Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 494491 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,367
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,990
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1725 on: April 13, 2019, 04:16:21 »
The USN already contracts civilian helicopters to work off some of their vessels. The CCG helicopters and crews actually belong to Transport Canada, that fleet could be expanded and they provide similar services to the RCN.

Yes civilian helicopters on AOR's and such. Anythings possible but if we're not doing the same on Asterix, I doubt that will ever happen. It is expected the CCG will be flying off the AOPV while in the Arctic under the MOU.
"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 Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1726 on: April 13, 2019, 04:16:46 »
The most important aspect that the Cyclones bring to the table is Recognized Maritime Picture.  If a Cyclone embarked on a AOPS found a submarine then they did their job.  Once you detect a submarine it loses the vast majority of its strategic advantages.  Only nuke boats can recover from that by sprinting away and that provides its own disadvantages.  As AOPS are patrol boats whos job is to build RMP then this would be excellent.

Other assets as required could be moved to deal with this newly found submarine, like the Aurora's.  Ships are part of the combat team.  I find quite a bit of the discussion here is regarding a ship operating alone in isolation. Ships work in teams, and you generally need more than one asset to track and kill a sub.  One needs to track/isolate the other needs to deliver the weapons.  Task groups generally use more than one helicopter to do this in the first place.  A single ship even with a helo against a submarine is fighting a technical overmatch most of the time.   It's like a single section against a sniper. You might be able to root one out but the full platoon will do it much more effectively with less casualties.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 04:19:47 by Underway »

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 16,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,327
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1727 on: April 13, 2019, 09:11:55 »
The Cyclone with it’s passive capability should be able to handle a one on one submarine engagement with ease (should the need arise).


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,633
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1728 on: April 13, 2019, 10:03:10 »
If there's some ice coverage around, I would say good luck to that Cyclone.

Also, DH, if loaded with a couple of 46's, the Cyclone carries a lot smaller load out of "passive systems" than you, as an MLRPA can. The sub has a fair chance if the Cyclone is not supported by a second asset of some sorts.

MHO only here, as I have not had the chance of acquiring knowledge of the Cyclones capabilities (for obvious reasons - called retirement  ;D).

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,978
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1729 on: April 13, 2019, 10:15:05 »
AOPS was never intended to support an extension of the NSAR airborne primary response capability.  Nice to have, with any embarked aircraft as a secondary SAR capability? Sure.  But not something that was part of the primary requirements. Secondary/tertiary capabilities always seem simple enough after primary system are delivered, but the “why didn’t they think of X/Y/Z?” question(s) often were asked, and excluded as not feasible for any number of reasons including: policy, cost, schedule or technical.  Heck, even primary capability elements don’t always make the cut!  Ex. what kind of sensor would be really useful in a helicopter which had “find lost people” as a primary mission, but that wasn’t added due to Government-imposes budget restrictions? Hint: starts with “F” and rhymes with ‘orward-looking infrared.’  (For 23 years, CH-149 Cormorant has not had an IR/thermal search capability).  AOPS is another system that has as much capability as it could given all factors.

Regards
G2G

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1730 on: April 13, 2019, 10:44:40 »
AOPS was never intended to support an extension of the NSAR airborne primary response capability.  Nice to have, with any embarked aircraft as a secondary SAR capability? Sure.  But not something that was part of the primary requirements. Secondary/tertiary capabilities always seem simple enough after primary system are delivered, but the “why didn’t they think of X/Y/Z?” question(s) often were asked, and excluded as not feasible for any number of reasons including: policy, cost, schedule or technical.  Heck, even primary capability elements don’t always make the cut!  Ex. what kind of sensor would be really useful in a helicopter which had “find lost people” as a primary mission, but that wasn’t added due to Government-imposes budget restrictions? Hint: starts with “F” and rhymes with ‘orward-looking infrared.’  (For 23 years, CH-149 Cormorant has not had an IR/thermal search capability).  AOPS is another system that has as much capability as it could given all factors.

Regards
G2G

(For 23 years, CH-149 Cormorant has not had an IR/thermal search capability)

Non-Sequitur - 23 years of service - suggests that the Cormorant is due for replacing - perhaps with the CH-148 Cyclone Block 2.1?   Then we could have a common fleet of 44 Medium Helicopters and be right back where we intended in 1993.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,055
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1731 on: April 13, 2019, 11:00:53 »
Had the RCN adopted the 149, the AOPs probably would have corresponding flight deck and hangar.  I’ve often wondered what a Hal would look like with a 149 ( like a Merlin) on the deck with 80 foot hangar.
Living the lean life

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,978
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1732 on: April 13, 2019, 11:17:41 »
Had the RCN adopted the 149, the AOPs probably would have corresponding flight deck and hangar.  I’ve often wondered what a Hal would look like with a 149 ( like a Merlin) on the deck with 80 foot hangar.

