Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

I remember those from training on the old YAGs; they sucked.

My favourite feature of CSC is no bridge wing doors, because they have tonnes of windows and cameras, and keeping the citadel intact is a thing in the RN.

So many doors on JSS. There are even external doors for OPS and CCR, locked on the inside, emergency use egress only. Or perhaps a clever way to get at a fire in another type of emergency.

 

[Czech_pivo]

A 57mm would change the boat for the worse, and add no real capability.

I’d rather ensure that all AOPS are fully capable of helo ops and that we have more than enough helo resources to ensure that every time an AOPS is deployed and requires one, we have the helo and resources to make it happen.

 

[PrairieFella]

Would a system similar to switchblade be a good compromise for a ship like AOPS? Have 8-10 tubes attached in convenient places that can be used if a little more bang is needed than what the M242 can offer.

I suppose magazines would be a problem but could there be some room found in a place like the focsle?

 

[Stoker]

I’d rather ensure that all AOPS are fully capable of helo ops and that we have more than enough helo resources to ensure that every time an AOPS is deployed and requires one, we have the helo and resources to make it happen.

Even if by a miracle that the six AOPV's are certified for unrestricted flight operations which in my estimation is years away, helos won't be deploying on every AOPS all the time.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I’d rather ensure that all AOPS are fully capable of helo ops and that we have more than enough helo resources to ensure that every time an AOPS is deployed and requires one, we have the helo and resources to make it happen.

As a taxpayer, I’m really frustrated they contracted billions for a naval ship set up with a helicopter deck and hangar but can’t operate the multi billion dollar helicopter fleet from the ship.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Even if by a miracle that the six AOPV's are certified for unrestricted flight operations which in my estimation is years away, helos won't be deploying on every AOPS all the time.

Just imagine a navy that has the proper helo to ship to training to maintenance ratio that would allow for a helo to be available to be deployed, if required, every time a ship left port for a deployment. Wouldn’t that be something.

 

[Stoker]

As a taxpayer, I’m really frustrated they contracted billions for a naval ship set up with a helicopter deck and hangar but can’t operate the multi billion dollar helicopter fleet from the ship.

You have that right but as alluded on these forums numerous times some of the blame resides with the builder and a lot of it resides with the government and the people who should of had their eye on the ball in regards to making sure the ship was ready in the first place.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Just imagine a navy that has the proper helo to ship to training to maintenance ratio that would allow for a helo to be available to be deployed, if required, every time a ship left port for a deployment. Wouldn’t that be something.

Just imagine a Navy that has a proper ship to helo ratio, such that we could keep current, at sea….

 

[Underway]

Just imagine a Navy that has a proper ship to helo ratio, such that we could keep current, at sea….

Yup, can't even properly put frigates to sea with the approriate number of helicopters, and now when you start adding JSS (which can take two), we're running out of crews really fast.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Yup, can't even properly put frigates to sea with the approriate number of helicopters, and now when you start adding JSS (which can take two), we're running out of crews really fast.

But someone has a workable plan to address this, right?

 

[Stoker]

But someone has a workable plan to address this, right?

Sure there is a plan, one that's going to take years to enact. We would be better off ditching the Cyclone and acquiring new, proven helos with enough airframes that won't kill the crews.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure there is a plan, one that's going to take years to enact. We would be better off ditching the Cyclone and acquiring new, proven helos with enough airframes that won't kill the crews.

I 100% support that idea/plan. And if there was anyway that I could help make that happen, I would do so.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I’d rather ensure that all AOPS are fully capable of helo ops and that we have more than enough helo resources to ensure that every time an AOPS is deployed and requires one, we have the helo and resources to make it happen.

Yea but I was trying to be realistic. If you want helicopters for the AOP's on domestic ops, there is a proven way of doing that, it will just take some time and money.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sure there is a plan, one that's going to take years to enact. We would be better off ditching the Cyclone and acquiring new, proven helos with enough airframes that won't kill the crews.

Lots of rumors swirling around about just that.

 

[Stoker]

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yup, can't even properly put frigates to sea with the approriate number of helicopters, and now when you start adding JSS (which can take two), we're running out of crews really fast.

Air crews, SWOAD teams, and HCRFFs, and the shipboard portion is class specific to a certain extent. We run out of people before we run out of helos and platforms.

 

[Furniture]

View attachment 90291

I'm jealous of the people going on that trip... It will likely be the highlight of a few people's careers.

 

[Stoker]

I'm jealous of the people going on that trip... It will likely be the highlight of a few people's careers.

Yep we're only going on their first leg to ensure their readiness. They have a bunch of scientists and scientific gear onboard.

 

[Baz]

Yea but I was trying to be realistic. If you want helicopters for the AOP's on domestic ops, there is a proven way of doing that, it will just take some time and money.

The original "Cyclone" requirment was before the AOps (finalized circa 1990) and was for 28 aircraft (plus 7 for attrition, removed prior to the 1993 election). This was to support 15 det equivalents in 11 dets (4 dets were to be 2 helo, 3 crew; the 2nd line tanker with 3 helos 1 crew was already moving into the past). The entire purpose was to sustain the ability to deploy a CTG with 6 helos (in order to to keep 2 airborne 24/7), plus one continuously deploying single ship (ie SNFL), plus training, plus aircraft in 2nd/3rd line.

The Cyclone does not do 2nd/3rd line the way the Sea King did, but the lack of spares and trained techs has erased (and more) any benefit that may bring. Even with the new Protecteur Class there is not enough hangar space to deploy 6 helos in a CTG in any reasonable construct sutainable using the River and Protecteur Class (unless some though is given as to how you could actually have two helos on a River class, whcih I don't think is reasonable). As well, the concept of keeping two in the screen, with one of those able to support a forward TAS, is probably dated. Single ship deployments are much more common... let's assume you need to sustain two. We're done to an absolute maximum of 27 airframes.

So let's assume a better mix is 14 det equivalents in 12 dets (2 two helo 3 crew dets, even though the Portecteur's won't be continuously available). Two sustainable single ship deployments eats up 8 dets (the CF standard, very rarely adhered to, is 3 force generation [post deploy, regeneration, pre-deploy] to 1 force employment), but let's say one of those would swap out if the CTGs were needed. So, given sustainment of two CTGs is not keeping them at sea (but surging as needed), then that means 3 single helo dets and 1 two helo per CTG, giving 5 in each, so 3 lines of 12 each day (but hopefully rejig maintenance to be more flexible).

That generally matches up with current policy and appetite; however, it means that AOps was never planned for, and the capability isn't there. So, either plus up the fleet, or do exactly what Colin alluded to (and the original requirements for AOps spoke to) and normally some other community provides a helo for AOps (a very expensive war fighting helo isn't the normally required), and only surge a Cyclone if and when required (which makes it unavailable for the previously defined roles).

 

[Baz]

Sure there is a plan, one that's going to take years to enact. We would be better off ditching the Cyclone and acquiring new, proven helos with enough airframes that won't kill the crews.

I can happily discuss the weaknesses (and strengths) of the Cyclone, and fully acknowledge the current supportability and generation issues. However, the implication that the Cyclone is "killing crews" is not helpful.

I was talking just today with somebody at the museum about the "bad old years" of the Sea King. I mentioned that I actually looked up and phoned an ex-submariner who was acting like an expert and telling the press the Sea Kings were dangerous. I told him I wasn't impressed, because every time he told the press that, I had to re-convince my wife that they weren't.

As an aside, I think that ditching the Cyclone wouldn't result in new, proven airframes, it would result in Cretien finally achieiving his vision of "zero helicopters."