Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Stoker]

View attachment 82250

Apparently HMCS Goose Bay is currently being painted up in the same scheme used on HMCS Moncton (pictured above) back for the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. It is good to see these schemes return, they really make Canadian warships pop out from their fleet mates and allies abroad. I wish they would have made up a new scheme for a new ship instead of reusing the same one again but hey, I'll take it. The scheme used on HMCS Regina is being reapplied to HMCS Calgary now as well on the West Coast.

I think it may be a different version.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think it may be a different version.

Fun fact, there is no official version, so it is being made up on the fly as a standard, and hopefully get a drawing this time around. The CPFs at least had a JI for guidance but the CAL version still needed to be eyeballed so may not be identical. Which honestly seems a bit more authentic as they seemed to do something similar in WW2 with a lot of variance among the schemes.

Good thing the pain ship routine isn't really done outside of DWPs now but does make touchups more of a pain. Adds a bit of time and cost but if we are going to be cut and not have enough for DWPs is does seem like the extra million or so it adds to labour can be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Fun fact, there is no official version, so it is being made up on the fly as a standard, and hopefully get a drawing this time around. The CPFs at least had a JI for guidance but the CAL version still needed to be eyeballed so may not be identical. Which honestly seems a bit more authentic as they seemed to do something similar in WW2 with a lot of variance among the schemes.

Good thing the pain ship routine isn't really done outside of DWPs now but does make touchups more of a pain. Adds a bit of time and cost but if we are going to be cut and not have enough for DWPs is does seem like the extra million or so it adds to labour can be better spent elsewhere.

I love the disruptive paint scheme. But I agree with you, it shouldn't come at the expense of anything else.

 

[Stoker]

Fun fact, there is no official version, so it is being made up on the fly as a standard, and hopefully get a drawing this time around. The CPFs at least had a JI for guidance but the CAL version still needed to be eyeballed so may not be identical. Which honestly seems a bit more authentic as they seemed to do something similar in WW2 with a lot of variance among the schemes.

Good thing the pain ship routine isn't really done outside of DWPs now but does make touchups more of a pain. Adds a bit of time and cost but if we are going to be cut and not have enough for DWPs is does seem like the extra million or so it adds to labour can be better spent elsewhere.

At the ISSC office at the shipyard in Shelbourne they have several significant different versions of the camo mocked up, they told me it was going different than the MCT's. That being said I haven't seen it yet and of course when they paint it, its going to be differences.

 

[Navy_Pete]

At the ISSC office at the shipyard in Shelbourne they have several significant different versions of the camo mocked up, they told me it was going different than the MCT's. That being said I haven't seen it yet and of course when they paint it, its going to be differences.

Makes sense, and don't think it's a bad thing. I like it, but agree with @Halifax Tar it shouldn't come at the expense of other things. It's a fair bit cheaper on MCDVs though, but still will be the same issue going forwards with funding across the board, and plenty of ECs on the MCDVs still need funding to keep them going.

 

[Stoker]

Makes sense, and don't think it's a bad thing. I like it, but agree with @Halifax Tar it shouldn't come at the expense of other things. It's a fair bit cheaper on MCDVs though, but still will be the same issue going forwards with funding across the board, and plenty of ECs on the MCDVs still need funding to keep them going.

As far as I know the painting which was going to be done anyways as part of the 60M docking package was already funded. If they didn't do the camo the military wasn't going to save anything.

 

[Navy_Pete]

As far as I know the painting which was going to be done anyways as part of the 60M docking package was already funded. If they didn't do the camo the military wasn't going to save anything.

There definitely would have been a saving; it would have been a scope reduction with a contract change and less time. It wouldn't have been significant, and not the same kind of reduction as not planning it from the start, and we still would have paid for the work already done to do the drawings etc.

It is good for PR and recruitment, but IMHO if it comes down to funding the disruptive paint scheme vice doing something like the fine water spray EC (which is bringing MCDVs up to SOLAS standard it didn't meet at build) then should be a no brainer what gets cut. Shouldn't be the safety related item on the chopping board, but expect it would be as this is an ongoing argument and the RCN is dumb AF sometimes.

