( .... )

The Harper Government will seek industry input on a number of technical subjects related to the design of combat ships. The initial technical engagement session will be held in March. Additional sessions will be scheduled over the coming months as further industry input is required.

Under the NSPS, the principles of extensive industry consultations, along with the establishment of a strong governance structure and the involvement of independent third parties, were applied in a comprehensive and innovative way and contributed to the success of the strategy. These elements now serve as the pillars of smart procurement and will be applied to Canada’s major procurements going forward.

Posted on MERX, the Government of Canada’s electronic tendering service, from February 19 to August 28, 2013, the Letter of Interest invites industry to participate in discussions to inform Canada’s decisions on the technical elements of the requirements.

For more information about the Canadian Surface Combatant Project and the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, please visit http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html.

A few more details in the attached MERX document.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Twitterverse says Minister Ambrose will have an announcement about shipbuilding tomorrow. How many ways are there to say "we really want to talk about jobs, Jobs, JOBS, but we're a little short on money right now"?

 

[GAP]

Irving may benefit from coast guard refit cash
February 21, 2013  By PAUL McLEOD Ottawa Bureau
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/746417-irving-may-benefit-from-coast-guard-refit-cash

OTTAWA — The federal government announced hundreds of millions of dollars in new coast guard refits Thursday, and Irving Shipbuilding will be in the running.

Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield announced in Newfoundland and Labrador that the government will refit and repair 16 large ships and two hovercrafts. That adds up to $360-million worth of work over the next 10 years.

All the work will go to Canadian shipyards. Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Seaspan Marine in British Columbia will not be excluded from bidding on the work.

When Irving won $25 billion in work and Seaspan won $8billion under the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the companies were excluded from $2 billion in smaller contracts.

Though Thursday’s announcement is tied to the shipbuilding strategy, a government spokeswoman confirmed the two companies will not be prevented from bidding on the work.

Irving Shipbuilding spokeswoman Mary Keith confirmed the company will bid for work on vessels over 1,000 tonnes.

Included in the retrofit plans are three ships based out of Dartmouth. The CCGS Edward Cornwallis and CCGS Sir William Alexander are high-endurance multi-tasked vessels, while the CCGS Earl Grey is a medium-endurance multi-tasked vessel.

The money comes from the 11-year, $5.2-billion “Renewing the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet” plan announced in last year’s federal budget.

Some of it has already begun, with the CCGS Amundsen undergoing work in St. Catharines, Ont. The St. Catharines shipyard, run by Seaway Marine and Industrial Inc., was a losing bidder in the national shipbuilding procurement strategy.

More shipbuilding work could be announced soon. This afternoon, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose is scheduled to make “an important announcement about shipbuilding” in North Vancouver.

 

[RC]

More shipbuilding work could be announced soon. This afternoon, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose is scheduled to make “an important announcement about shipbuilding” in North Vancouver.

The OFSV functional/detailed design contract starts a week on Monday.  The announcement wasn't widely reported and was kind of confusing, but that's what is happening. 

Several ancillary contracts for JSS and Polar were contracted at the same time, which slightly confused the issue.

 

[The Bread Guy]

1)  Parliamentary Budget Officer (69 page PDF)

…. DND estimates that replacing the Protecteur will cost about $2.53 billion, and the budget set aside is about $2.60 billion. The PBO’s model suggests that these amounts will be insufficient. It estimates that replacing the Protecteur will cost about $3.28 billion, but that, given the stage of the program and uncertainty surrounding its characteristics, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) best practice recommends budgeting no less than $4.13 billion ….

2)  From the Info-machine

.... The NSPS is now in its fourth phase, with the designs for the first ships to be built being finalized. A “design-then-build” approach is being followed to ensure that the design work is completed before proceeding with construction. This lower-risk approach will improve the efficiency of the shipbuilding process. These two phases (design and construction) will be repeated throughout the duration of the Strategy ....

 

[Journeyman]

A “design-then-build” approach is being followed to ensure that the design work is completed before proceeding with construction.

OK, just so there's no misunderstanding, I have never designed or built a ship before.

Isn't it normal to have a design before you start constructing?  What's the opposite process -- "start welding shit together and hope the blueprints are close"?

      ???

 

[GnyHwy]

A “design-then-build” approach is being followed to ensure that the design work is completed before proceeding with construction.

Perhaps that is their indirect way of saying we can make no guarantees for work or how long it will last for.  Each ship will be approved one at a time, and components or sub components for future ships will not be built concurrently, therefore allowing PWGSC keep their thumb firmly on the money, and opt out anytime money gets tight.

The nonconcurrent approach will certainly cost more, but that won't be noticed for several years, and if gets noticed earlier, all they would have to do is axe the last ship or two, because the designs haven't been approved yet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps they are making an indirect reference to the method by which the Dane's built their ships?

As I understand it the ship proper (hulls, mechanicals, nav systems and hotel) were purchased under one budget and built for something like 300,000,000 CAD for a 6000 tonne vessel.

The weapon systems were supplied under a separate budget as they are variously in-stock items held by the Danish Navy or are considered transferrable from ship to ship to modify the ship according to the role it might be required to perform.

The closest analogy I can think of might be the way the RCAF manages its weapons, at least in employment.  The same aircraft may carry guns or missiles or bombs or torpedoes or carry survival kits.

The Danish ships may carry 20mm, 30mm, 35mm, 57mm, 76mm or 127mm guns: ESSM and Harpoons; torpedoes and/or depth charges; towed sonars or hydrographic gear - or may be used as unarmed/lightly armed utility vessels.

Design Build can mean Design Build a ship or it can mean Design Build a fully functional fighting system. 

At least that would be my guess.

What level of completion and certainty do they wish to achieve before they sign off on the contract?  The more certainty required, the longer and more costly the design phase.

(And in my opinion the greater the likelihood that the final product will be the perfect answer to the wrong question).

I am a big fan of the Danish Flex system.