Since the HALs were originally designed for the EH-101/AW-101, and the hangars had only relatively minor mods, I figure the answer is “HALs would pretty much look like they do today.”  :nod:

Regards
G2G

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,318
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1733 on: April 13, 2019, 12:32:46 »
Since the HALs were originally designed for the EH-101/AW-101, and the hangars had only relatively minor mods, I figure the answer is “HALs would pretty much look like they do today.”  :nod:

Regards
G2G

 :nod:

This is something people not associated with the Maritime Helicopter world forget, all the time:

Whether you are talking Sea King, Cyclone or Merlin, they all (more or less) foldup into the same sized volumetric box to fit into the hangar.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,415
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1734 on: April 13, 2019, 13:21:40 »
The most important aspect that the Cyclones bring to the table is Recognized Maritime Picture.  If a Cyclone embarked on a AOPS found a submarine then they did their job.  Once you detect a submarine it loses the vast majority of its strategic advantages.  Only nuke boats can recover from that by sprinting away and that provides its own disadvantages.  As AOPS are patrol boats whos job is to build RMP then this would be excellent.

Other assets as required could be moved to deal with this newly found submarine, like the Aurora's.  Ships are part of the combat team.  I find quite a bit of the discussion here is regarding a ship operating alone in isolation. Ships work in teams, and you generally need more than one asset to track and kill a sub.  One needs to track/isolate the other needs to deliver the weapons.  Task groups generally use more than one helicopter to do this in the first place.  A single ship even with a helo against a submarine is fighting a technical overmatch most of the time.   It's like a single section against a sniper. You might be able to root one out but the full platoon will do it much more effectively with less casualties.

Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1735 on: April 13, 2019, 13:47:27 »
Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.

Even if supported from one of the RCAF's FOLs? (Yellowknife, Inuvit, Iqaluit, Kuujuaq, Rankin Inlet and/or Resolute).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,367
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,990
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1736 on: April 13, 2019, 14:00:23 »
Even if supported from one of the RCAF's FOLs? (Yellowknife, Inuvit, Iqaluit, Kuujuaq, Rankin Inlet and/or Resolute).

Isn't this something we practiced previously on one of the OP Nanooks, or Qimmiq's. Deployments of assets from the south including Cormorants and Auroras based out of Iqaluit. Isn't that something easily achievable during the ice free season in conjunction with the AOPV deployments?

"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
  • *****
  • 140,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,415
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1737 on: April 13, 2019, 14:40:17 »
Other than Goose Bay, how many are manned and equipped throughout the navigation season? From Goose Bay, it's a 1,000NM to the NW edge of Hudson Bay. 948NM to Cambridge Bay from Cold lake. None of the FOL's have muntion storage and don't appear to be manned fulltime according to the web. The RCAF can provide support, but it's not easy and would quickly suck up resources from every other task those airframes and crews do to maintain a 24/7 support. Plus there is weather at the site of the incident and enroute. For ships, I don't think the RCN has pushed into the Central Arctic for fear of ice entrapment and I don't think they have done the Western Arctic at all, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on those points.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,367
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,990
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1738 on: April 13, 2019, 14:54:11 »
Other than Goose Bay, how many are manned and equipped throughout the navigation season? From Goose Bay, it's a 1,000NM to the NW edge of Hudson Bay. 948NM to Cambridge Bay from Cold lake. None of the FOL's have muntion storage and don't appear to be manned fulltime according to the web. The RCAF can provide support, but it's not easy and would quickly suck up resources from every other task those airframes and crews do to maintain a 24/7 support. Plus there is weather at the site of the incident and enroute. For ships, I don't think the RCN has pushed into the Central Arctic for fear of ice entrapment and I don't think they have done the Western Arctic at all, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on those points.

The RCN has already operated up to 80N just shy of Hans Island and have operated in the Western Arctic up to Tuktoyaktuk, I would imagine AOPV will be operating further than that. With the RCN being set to enter the North in greater numbers it is only logical that air assets will operating there as well eventually in greater numbers based out of the above mentioned fields.
"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 Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,978
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1739 on: April 13, 2019, 15:41:00 »
Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.