 

[Stoker]

There definitely would have been a saving; it would have been a scope reduction with a contract change and less time. It wouldn't have been significant, and not the same kind of reduction as not planning it from the start, and we still would have paid for the work already done to do the drawings etc.

It is good for PR and recruitment, but IMHO if it comes down to funding the disruptive paint scheme vice doing something like the fine water spray EC (which is bringing MCDVs up to SOLAS standard it didn't meet at build) then should be a no brainer what gets cut. Shouldn't be the safety related item on the chopping board, but expect it would be as this is an ongoing argument and the RCN is dumb AF sometimes.

All the ships have the water mist system, its not fine water. Nothing was cut to have this coating done. From what I was told by the GTO the shipyard wanted to do it and it didn't cost anything extra as they did it previously to HMCS Moncton. It very well may be different for a larger ship. Regardless its done and hope to see pictures soon.

 

[Navy_Pete]

All the ships have the water mist system, its not fine water. Nothing was cut to have this coating done. From what I was told by the GTO the shipyard wanted to do it and it didn't cost anything extra as they did it previously to HMCS Moncton. It very well may be different for a larger ship. Regardless its done and hope to see pictures soon.

Only half the MCDVs have the water mist system installed and STW; the rest need completed to bring the ships up to SOLAS. It was a weird delivery thing where it was only built to class for machinery and hull but not fire, and got overlooked for 20 years because people kept insisting it was 'built to class' until they actually asked LR. For whatever reason that has more weight then the assessment from the actual fire and DC LCMMs, who are actually SMEs in the area, compared to the class societies who have no actul SME on fire or DC and simply intepret the IMO and class rules (that the LCMMs also understand). It's been flagged as a 'must complete EC' though and will be tracked on the upcoming certificates for bringing the MCDVs into class, but we've had to explain the 'why' numerous times, and expect we'll keep have to justify why the systems have to be installed and the system operational to stay within class. (Essentially without it the design doesn't meet the IMO FSS code, which is required to meet SOLAS for the fire notation)

Fine water mist and water mist are interchangable terms in the RCN. On the standards side the differentiation is between sprinklers (NFPA 13) and water mist systems (NFPA 750).

For whatever reason, we use 'fine water mist' as our standard term, which was probably just used by the designer when we got it on the CPFs and it stuck. I find it useful to keep using 'fine' though because it helps emphasize that it's a lot different then what you would get from a sprinkler head, but in general they are all designed to meet NFPA 750, and the medium pressure systems on the MCDVs still make a pretty fine mist.

If you are curious there is a really good explanation on the NFPA website, which is a lot more neutral compared to some of the OEMs info. In general though the finer the droplet size the more complicated and expensive the system will be to buy/maintain and the cleaner the water source needs to be so always trade offs when selecting something.

https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/blogs/2022/06/24/water-mist-systems-overview

Hi-Fog reps seems particularly aggresive at spreading some mis-information on this side of things but there is a really good reason that water mist in general, and hi-fog in particular aren't even on the radar for replacing halon on ships; they simply take up way more room and add a lot of maintenance. Our best bet for retrofitting halon is generally Novec (which has the same footprint for halon for cylinders, and just adds some small cylinders for propellant) or some of the dry chem systems, but for the MCDVs the water mist system on the machinery spaces will work great.

 

[Stoker]

Only half the MCDVs have the water mist system installed and STW; the rest need completed to bring the ships up to SOLAS. It was a weird delivery thing where it was only built to class for machinery and hull but not fire, and got overlooked for 20 years because people kept insisting it was 'built to class' until they actually asked LR. For whatever reason that has more weight then the assessment from the actual fire and DC LCMMs, who are actually SMEs in the area, compared to the class societies who have no actul SME on fire or DC and simply intepret the IMO and class rules (that the LCMMs also understand). It's been flagged as a 'must complete EC' though and will be tracked on the upcoming certificates for bringing the MCDVs into class, but we've had to explain the 'why' numerous times, and expect we'll keep have to justify why the systems have to be installed and the system operational to stay within class. (Essentially without it the design doesn't meet the IMO FSS code, which is required to meet SOLAS for the fire notation)

Fine water mist and water mist are interchangable terms in the RCN. On the standards side the differentiation is between sprinklers (NFPA 13) and water mist systems (NFPA 750).

