• 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

Swampbuggy said:
https://www.facebook.com/100067554889367/posts/pfbid0289SfhUkwK2N4DDtqhZ4teRzG99Q1i2i6aZPnGpqgxMzUNE7oEuKJKgvPhPQLUtRzl

I’m so bad at links, I’m not certain this will work. However, it’s a link to the HDW Facebook page where a post showed HARRY was able to sustain 18+ kts for an “extended period of time”. That’s certainly an interesting achievement past her projected performance numbers.
Click to expand...
Yes she actually went faster during builders trials and broke more ice than expected.
 
Swampbuggy said:
That’s encouraging. I may be one of the few that think the ship will be very useful to the RCN and it’s satisfying to see it exceed expectations.
Click to expand...
You're not one of the few. You're one of the informed. There is a lot of noise, and a lot of Zombielies (things that were true but not true anymore) about the ship at this point. The "slushbreaker" label is holding despite the evidence to the contrary. Also interesting average ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic during winter now is 1.5m. Just what AOPS was designed to move through. It's like we prediceted global warming trends when designing the ship.

So to summarize.

Ship goes at least 1 knot faster than expected. 17 vs 18+
Ship breaks thicker ice than expected. 1.5 vs ~2+m
Ship has a much higher fuel efficiency than expected. (leading to longer range/endurance)
Crews are enjoying the ship much more than expected.

In the negative column there are definate teething issues. Powerplant, plumbing, cranes, etc... but I don't think any of that surprised anyone. New ships always have those.
 
Underway said:
In the negative column there are definate teething issues. Powerplant, plumbing, cranes, etc... but I don't think any of that surprised anyone. New ships always have those.
Click to expand...
One doesn't normally expect drinking water problems due to using valves not meeting the required spec and not being fit for potable water, though.
 
Underway said:
You're not one of the few. You're one of the informed. There is a lot of noise, and a lot of Zombielies (things that were true but not true anymore) about the ship at this point. The "slushbreaker" label is holding despite the evidence to the contrary. Also interesting average ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic during winter now is 1.5m. Just what AOPS was designed to move through. It's like we prediceted global warming trends when designing the ship.

So to summarize.

Ship goes at least 1 knot faster than expected. 17 vs 18+
Ship breaks thicker ice than expected. 1.5 vs ~2+m
Ship has a much higher fuel efficiency than expected. (leading to longer range/endurance)
Crews are enjoying the ship much more than expected.

In the negative column there are definate teething issues. Powerplant, plumbing, cranes, etc... but I don't think any of that surprised anyone. New ships always have those.
Click to expand...
What would be nice is that some of these 'exceeds' expectations were brought to the attendance to the general CDN public. One small step towards re-establishing some trust in Government, the Public Service and in the 'process'.
 
Czech_pivo said:
What would be nice is that some of these 'exceeds' expectations were brought to the attendance to the general CDN public. One small step towards re-establishing some trust in Government, the Public Service and in the 'process'.
Click to expand...
ISI seemed to pretty straightforward about it.New.PNG
 
dapaterson said:
One doesn't normally expect drinking water problems due to using valves not meeting the required spec and not being fit for potable water, though.
Click to expand...
Given how much a PITA the Frigates are for potable water though I personally wasn't overly shocked that it was an issue. Sailed from Iceland to Scotland and back to Canada using bottled water after tank contamination.

What caused the AOPS issue was certainly a surprise though. But the fact that system was one of the teething issues itself wan't to surprising.
 
Underway said:
Given how much a PITA the Frigates are for potable water though I personally wasn't overly shocked that it was an issue. Sailed from Iceland to Scotland and back to Canada using bottled water after tank contamination.

What caused the AOPS issue was certainly a surprise though. But the fact that system was one of the teething issues itself wan't to surprising.
Click to expand...
The Kingston Class has had lead issues over the years as well different reasons though, its not exclusive to AOPS.
 
Meanwhile, on the USS Nimitz...
fb4e07ea3c37c426dd0a2b3344b1ff85.jpg
 
Underway said:
You're not one of the few. You're one of the informed. There is a lot of noise, and a lot of Zombielies (things that were true but not true anymore) about the ship at this point. The "slushbreaker" label is holding despite the evidence to the contrary. Also interesting average ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic during winter now is 1.5m. Just what AOPS was designed to move through. It's like we prediceted global warming trends when designing the ship.
Click to expand...
It seems a lot of figures in both the media and armchair admiral sphere have had a grudge against the AOPS basically since the concept specs were revealed. For the longest time, Wikipedia had a very unfair criticism section which basically just presented side of those opposing the AOPS program openly without any input from its supporters. There was very few supporters publicly for the design to balance out the amount of vocal naysayers. It makes me quite happy that the ships are performing better than expected to stick it to these folks, not that they are likely still paying attention.

When you (wisely in my opinion) pick a design that is able to patrol effectively in the Arctic during the seasons where traffic exists there while also being able to be used in other roles abroad in the remainder of the year, you by nature have a compromise design. You are not pleasing the people who want the capability of a Polar Class icebreaker, you are not pleasing the people who want an OPV, you aren't pleasing the people who want these ships built for the governmental equivalent of the change in your cupholder and you are not pleasing the people who seem to think these ships should have the armament of a destroyer. Some of these people are inherently unreasonable but I digress.

These ships are a true asset to the RCN and I hope the sailors enjoy them as much as I've heard they do. They really deserve a new platform with accommodations not designed in the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
Rainbow1910 said:
It seems a lot of figures in both the media and armchair admiral sphere have had a grudge against the AOPS basically since the concept specs were revealed. For the longest time, Wikipedia had a very unfair criticism section which basically just presented side of those opposing the AOPS program openly without any input from its supporters. There was very few supporters publicly for the design to balance out the amount of vocal naysayers. It makes me quite happy that the ships are performing better than expected to stick it to these folks, not that they are likely still paying attention.

When you (wisely in my opinion) pick a design that is able to patrol effectively in the Arctic during the seasons where traffic exists there while also being able to be used in other roles abroad in the remainder of the year, you by nature have a compromise design. You are not pleasing the people who want the capability of a Polar Class icebreaker, you are not pleasing the people who want an OPV, you aren't pleasing the people who want these ships built for the governmental equivalent of the change in your cupholder and you are not pleasing the people who seem to think these ships should have the armament of a destroyer. Some of these people are inherently unreasonable but I digress.

These ships are a true asset to the RCN and I hope the sailors enjoy them as much as I've heard they do. They really deserve a new platform with accommodations not designed in the Cold War.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't have a big gun of some kind.... how can we take it seriously? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Like
The Arctic
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
40K
Skysix
Skysix
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
763
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
    • Like
Canadian Gold Mine in Congo Seized by Wagner
2 3
Replies
47
Views
13K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
5K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
GR66
    • Like
Priority Capabilities for the CAF
Replies
1
Views
6K
Spencer100
Spencer100
Back
Top