Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,944
- Points
- 1,260
Sleep fine all you want -- but you need to understand this is why a lot of foreign governments see the RCN as a glorified CG these days.
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
No it just seems that you do from all your misinformed statements here calling us this and that or that our ships don't make the cut in your expert opinion. Seems to be a lot of Admirals on here all of a sudden. Can't wait until the CSC starts to come on line and all the "informed" comments about those ships start.
- Reaction score
- 22,042
- Points
- 1,360
@Stoker, I’d at least give KevinB credit for having done at least enough research/informed himself enough that AOPS are PC5 and what that means, to the degree that a non-sailor can appreciate that. If a few more folks at least made an effort to try to understand some of the other shades of their purple colleagues, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. To be honest, the way Nansivik was promised back in the day, today’s version of emptying the tanks before the snow flies is not what most reasonable people would have expected. Having been involved in ESSM procurement as a non-dark blue guy, I take your point about the ‘people perhaps not appreciating all that goes into fitted weapons’ piece…almost like some non-green folks saying to just ‘bolt an AD weapon into a LAV’ and you’re good to go. Thanks for your ongoing insight to the HDW and family.
Cheers
G2G
Cheers
G2G
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
This is patently false. Not only what constitute a CG defined differently around the world, but the Canadian ships the world does see on a regular basis for the RCN are ready to fight and participate.
Flagships for SNMG 1 and 2 over the last two years. Flagstaff and Commander for SNMG1 and Op Apollo. ASW Warfare Commander for STANAVFORLANT, ASW Commander for 2nd Fleet, 2IC for 2nd Fleet, OP CARIBBE, OP ALLIGATOR etc...
Frankly from an engineering perspective adding combat systems detracts from the margins for what the ship's real job is way too often.
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
Yes doing a wiki on the class will indeed revel those facts.
Sometime ago someone stated it took the government 15 years to build the fueling depot at Nansivik and inferred some kind of mismanagement. The simple fact it took years for the mines owner to remediate the site and then we had to conduct environmental assessments of what we wanted to build. These assessments in the best of times down south take many months to complete. Now take into account that its in the north where the construction season is a few months long, all the supplies equipment etc. has to come in by barge, consultations into the community and the fact we are building fuel storage tanks close to the water where the environmental regulations are much more stringent than doing the same thing in the south. The actual jetty is settling into the clay and that is the reason why the original plan was scaled back somewhat as resources had to be allocated to correct that . To top it off the last few years of Covid by government policy personnel couldn't come in to work on the project for sometime because these communities were deemed closed to visitors. Of course the people had no way of knowing all of that but if they did a little bit of research they would have an idea. I do get about the having the fuel tanks empty. If we built that as a 365 day manned depot does anyone having an inkling on what that would cost to maintain yearly? You have to ask yourself will the government or public support that kind of expense on a annual basis? I personally think it was a major achievement that we have what we have. This will help immensely in supporting AOPS, Kingston and Halifax classes including our allies patrolling the Arctic.
- Reaction score
- 22,042
- Points
- 1,360
Maybe as the NWP opens up in future years, Govt will see fit to upgrade the fuel storage system to 365/yr. til then, folks see the O&M for using C-17s to drop in ost-freeze fuel as the lesser of two evils, vice capital cost for NAN’s infra.
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
I think it was in this thread that someone talked about stationing a class of boat at some communities for the rangers to operate, I thought about this and put forward this idea. Have a boat in a hanger on a metal slip way into the water. The boat launches under its own weight and it retracted with a winch into the hanger for storage and maintenance. Sort of like the Royal Lifeboat society had in the UK. I would go with these Danish boats, we operated with them in the past and they seem very capable.
- Reaction score
- 18,772
- Points
- 1,280
I'll just add that NAN is the acronym for HMCS Nanaimo (MM 702). Unless you were referring to that MCDV's infrastructure...
Back to Lurking Stations
- Reaction score
- 22,042
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
LCP Class (2004- ), Landing Crafts
Data Sheet for the Landing Crafts of the LCP Class (2004- )
www.navalhistory.dk
The Danish version of the CB-90/ SRC 90E (about half the size).
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
That's the one, pretty impressive actually.
- Reaction score
- 21,944
- Points
- 1,260
How feasible would that be as a "bolt on"?
Looking at the rear 'fantail?" of the AOPS could a temporary ramp type attachment system to do something like that be done?
Mainly just curious if a new ship would be needed for that type of activity, as but for that aspect the AOPS seems to be a solid fit for that.
