Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 304269 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #975 on: May 11, 2018, 15:40:21 »
?

The very last Sea King Det is at sea now...nowhere near RIMPAC.

The det chief and I go way back. I just assumed it was RimPac.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,398
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #976 on: May 12, 2018, 14:53:30 »
The Flight deck is too small you can't switch the helos around so you'll be stuck flying only one of the birds.

Actually, AirDet, I think you are fooling yourself by looking at the type 26 as if it is in the same size category as the Halifax's.

It is not: The type 26 is actually 30 percent bigger than the IRO's and about 34 percent bigger than the HAL's.

But more importantly, the flight deck of the type 26 is 14 feet wider than the flight deck of the HAL's (68 feet wide as opposed to 54). I know there is going to be only one deck handling system, but in reasonable sea states and with some hand-draulic power, you could reasonably manage to switch between the helo in the hangar and the one pushed into the flex deck. Tons of room on deck (so long as you don't try with the blades deployed  ;) ) to do the switch.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,963
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #977 on: May 12, 2018, 16:27:49 »
I have handraulically moved a sea King out from and back into the hangar on a frigate, once.

It took the entire air department, plus the FD Stoker and Electrician, most of the firefighters and a couple of random bosons who were just passing by.

There was nothing easy about it.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,398
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #978 on: May 12, 2018, 20:27:44 »
I said "reasonably" ... not "easily".

Just saying that it's not true that you couldn't switch. That's all.

Also, since the flex deck is quite big, if you carried two helos fully folded, wouldn't it be possible to then carry a small aviation tractor?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 20:32:40 by Oldgateboatdriver »

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #979 on: May 12, 2018, 21:46:11 »
Actually, AirDet, I think you are fooling yourself by looking at the type 26 as if it is in the same size category as the Halifax's.

It is not: The type 26 is actually 30 percent bigger than the IRO's and about 34 percent bigger than the HAL's.

But more importantly, the flight deck of the type 26 is 14 feet wider than the flight deck of the HAL's (68 feet wide as opposed to 54). I know there is going to be only one deck handling system, but in reasonable sea states and with some hand-draulic power, you could reasonably manage to switch between the helo in the hangar and the one pushed into the flex deck. Tons of room on deck (so long as you don't try with the blades deployed  ;) ) to do the switch.

It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 22:06:06 by AirDet »
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 760
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #980 on: May 12, 2018, 22:47:25 »
It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.

Could you rotate them using a single deck handling system?  Say one is in the air for a few hours dipping, then the second one is launched and replaces number one on station.  Thus doubling your helo in the air time (by doubling your available helos). You could also have an ability to surge them if required with both tracking a sub as a team. Is that feasible?

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,584
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #981 on: May 12, 2018, 23:51:15 »
 Using a built flushly into deck bi-directional cable haul system through a rail? Can move flex deck containers as well.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,584
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #982 on: May 12, 2018, 23:55:47 »
Question for Chinook pilots is that deck on Type 26 really big enough or just barely good enough in pristine condition.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,398
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #983 on: May 13, 2018, 07:40:06 »
It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.

I accept that you certainly know more about this than I do. And I never professed that we should do such swap as matter of daily operation - just that if need be, it could be done.

However, I remain convinced that we will all be surprised by the size of Type 26 ships (if they are what we get - or when we see the British ones). At 7600 tons, 492 feet long by 68 wide, they are close to the size of the old PRO AOR's [8400 tons (without fuel and cargo - ship only) and 564 feet long by 76 feet wide]. Moreover, considering the shape of the respective flight decks (kind of truncated triangle on the AOR and near rectangular on the Type 26), I believe we will find, in the end, that the Type 26 flight deck is actually larger than the PRO class one.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 12,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 452
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #984 on: May 13, 2018, 08:34:37 »
I accept that you certainly know more about this than I do. And I never professed that we should do such swap as matter of daily operation - just that if need be, it could be done.

However, I remain convinced that we will all be surprised by the size of Type 26 ships (if they are what we get - or when we see the British ones). At 7600 tons, 492 feet long by 68 wide, they are close to the size of the old PRO AOR's [8400 tons (without fuel and cargo - ship only) and 564 feet long by 76 feet wide]. Moreover, considering the shape of the respective flight decks (kind of truncated triangle on the AOR and near rectangular on the Type 26), I believe we will find, in the end, that the Type 26 flight deck is actually larger than the PRO class one.

I would also add the necessity is sometimes the mother of invention; if we find that it is really useful to carry two helos when the mission bay is not otherwise occupied, there are people at the appropriate research establishments that could help solve that particular deck handling problem.

I would suggest that we need to take a slight step back at some point though; say 1 1/2 for each CSC, 3-4 on the tanker, 1/2 on each AOPS (all have been discussed here); not putting dets on low readiness ships, so now we are at 15-20 aircraft in 12 dets, which is above 12 Wing establishment.  So you better start thinking about how to buy extra platforms and find the remar to fly and maintain them.

Now, I'll admit my bias... instead of an extra Cyclone, put two Fire Scouts up there.  Needs less room  to store and move, and with two you could maintain 24 hour coverage unless one went u/s.  Some 50 pound head might even be able to figure out how to range the Cyclone far aft, bring the Fire Scout out beside it, and then bring the Cyclone back into the hangar without it even leaving the trap, launching the Fire Scout, recover the other, rinse and repeat...

Another question for the 50 pound heads at Northrup: how many times can you hot fuel a Fire Scout before it needs maintenance.  If once that gives you 24 hours before swapping, if more than that gets truly impressive.

