J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Maybe they might take another look at MTB down the road for close to home operations.
sledge said:Well if you want a fast ship it will have to be somewhat large. I have sailed in several classes of small ships. Gate's, Kingston, YAG and Orca. You need a somewhat larger vessel to be able to handle any kind of sea state and still have a functioning crew. But a 200 foot Corvette with say a payload package capability (read ASuw or ASW). I would agree to that.
...
BAE Mk 38 Gun
Remote controlled 25 mm gun to support domestic constabulary role...
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/aops-home.page
MarkOttawa said:E.R. Campbell: "3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels..."
RCN says:
Mark
Ottawa
Oldgateboatdriver said:It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).
Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:
You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.
Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.
Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.
Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.
As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.
Navy_Pete said:Tonnage doesn't really equal capability anymore, nor does crew size .
Built by:
Karstensens Ship Yacht A/S, Skagen (The hull is built at the Polish Stocznia Pólnocna (Northern Shipyard) in Gdansk)
Design:
Karstensens Ship Yacht A/S in cooperation with the Danish Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization
Displacement:
1,720 tons
Dimensions:
Length:
Beam:
Draught:
-
(LOA) 71.80 m
(LWL) 61.00 m
14.60 m
4.95 m
Complement:
18 men (lodging capacity for 43)
Propulsion:
2 ea B&W ALPHA 8L27/28 á 2.720 kW v/800 rpm
1 ea Propeller (CP)
RENK reduction gear "Twin in/single out"
Range:
3,000 nautical miles
Armament:
2 ea 12,7 mm Heavy Machine Guns M/01 LvSa
Additional space for:
1 ea SAR/Landing Crafts of the LCP Class
Speed:
17 knots
Oldgateboatdriver said:It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).
Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:
You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.
Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.
Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.
Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.
As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.
SeaKingTacco said:My opinion as a former Air O- once you add Air Ops to a Ship, you have sufficiently complicated the operations of a ship that it can no longer be considered a minor war vessel- regardless of tonnage.
E.R. Campbell said:I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.
I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of German vessel, built by Fassmer.
Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel
I believe there is a role for small combatants in a blue water navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even foreign missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a heavy.
Kirkhill said:Just wondering -
If a big vessel like Maersk Triple Es can be managed with the same size crew as the Danish OPV, could a crew of the same size, manning all the same duty stations be trained on something the size of the Orcas which, as ERC seems to suggest, could be floated in any large body of water?
Could a common bridge work for all vessels from something the size of an Orca all the way up to AOR? Or bigger?
SeaKingTacco said:The bridge layouts on the Frigates, MCDVs and ORCAs all look remarkably similar, so that is probably not an accident.