For whatever reason, we use 'fine water mist' as our standard term, which was probably just used by the designer when we got it on the CPFs and it stuck. I find it useful to keep using 'fine' though because it helps emphasize that it's a lot different then what you would get from a sprinkler head, but in general they are all designed to meet NFPA 750, and the medium pressure systems on the MCDVs still make a pretty fine mist.

If you are curious there is a really good explanation on the NFPA website, which is a lot more neutral compared to some of the OEMs info. In general though the finer the droplet size the more complicated and expensive the system will be to buy/maintain and the cleaner the water source needs to be so always trade offs when selecting something.

https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/blogs/2022/06/24/water-mist-systems-overview

Hi-Fog reps seems particularly aggresive at spreading some mis-information on this side of things but there is a really good reason that water mist in general, and hi-fog in particular aren't even on the radar for replacing halon on ships; they simply take up way more room and add a lot of maintenance. Our best bet for retrofitting halon is generally Novec (which has the same footprint for halon for cylinders, and just adds some small cylinders for propellant) or some of the dry chem systems, but for the MCDVs the water mist system on the machinery spaces will work great.

Thanks for the info. I was commenting on EC MCDV's and fairly certain all have it installed. I was part of the initial risk assessment that identified that we needed a system. I can't comment on the WC although in 6 or 7 years since we started to install them they should be on some of the WC ones as well. The system we have is a SW system that will pretty much destroy anything electrical in that space. Yes I know about Hi-Fog, from a ex RCN stoker that is BC ferries or CG now, he goes on and on about it almost a little too much. We have NOVEC as an extinguisher installed on MCDV's, that would probably get the fire out before I would have to use water mist system. The water mist system is a pretty complex system EC, we would of been better off to install some sort of aerosol system in my opinion. The HDW class also has NOVEC in some of their spaces.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Thanks for the info. I was commenting on EC MCDV's and fairly certain all have it installed. I was part of the initial risk assessment that identified that we needed a system. I can't comment on the WC although in 6 or 7 years since we started to install them they should be on some of the WC ones as well. The system we have is a SW system that will pretty much destroy anything electrical in that space. Yes I know about Hi-Fog, from a ex RCN stoker that is BC ferries or CG now, he goes on and on about it almost a little too much. We have NOVEC as an extinguisher installed on MCDV's, that would probably get the fire out before I would have to use water mist system. The water mist system is a pretty complex system EC, we would of been better off to install some sort of aerosol system in my opinion. The HDW class also has NOVEC in some of their spaces.

If it makes you feel better, we (the LCMMs and project managers for the EC) also thought it was fully installed on most ships with the last few pending until we asked for the certificates for different ships to start closing it out. Individual installs slipped for various good reasons. It's all still planned and funded, but we've had to explain to the bean counters a few times why so they wouldn't cut the funding or further delay installs. The tech folks at the class desk fully understand, and class society agrees, so I think we're all on the same page and it will get done, but just may be delayed on a few ships by the transition to the new ISSC.

Big fan of the novec extinguisher, the center fed hose reels etc but this does give an option for when the first aid doesn't work which doesn't need people to go in the space, which is the general intent behind the IMO code. So with crew shortages, or things like nesting alongside with no duty watch it's a great option to have to push a button.

I mispoke above, and actually meant aerosol vs dry chem as a halon alternative, but some of those systems are great as well and a lot simpler. We're looking at one that was installed on Asterix which is really promising and is now class approved that can cover entire spaces fairly easily with a very small footprint, so is in the list for options for some of the old TSRVs and fuel barge that still have halon, and maybe for some CPF spaces.

The nice thing with water mist/sprinkler systems though is it doesn't matter if the space isn't gas tight and they will always provide some cooling/suppression to contain things while also protecting your equipment from heat damage by cooling things off, so even if it beats it down but it's still burning it makes life a lot easier for the AT to actually put the fire out. That's the big pro you get for the trade off of the system being more complicated and being a lot more maintenance compared to something like an aerosols. It also avoids all the hazmat issues and future concerns with various suppression agents so we don't run into the issues like with halon where we are looking to replace it because the compenents unsupportable after almost 20 years of it being banned for non-military usage, even though it's still incredibly effective and safe for occupied spaces with the smallest footprint for gas systems.

