Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Eye In The Sky]

Common to ships that operate in the Arctic, the hawsers are paid out and hauled in not exposing the part ships hands to the elements.

Any chance you can explain that in words I can understand?  8)

 

[Stoker]

Any chance you can explain that in words I can understand?  8)

Normally the ships lines and ships personnel are on the top part of the ship tying up the ship out in the elements. On this ship they are inside out of the weather and pull and let the ropes in and out through those holes.

 

[Uzlu]

Okay, according to the Record, she still hasn't been christened yet.  Any news concerning that ceremony?

Though Irving has not announced a date for the naming ceremony, Darlington said word on the ground is it will be sometime in early October.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/first-irving-built-arctic-patrol-vessel-set-to-launch-241930/

 

[Underway]

No to catch radar waves and make her look as big as a battleship on the enemies radar

It's called "Iceberg Imitation" electronic warfare.  Wait till you see the blue and white camo they have picked out for after commissioning. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Normally the ships lines and ships personnel are on the top part of the ship tying up the ship out in the elements. On this ship they are inside out of the weather and pull and let the ropes in and out through those holes.

Copy, tks..

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's called "Iceberg Imitation" electronic warfare.  Wait till you see the blue and white camo they have picked out for after commissioning. 

Does the camo come with bonuses like 4% less detectable, 5% crew xp  8)

 

[Underway]

Does the camo come with bonuses like 4% less detectable, 5% crew xp  8)

:rofl:  Don't forget the -4% enemy hit chance.  But it will cost you 300 coal to get it.  Otherwise shipside gray for you!

 

[kratz]

At the rate of this discussion, the topic should be merged with World of Warships Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Clan Thread  ff topic:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sheesh a Tier I ship in WOWS would blow this out of the water, a 35mm won't cut it  8)

 

[Underway]

Sheesh a Tier I ship in WOWS would blow this out of the water, a 35mm 25mm won't cut it  8)

All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.

Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.

 

[Stoker]

All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.

Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.

The discussion I have heard is 2 section bases, forward and aft with one only manned at anytime dependent where the scene is, like the MCDV construct. I'm doing another famil tour next month and probably will know more details.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.

Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.

Wouldn't those discussions have happened long ago, and just need to be fine-tuned at this point?  Maybe I misunderstood, and it is the fine-tuning part that is happening now?

 

[Kirkhill]

All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships". I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.

Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.

In 2009 the SOR  3371-300001216 Vol 1 (DMRS 10-2)/RDIMS # 168216 Ver 131200 May 2009 Clause 3.2.3 "Notionally the AOPS core crew will be between 35-45 personnel and will be supported, as required, by mission-specific personnel or non-core crew.  It is foreseen that the core crew will conduct day-to-day ship operations and will be supported by non-core crew when conducting specific operations such as embarked helicopter or interdiction operations"

(NB - I find it interesting that this seems to be the exact opposite of the Asterix configuration - Asterix has civvy drivers and blue-suit attachments.  The AOPS has blue-suit drivers and any manner of attachments).

In 2010 the AOPS specification (AOPS SRD - Draft, Sep 15, 2010, SRD-49 3.4 Accommodations) "The AOPS will provide accommodations for: a. the core crew of no more than 45 personnel" with accommodation for an additional 20 pax housed similarly to the crew and austere accommodation for a further 20 pax. 

In 2008 the STX presentation stipulated 45 Core Crew and 40 Supernumeraries  (AOPS Industry Day Nov 13, 2008 by Dan McGreer).
In 2010 the STX presentation stipulated 45 Core Crew and 40 Supernumeraries  (Arctic Passion Seminar, Mar 4, 2010 by Dan McGreer).
In 2011 the AOPS Project Director RCN stipulated Crew 45 with additional accommodation for 40 (Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Oct, 2011 by Cdr C.D. Soule)
In 2012 the STX presentation stipulated 45 Crew and 40 Supernumeraries (Joint SNAME CIMarE Technical Meeting, Feb 18, 2012 by Dan McGreer).

In 2015 the RCN Harry DeWolf-Class AOPS poster stipulated a complement of 65
In 2015 the ISY presentation stipulated accommodation for 85 with a complement of 65

At the risk of belabouring the point - the original design parameter was a core crew of 35 (Max 45) with 45 stipulated all the way up until the design got into the hands of the East Coast.  And I believe it was always intended to be a civilian design.