Does that rear deck crane looking thing take up all the space - and if so, could it be removed to make room for a ramp/dock
Would you be overly offended if I cut fight out and left participate?
Look I pick on the CA and RCAF a lot too - as my point is as a whole the CF tends to pigeonhole acquisition, and not look at theatre requirements - which lends Canada to a participant role in a coalition - which is fine - but comes with limitations as well as how those capabilities that are missing are viewed on a global scale.
That isn't a dig at the personnel of the RCN (except the absolutely senior leadership and the Politicians who abrogate responsibility for delivering a robust multimillion capable Navy).
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
Offended no. A little sad yes. There is rarely a question about individual RCN unit fighting capabilities. For their role (ASW) Halifax Class are quite good, particularly now the Cyclone is online. The doctrine and training of the sailors often outthink and outclass their peers in exercise and in operations. NATO peers are always very happy to have an RCN frigate join because they don't need to babysit us. We carry our own weight and add capability.
USN in particular has no frigates and is overjoyed when a CPF joins. We can replace their ships one for one on ASW picket duty.
If your concern is the RCN as a whole, yes there are huge gaps. Since the 280 rusted out and the Protecteur fire there has not been a task group capability available. And a TG is the basic formation (not unit) required for independent national naval operations.
Asterix fixed that somewhat and allowed for a TG core to be created around a supply ship. JSS will be accepted in 2023-24ish timeline and create a navy only TG core.
But it won't be till the 2030's where the full TG capabilities are reborn, and then we can do the 2001-2015 full TG contribution globally again. If you want to complain about that, sure. It's not wrong, but that's not what you were saying. Other countries don't care if we have a TG. They care if we show up, help, and don't get in the way. And the RCN does that.
USN in particular has no frigates and is overjoyed when a CPF joins. We can replace their ships one for one on ASW picket duty.
If your concern is the RCN as a whole, yes there are huge gaps. Since the 280 rusted out and the Protecteur fire there has not been a task group capability available. And a TG is the basic formation (not unit) required for independent national naval operations.
Asterix fixed that somewhat and allowed for a TG core to be created around a supply ship. JSS will be accepted in 2023-24ish timeline and create a navy only TG core.
But it won't be till the 2030's where the full TG capabilities are reborn, and then we can do the 2001-2015 full TG contribution globally again. If you want to complain about that, sure. It's not wrong, but that's not what you were saying. Other countries don't care if we have a TG. They care if we show up, help, and don't get in the way. And the RCN does that.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Kev - I think the addition of a stern ramp at this stage of the game might be a bit beyond both the capabilities and the need.
On the other hand that crane thingy is used for hoisting boats and a mini-landing craft aboard, as well as seacans, a pickup truck, atvs and snowmobiles.
I am pretty sure that if the RCN wanted to host a Danish LCP aboard it could do it. In addition to the crane (actually cranes plural), and subject to confirmation by our RCN SMEs, the AOPS also has 4 bays athwartships that could berth similar boats.
Excuse my curiosity regarding fuel constrains in the north:
Ethanol's freezing point is much lower than marine fuel's, probably would not require heating to keep it liquid, and water diluted in it should not affect performance of a fuel cell.
Ottawa University is making some progress in direct ethanol fuel cells (DEFC). Maybe in 10-20 years this technology will be commercially available. Would it be useful to build ethanol tanks up there, if not for sailing an AOPS-size ship at least for smaller boats or vehicles?
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
Large amounts of fuel, about 7 Million liters at the facility at Nanisivik need to be tended to by someone who will circulate the fuel, test it and maintain it. Unfortunately its a fairly remote area connecting Arctic Bay with the site via a 32KM road that is not maintained in the winter. Winters there are harsh with some pretty bad storms, that's also a reason why the fueling infrastructure is built away from the shore as mounds of ice tend to pile up there. Liability is another thing as the government will want to maintain security of the site. That all boils down to having the tanks empty at the end of the season as a cost effective way to keep the site until the first shuttle tanker fills the tanks at the beginning of the season. Unless something changes or the technology changes like you mentioned that's the way its going to be maintained.
Well of course not; it would need a 57mm.
- Reaction score
- 6,281
- Points
- 1,040
Minimum fuel flash point allowed on ships is 60 °C; going below that needs a lot of special storage considerations, processing etc, but ethanol is so volatile it would be a bit of a nightmare with no real gain. Ethanol also has about half the calorific value as diesel, so you would need more for the same energy output.
They've done some work on biodiesel but it tends to gel at normal sea temps, so is not usable outside of warm waters.