Now all we have to do is get people to not think they will die if their bunker gear gets wet from a sprinkler/water mist, which is one of those weird persistent 'fire science fictions' we keep fighting to clear up (along with halon displacing oxygen and AFFF will kill all your equipment in the space). I would have no problem leaving the space system running to give my team and myself protection if the fire was still going or the ceiling was still hot for cooling and a safe evac route and I was going into it, but fighting against people wanting a simple rule of thumb for what can be a really complex, situation dependent call, as well as YouTube 'experts' who don't actually know what they are talking about.

 

[Stoker]

If it makes you feel better, we (the LCMMs and project managers for the EC) also thought it was fully installed on most ships with the last few pending until we asked for the certificates for different ships to start closing it out. Individual installs slipped for various good reasons. It's all still planned and funded, but we've had to explain to the bean counters a few times why so they wouldn't cut the funding or further delay installs. The tech folks at the class desk fully understand, and class society agrees, so I think we're all on the same page and it will get done, but just may be delayed on a few ships by the transition to the new ISSC.

Big fan of the novec extinguisher, the center fed hose reels etc but this does give an option for when the first aid doesn't work which doesn't need people to go in the space, which is the general intent behind the IMO code. So with crew shortages, or things like nesting alongside with no duty watch it's a great option to have to push a button.

I mispoke above, and actually meant aerosol vs dry chem as a halon alternative, but some of those systems are great as well and a lot simpler. We're looking at one that was installed on Asterix which is really promising and is now class approved that can cover entire spaces fairly easily with a very small footprint, so is in the list for options for some of the old TSRVs and fuel barge that still have halon, and maybe for some CPF spaces.

The nice thing with water mist/sprinkler systems though is it doesn't matter if the space isn't gas tight and they will always provide some cooling/suppression to contain things while also protecting your equipment from heat damage by cooling things off, so even if it beats it down but it's still burning it makes life a lot easier for the AT to actually put the fire out. That's the big pro you get for the trade off of the system being more complicated and being a lot more maintenance compared to something like an aerosols. It also avoids all the hazmat issues and future concerns with various suppression agents so we don't run into the issues like with halon where we are looking to replace it because the compenents unsupportable after almost 20 years of it being banned for non-military usage, even though it's still incredibly effective and safe for occupied spaces with the smallest footprint for gas systems.

Now all we have to do is get people to not think they will die if their bunker gear gets wet from a sprinkler/water mist, which is one of those weird persistent 'fire science fictions' we keep fighting to clear up (along with halon displacing oxygen and AFFF will kill all your equipment in the space). I would have no problem leaving the space system running to give my team and myself protection if the fire was still going or the ceiling was still hot for cooling and a safe evac route and I was going into it, but fighting against people wanting a simple rule of thumb for what can be a really complex, situation dependent call, as well as YouTube 'experts' who don't actually know what they are talking about.

Good info, I'm redoing the MMS SOP for the Kingston Class and have to make some sense of the activation for the water mist system. Right now the SOP is to activate by the RR team after NOVEC is used and the space is HV Dead. The first AT will cease when the thermo layer is under 500 degrees with further activations dependent on the fire and temperatures.

 

[YZT580]

Makes sense, and don't think it's a bad thing. I like it, but agree with @Halifax Tar it shouldn't come at the expense of other things. It's a fair bit cheaper on MCDVs though, but still will be the same issue going forwards with funding across the board, and plenty of ECs on the MCDVs still need funding to keep them going.

Sadly, it covers the rust beautifully. Your government can point and say look, we are upgrading.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Good info, I'm redoing the MMS SOP for the Kingston Class and have to make some sense of the activation for the water mist system. Right now the SOP is to activate by the RR team after NOVEC is used and the space is HV Dead. The first AT will cease when the thermo layer is under 500 degrees with further activations dependent on the fire and temperatures.