Just as an aside here was the "Current Situation" as of the May 2009 SOR

Capability Development Board 29 Sep 2006
Joint Capability Requirements Board 06 Nov 2006

Senior Review Board Preliminary Project Approval 15 May 2007
Programme Management Board Preliminary Project Approval 16 May 2007
Treasury Board Preliminary Project Approval 31 May 2007

Definition Engineering Logistic Maintenance and Support (DELMS) RFP released for Project Definition Phase 13 Dec 2007
Joint Capability Requirements Board provided with SOR info brief 14 Dec 2007

Project Definition DELMS contract awarded to BMT Fleet Technology 07 May 2008

Integrated Capability Analysis Team (ICAT) endorsed SOR 01 May 2009
Capability Development Board endorsed SOR 13 May 2009.

12 years from Capability Development to Salt Water.....

 

[Cloud Cover]

"12 years from Capability Development to Salt Water....."

not too shabby.... Lo does anyone remember the fable of the ALSC under David Collenette which begat the ASLV project in the 1990's days of darkness continued by Art Eggleton which begat the BHS of McCallum, Pratt and Graham which begat the JSS of O'Connor/Mackay/Nicholson/LetterKenny and his Honour Mr. Saijan, which hath still not been built.  And the First Sea Lord (FSTO) smiled and sayeth unto the faithful: "Not a fooking chance this decade, now go forth and run ashore Jack".

 

[Stoker]

Wouldn't those discussions have happened long ago, and just need to be fine-tuned at this point?  Maybe I misunderstood, and it is the fine-tuning part that is happening now?

The DC Organization for the HDW is pretty much set in stone, I can't go into specifics but somewhat like how a Kingston Class does business. I would imagine the tweaks will be done when we start harbour readiness trials and IMSRT.

 

[Navy_Pete]

All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.

Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.

Fitted systems, fitted systems, and more fitted systems?  Fine water mist systems and some of the halon replacements are really effective and won't cause any damage really to the space.  So if your first response to anything bigger than a smoldering waste paper basket is to fire off a fitted system you really only need one person.  Most floods are from pipes springing a leak, so the quickest thing is to shut down the cooling/sea water system, isolate the leak and carry on, which is a lot easier to manage on a non-combatant (in terms of equipment affected).

Also, if you are doing a 'safe at sea' standard you isolate, contain and recover, so that needs way less crew.  If we treat it like a warship, and want to do things like fight fires in an NBCD environment while prepping for a cocktail party in the next port, we'll be in a bit of trouble.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Also, if you are doing a 'safe at sea' standard you isolate, contain and recover, so that needs way less crew.  If we treat it like a warship, and want to do things like fight fires in an NBCD environment while prepping for a cocktail party in the next port, we'll be in a bit of trouble.

I don't care what anyone says, that's the kind of Navy we should be fighting for

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Fitted systems, fitted systems, and more fitted systems?  Fine water mist systems and some of the halon replacements are really effective and won't cause any damage really to the space.  So if your first response to anything bigger than a smoldering waste paper basket is to fire off a fitted system you really only need one person.  Most floods are from pipes springing a leak, so the quickest thing is to shut down the cooling/sea water system, isolate the leak and carry on, which is a lot easier to manage on a non-combatant (in terms of equipment affected).

Also, if you are doing a 'safe at sea' standard you isolate, contain and recover, so that needs way less crew.  If we treat it like a warship, and want to do things like fight fires in an NBCD environment while prepping for a cocktail party in the next port, we'll be in a bit of trouble.

I have seen, first hand (unfortunately) the RCN's aversion to to actually using the fitted systems they have now.

Hopefully, SeaTrg and DC school are now forcefully driving home the point that your first reaction to a major zone fire is not attack teams, but the bloody fitted system!

 

[Stoker]

I have seen, first hand (unfortunately) the RCN's aversion to to actually using the fitted systems they have now.

Hopefully, SeaTrg and DC school are now forcefully driving home the point that your first reaction to a major zone fire is not attack teams, but the bloody fitted system!

Yes but you still need command approval for certain systems in certain situations.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have seen, first hand (unfortunately) the RCN's aversion to to actually using the fitted systems they have now.

Hopefully, SeaTrg and DC school are now forcefully driving home the point that your first reaction to a major zone fire is not attack teams, but the bloody fitted system!

But think of the medals!