- Reaction score
- 17,065
- Points
- 1,010
Chief Stoker said:
I grant you that.
Command needs to be trained to actually make that decision.
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
I grant you that.
Command needs to be trained to actually make that decision.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Chief Stoker said:
Even in the civilian shipping world, most fixed systems are usually only used on direction from either the master or the chief engineer... water mist is usually an exception though...
Do AOPS have a water mist system?
Those things are an amazing tool to have in the tool box.
They're usually automatic activation, but even if they're manually activated, policy should absolutely be activation by anyone even suspecting a fire...
Unlike gas systems, you don't need to seal the space, there's no risk of suffocation, and they're not "one shot".
Unlike sprinkler or deluge systems, there's almost no risk of flooding, they're effective on class b fires, and there's no damage to equipment.
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
Chris Pook said:
You are correct. Fresh water. Key here is the volume isn't what you expect because the mist systems are very water efficient.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Mega block of AOP's # 2 rolls out https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2018/09/aops-2-center-mega-block-rolls-out.html#comment-12217
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Chris Pook said:
Fresh water, yes.
There's a stainless steel freshwater "stand by" tank, usually one or two m3, with one or more high pressure pumps to feed the suppression system.
There's a standby/feed pump that draws from the domestic fresh water tanks to feed the standby tank, and there should also be a sea water standby pump in the unlikely event you run out of fresh water.
Sea water really isn't suitable for the system though, as if there's any small particles it'll clog the sprayer heads.
Volume of water discharged by the system is very small... I've been caught in a few discharges, it's usually enough that I've got to hang my coveralls up to dry but I don't need to change my clothes underneath.
The systems are usually automatic, activated by a combination of a smoke and a flame detector.
I don't know if anyone else makes them, but every one I've seen is Sem-Safe by Danfoss.
They're very effective, you can catch the fire in its incipient stage.
If the navy hasn't bought into them for the AOPS and future warships, they're missing an opportunity.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
Enjoy your gloried MCDV, guys!
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Spectrum said:
No, no, no, they are the RCNYC :stirpot:
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
The A/OPS were the RCN's reluctant response to the first Harper government's 2005 campaign pledge to give the Navy armed arctic icebreakers, the Conservatives not realizing that icebreaking was the CCG's job. All part of their "Arctic sovereignty" hoo-hah that almost everyone fell for, hook like and sinker. So we ended up with vessels that are neither fish nor cetacean: From 2007:
As for that sovereignty hoo-hah do read this excellent CGAI piece:
Also (written over five years ago! Canadian shipbuilding and defence procurement, eh?):
Mark
Ottawa
As for that sovereignty hoo-hah do read this excellent CGAI piece:
Also (written over five years ago! Canadian shipbuilding and defence procurement, eh?):
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
Chief Stoker said:
Some of the old sailors are excited as well, and would love to give them a go.
FSTO said:
There is quite an attraction because of the different engineering systems, the small crew, and the types of missions that the ships will be doing, the accomodations and the ice navigation. And yes, there is certainly an aspect of "newness".
As for whether or not these should be Coast Guard ships, well... no. Everything that is armed on the water in Canada that has a higher rate of fire than a C7, or a calibre greater then .50 belongs to the RCN. The Canadian Coast Guard suffers from the USCG overshadowing it, similar to so many other things in Canada. We do things our own way not the US way. SAR, Aids to Navigation, Buoy Tendering, Icebreaking to keep shipping routes open, these are the day to day bread and butter of the Coast Guard. None of that is armed. And none of that is "guarding" in the security sense (unlike the USCG).
Anything armed to the point where you can sink something on the water or burn it to the waterline belongs to the Navy and the Navy alone. Not to mention the missions the AOPV have been designed for which are way out of the Coast Guards area of expertise.
Now if you want to make some unarmed AOPV and give them to the Coast Guard well that's the wrong ship for the job. The've been designed with military missions in mind. Right tool for the job.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Personally, I am willing to bet they end up with the Coast Guard, weapons removed, in less than ten years.
And, FSTO is correct (as Mark pointed out long ago in his blog): The Navy never asked for these ships. They simply fulfill no required function whatsoever for the Navy.
This said, they have been foisted into the Navy by Harper - out of the blue (pun intended) - and are here now, so obviously the Navy developed a CONOP for them. That doesn't mean they are useful in a military sense.
Their lack of military usefulness is in no way related to enthusiasm for serving in them, however, because as we have to man them and they are doing something different, they will attract people. Heck! If I was still in, I would apply to go: A chance to sail the pristine and beautiful Canadian Arctic in ships that have a zero chance of finding themselves in combat and where even the pace of operation will be slow and let people enjoy the scenery. Who wouldn't go?
Finally, a small technical point. Whether armed or not, and whether the Navy, for employment purposes considers them "non-combatant" is irrelevant in their designation. They will be commissioned ships, they will bear the designation "HMCS", and that makes them warships. If they want to board someone in the Arctic, you can rest assured that the call on channel 16 will be "Vessel X, this is Canadian warship Harry De Wolfe", not the "this Canadian naval vessel Orca" type of thing used for non-commissioned ships.
And, FSTO is correct (as Mark pointed out long ago in his blog): The Navy never asked for these ships. They simply fulfill no required function whatsoever for the Navy.
This said, they have been foisted into the Navy by Harper - out of the blue (pun intended) - and are here now, so obviously the Navy developed a CONOP for them. That doesn't mean they are useful in a military sense.
Their lack of military usefulness is in no way related to enthusiasm for serving in them, however, because as we have to man them and they are doing something different, they will attract people. Heck! If I was still in, I would apply to go: A chance to sail the pristine and beautiful Canadian Arctic in ships that have a zero chance of finding themselves in combat and where even the pace of operation will be slow and let people enjoy the scenery. Who wouldn't go?
Finally, a small technical point. Whether armed or not, and whether the Navy, for employment purposes considers them "non-combatant" is irrelevant in their designation. They will be commissioned ships, they will bear the designation "HMCS", and that makes them warships. If they want to board someone in the Arctic, you can rest assured that the call on channel 16 will be "Vessel X, this is Canadian warship Harry De Wolfe", not the "this Canadian naval vessel Orca" type of thing used for non-commissioned ships.