Cool, I'll send you a PM, as it will be good to coordinate that; there is a related mitigation of extra SCBAs for ships without the FWS working that is supposed to be done officially to cover off the temp issuing of extra items. That one is a long story but wasn't done properly about a decade ago, and means we didn't actually have enough SCBAs to give another 20% to the MCDV fleet (or proper storage for the extras anyway). Those also fall under the same team at MEPM so trying to keep the SOPs, equipment and scale of issue lined up.

As far as I know though, there isn't HV dead concerns for MCDVs and AOPs for fitted system activation so should be punched off ASAP when first aid fails (or they don't enter the space to start with). That's more for AT doing overhaul, and activating the fitted system sooner rather then later mitigates the risk of damage to cable insulation, motor shorts etc, and the concern is actually from power arcing back along the salt water hose line in a jet pattern. Would have to double check the study on that, but believe the danger distance was around 4 feet on a live 440v high amperage system, which is where we got our 3 m standoff for boundaries in a live 440V MMSs. It's actually shorter for 110V aas well as the 400hz power sources.

If fresh water mist is causing arcing it's because your system is already cooked, and the longer you delay activation the more equipment will get cooked. If the thermal layer is that hot basically everything in the space has had it's wiring fried anyway and you are going and your deck is going to start smoking and cooking things above. That's basically what happened on PRO, where the overhead wiring, structure and even the deck were toast, even though most of the actual equipment was fine.

Unless I'm confusing it with the AOPs, JSS and CSC systems I think that MCDV system also has zone activation as well as overhead on the entire compartment, so first step for a confirmed fire may be just use the zone for that DA instead of sending people down. It's a lot easier if you have space cameras, but with the way the hatches are in the spaces and smoke growth you probably have a pretty small window where you would be able to actually get people to go down into the space just with the smoke. 'Low smoke' cables is all relative, and it's still a pretty blinding and choking smoke if you are trying to come down through the ceiling layer.

General MMS SOPs should be pretty straight forward, where you try first aid, hit the fitted system if that doesn't work and evacuate and close it down. That gives you time to close up and make a plan before going back in to make sure it's out without smoking out vital areas. In practice first aid may only be feasible if someone is already in the space, or if it's a small fire like a minor electrical short. Also no harm in firing it off while people are in the space, as there is a bit of an activation lag and it's safe for people. 'Thermal layer inversion' is another bit of fire science fiction, but aside from CO2 on the Orcas, all our systems are safe for occupied spaces and definitely a better option then burning or choking on CO and the other toxic soup you'd get.

 

[Stoker]

Cool, I'll send you a PM, as it will be good to coordinate that; there is a related mitigation of extra SCBAs for ships without the FWS working that is supposed to be done officially to cover off the temp issuing of extra items. That one is a long story but wasn't done properly about a decade ago, and means we didn't actually have enough SCBAs to give another 20% to the MCDV fleet (or proper storage for the extras anyway). Those also fall under the same team at MEPM so trying to keep the SOPs, equipment and scale of issue lined up.

As far as I know though, there isn't HV dead concerns for MCDVs and AOPs for fitted system activation so should be punched off ASAP when first aid fails (or they don't enter the space to start with). That's more for AT doing overhaul, and activating the fitted system sooner rather then later mitigates the risk of damage to cable insulation, motor shorts etc, and the concern is actually from power arcing back along the salt water hose line in a jet pattern. Would have to double check the study on that, but believe the danger distance was around 4 feet on a live 440v high amperage system, which is where we got our 3 m standoff for boundaries in a live 440V MMSs. It's actually shorter for 110V aas well as the 400hz power sources.

If fresh water mist is causing arcing it's because your system is already cooked, and the longer you delay activation the more equipment will get cooked. If the thermal layer is that hot basically everything in the space has had it's wiring fried anyway and you are going and your deck is going to start smoking and cooking things above. That's basically what happened on PRO, where the overhead wiring, structure and even the deck were toast, even though most of the actual equipment was fine.