How long?  Depends, but it flies 20-50x faster than a CCGS, so a CCGS would have to be 20-50x closer to the AOPS to get there first....then do what?  Are CCGS constabulary-capable?  I thought this has been discussed before. AOPS is not another icebreaker to keep shoulder-season maritime traffic moving or tending buoys.  Pretty much aside from the Venn intersection of SAR, and some modest, shared oceanographic interest, where is the case for consolidated joint military and civilian operations?

Regards
G2G

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,415
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1740 on: April 13, 2019, 17:31:06 »
The RCN has already operated up to 80N just shy of Hans Island and have operated in the Western Arctic up to Tuktoyaktuk, I would imagine AOPV will be operating further than that. With the RCN being set to enter the North in greater numbers it is only logical that air assets will operating there as well eventually in greater numbers based out of the above mentioned fields.

I was on the Pearkes, with the Radisson to help us making a dash for Pt Barrows heading home to Victoria, the ice sheet was moving east from Siberia, we had to punch through a bunch of one year ice and growlers to get through, another 4 hours and we would not have been able to get through the ice and would have had to run for the East Coast and come back through Panama. That same season the Nahidik got stuck near Tuk having to move forwards and back behind an island to keep the ice from binding her for a couple of weeks. The AOPs will be a great asset up North, but very often they will be on their own and the only government resource in the area. Very likley they will be involved in SAR calls that were handled by the locals and be the primary resource. 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,415
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1741 on: April 19, 2019, 13:50:01 »
A little humour


Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 218,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,704
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1742 on: April 20, 2019, 03:33:52 »
Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.

Even if supported from one of the RCAF's FOLs? (Yellowknife, Inuvit, Iqaluit, Kuujuaq, Rankin Inlet and/or Resolute).

Isn't this something we practiced previously on one of the OP Nanooks, or Qimmiq's. Deployments of assets from the south including Cormorants and Auroras based out of Iqaluit. Isn't that something easily achievable during the ice free season in conjunction with the AOPV deployments?

Late comment to this...

- 140's can launch out of either Comox or Greenwood, reach up north, and recover in Yellowknife or Iqaluit (I've done this type of trip a few times).  Unlike Hercs, 140's don't like unpaved runways (wings mounted low on fuselage, flap damage from gravel/rocks, etc). 

- If you launched from Yellowknife or Iqaluit, you'd be able to reach further and/or have a longer on station time (I've also done this type of trip).   Consider a 140 can take off out of Sicily and make it to eastern Canada (usually with a headwind) without stopping for gas; we've got pretty good legs.

- getting a single plane with aircrew and maintainers out the door can happen really quickly (we always go with maintainers if not recovering at Homeplate).  As Colin P suggested, if it becomes a sustained op (more so if there is a 24hr coverage requirement) it is going to increase the support / resources footprint quickly.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 20:17:21 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 252
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1743 on: April 25, 2019, 13:21:42 »
Article saying that all 6 AOPS will be 'operational' by 2025. 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-s-patrol-ships-to-be-operational-by-2025

Thought's if they'll make that time frame?


Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,367
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,990
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1744 on: April 25, 2019, 14:25:12 »
Article saying that all 6 AOPS will be 'operational' by 2025. 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-s-patrol-ships-to-be-operational-by-2025

Thought's if they'll make that time frame?

Yes that was reported on another news source last week. I looked at the schedule and it should be no problem .
"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 Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1745 on: April 26, 2019, 07:20:16 »
Irving tweeted out a pic of the Scanter Radar being installed on HMCS HARRY DEWOLF, yesterday.

It had me wondering if it can/will be used as a fire control director for the Mk.38 in addition to its other duties? Or is the main gun to be autonomous from the radar set?

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,206
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,039
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1746 on: April 26, 2019, 08:06:58 »
My understanding is that the gun is manually directed. 

Think joystick.

Not slaved to any FCS.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1747 on: April 26, 2019, 10:30:43 »
Interesting. I’m wondering how effective that would be against, say, drones without the accuracy of the radar set. I believe the gun itself has a track/lock feature but don’t know if it’s as efficient?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,367
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,990
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1748 on: April 28, 2019, 14:46:33 »
I was down aboard HDW a little while ago and I must say what a nice ship, lots of room, they really thought out the layout. Sailors will be really pleased with the accommodations., while not Asterix worthy they are way better than the CPF's.
"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 Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 252
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1749 on: April 29, 2019, 08:01:31 »
I was down aboard HDW a little while ago and I must say what a nice ship, lots of room, they really thought out the layout. Sailors will be really pleased with the accommodations., while not Asterix worthy they are way better than the CPF's.

Can you get any sense of how much (or little) roll the AOPS will have being just being down in the ship?