Unless I'm confusing it with the AOPs, JSS and CSC systems I think that MCDV system also has zone activation as well as overhead on the entire compartment, so first step for a confirmed fire may be just use the zone for that DA instead of sending people down. It's a lot easier if you have space cameras, but with the way the hatches are in the spaces and smoke growth you probably have a pretty small window where you would be able to actually get people to go down into the space just with the smoke. 'Low smoke' cables is all relative, and it's still a pretty blinding and choking smoke if you are trying to come down through the ceiling layer.

General MMS SOPs should be pretty straight forward, where you try first aid, hit the fitted system if that doesn't work and evacuate and close it down. That gives you time to close up and make a plan before going back in to make sure it's out without smoking out vital areas. In practice first aid may only be feasible if someone is already in the space, or if it's a small fire like a minor electrical short. Also no harm in firing it off while people are in the space, as there is a bit of an activation lag and it's safe for people. 'Thermal layer inversion' is another bit of fire science fiction, but aside from CO2 on the Orcas, all our systems are safe for occupied spaces and definitely a better option then burning or choking on CO and the other toxic soup you'd get.

Yes as a mitigation we added the NOVEC, IR cameras in the AMR/FMR, 2 extra 20lb dry chems in the AMR/FMR, extra SCBA and cylinders for a sustained response. I've found the space to store the extra SCBA's and cylinders on the ships if people are interested.

The concern for HV is the rubber cabling for 600V AC from the four DA's and the 600V DC going to the main motors from the switchboard. All of which run through both spaces and are unprotected at the deck head. Any sustained fire will most likely melt the cabling in minutes or at least damage it. Once we activate the fitted system its mission kill so a good rapid response is paramount. There is no real way to close down the space as the spaces lack a deck hatch.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The concern for HV is the rubber cabling for 600V AC from the four DA's and the 600V DC going to the main motors from the switchboard. All of which run through both spaces and are unprotected at the deck head. Any sustained fire will most likely melt the cabling in minutes or at least damage it. Once we activate the fitted system its mission kill so a good rapid response is paramount. There is no real way to close down the space as the spaces lack a deck hatch.

I sent you a PM with DWAN contact details; let me know if you didn't get it as I'm a bit tech wonky at times.

I don't understand the highlighted bit, as we've had all kinds of water mist system activations that haven't damaged any equipment on multiple platforms, and that includes the old fenwall system on the 280s which was salt water. That included a DG enclosure for a real fire, and basically was done fast enough that there was no real damage to the engine or generator, so after it was cleaned and a few control wires replaced it was good to go. Even the DGs in the enclosures that completely flooded with salt water just needed rinsed off and cleaned before getting put back in service, and ran another year before getting replaced.

If the equipment was that sensitive to water, it wouldn't have lasted 20 odd years, and been killed long ago by basic condensation, leaks or sprays everywhere that happen. You are at way more risk of a mission kill by delaying activation then letting it burn, and if your IP rating is maintained, even an accidental activation of the system shouldn't cause any real damage.

Anyway, we can talk through it at work when you are back in, but I think we should generally be extremely careful about giving people the impression that using a fitted system in a fire will damage equipment (which is exposed to a fire), which is exactly the kind of misinformation that lead to PRO burning for hours and eventually written off. Even after the 4 hours or whatever it was burning for when they finally used AFFF overhead spray it put out the fire pretty quickly, and the equipment that wasn't charcoal was fine.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think it may be a different version.

I have a friend in that area who was willing to try and get pictures of Goose Bay. At least going off the starboard side I was sent, it lines up with what you said about not being exactly the same but very similar. Some subtle differences in the black arch thickness amidships to the left of the pennant and the angle of the arrow shaped black section closer towards the bow. Seems like they settled on the scheme from Moncton and tried to recreate it. Can't see the stern but apparently the port side looked the same but no pictures, so pinch of salt there. Moncton and Regina had mirrored schemes on each side, so it would line up.

Nice little sneak peek either way, can't wait to see her in the water! Hopefully more of the fleet gets this treatment. An AOPV wearing a scheme next? Harry DeWolf painted up like Haida would be great.

 

[Stoker]

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 82467View attachment 82468View attachment 82469View attachment 82470

Isn’t it missing the rest of the rainbow colors?

J/k

It does look good, for a non surface combatant

 

[Stoker]