See my other comments reference the tanker; Fire Scout with AESA plus AIS and whatever medium altitude sensors you can stick on there is, IMHO, the surface surveillance platform of choice right now.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,432
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #985 on: May 13, 2018, 18:25:29 »
Question for Chinook pilots is that deck on Type 26 really big enough or just barely good enough in pristine condition.

Chinook’s footprint is 12’ wide and 26’ long (centred 4’ aft of the hook).  Lots of space, so long as those bulwarks on the stern quarters aren’t too high.  Orientation of landing-on might be other than the nose-fwd most pictures show, sideways gives more clearance to the hangar.  Rear towards hangar is also an option and would make unloading/loading more direct.  A Chinook also has a negative-pitch detent, so it can press itself down a bit, but landing conditions would still have to comply with HOSTAC (or equivalent) rules.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

Offline cheeky_monkey

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 7,662
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 596
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #986 on: May 13, 2018, 18:30:22 »
It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.

+1
I've seen two Sea Kings traversed out onto the FD of an IRO as proof of concept for extended engine room fires. With the both the Cyclone and the T26 FD larger than HAL/IRO FDs, I still don't see a switcheroo being remotely possible. Might as well modify the superstructure and hanger to add a second hangar door, likely any other civilized dual helo flight deck.
Verité, Devoir, Vaillance

Online Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 126
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #987 on: May 13, 2018, 21:51:09 »
Very good article on the upcoming choices the Australians are about to make in the next month or so.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-fight-to-build-our-frigates/news-story/534bfeb867caa767edcc1ba3ebe3f2d9

Online Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 126
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #988 on: May 14, 2018, 08:00:40 »
And now there is this article out of the UK about the Type 26 not being ready for service until 2027.  That means that either we (or the Australia, if they choose the Type 26) become the guinea pig in shaking out the 'bugs' and very well should have a ship fully operational before the RN.
Because of this, its a bit hard not to see the complaints about allowing the Type 26 into the competition for 'proven' designs as holding validity.

The beginning paragraph:
Why will the Royal Navy not have its first Type 26 frigate operational until 2027?
Defence Procurement Minister, Guto Bebb stated in Parliament on 23rd April that the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. Here we ask why the navy must tolerate such a leisurely eight-year construction schedule.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-will-the-royal-navy-not-have-its-first-type-26-frigate-operational-until-2027/
 

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,432
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #989 on: May 14, 2018, 08:55:09 »
...HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. Here we ask why the navy must tolerate such a leisurely eight-year construction schedule...

Off the top of my head, I’d say so that proper testing leading to successful fielding could occur.

You know, like Canada didn’t do with the Phoenix pay system?

:2c:

G2G

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 760
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #990 on: May 14, 2018, 17:53:30 »
Because of this, its a bit hard not to see the complaints about allowing the Type 26 into the competition for 'proven' designs as holding validity.

We've been over this before.  The competition was for a "mature design" not a proven one.  The radar requirements alone meant that no design would already be proven.  I wish the media would get off that position.  I suspect it was spread by the French/Italian consortium since day one in an attempt to eliminate/discredit their competition pre-emptively.  Most of the competition complaints have come from them.  Alion and Navinata don't seem to be that whingy about the process.  Probably because they think they can win with the current setup.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #991 on: May 14, 2018, 19:23:39 »
I know it's nice to have a helo up 24/7 but it's not doable with the crew hour rules unless you're willing to carry 4 crews per helo.

I get that the only reason a frigate or destroyer exist at all is to carry the helo... ;D but you can't fly them all the time.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #992 on: May 15, 2018, 11:32:47 »
Actually, AirDet, I think you are fooling yourself by looking at the type 26 as if it is in the same size category as the Halifax's.

It is not: The type 26 is actually 30 percent bigger than the IRO's and about 34 percent bigger than the HAL's.

Yet it isn't as large as the tanker's FD and that was as small as you could safely go and still do a swap.

In the end there's no real need for more than one helo... even though they are the most important part of the ship. :nod:
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,398
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #993 on: May 15, 2018, 16:40:51 »
AirDet, I think you may have missed one of my posts between the one you quote and your post just before this one. I said in it:

However, I remain convinced that we will all be surprised by the size of Type 26 ships (if they are what we get - or when we see the British ones). At 7600 tons, 492 feet long by 68 wide, they are close to the size of the old PRO AOR's [8400 tons (without fuel and cargo - ship only) and 564 feet long by 76 feet wide]. Moreover, considering the shape of the respective flight decks (kind of truncated triangle on the AOR and near rectangular on the Type 26), I believe we will find, in the end, that the Type 26 flight deck is actually larger than the PRO class one.

But, for those who have had a chance to see or visit one of them, here's a good size reference for the Type 26: the Type 45 (Daring) class British destroyers are only 8 feet longer and 1 1/2 feet wider than a Type 26 is designed to be. Those who have seen one of them know that's as big a flight deck, if not bigger, than an AOR's FD.

In fact, assuming that both the model ship and the model Cyclone in the pictures that started this whole restart of the thread a few days ago are to scale, can someone say that there isn't enough room on that FD to park three Cyclones, blades and tails folded, side by side on there? And if you can, then, with only two, isn't it clear that you could do a swap?

 

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #994 on: May 15, 2018, 19:10:25 »
AirDet, I think you may have missed one of my posts between the one you quote and your post just before this one. I said in it:

But, for those who have had a chance to see or visit one of them, here's a good size reference for the Type 26: the Type 45 (Daring) class British destroyers are only 8 feet longer and 1 1/2 feet wider than a Type 26 is designed to be. Those who have seen one of them know that's as big a flight deck, if not bigger, than an AOR's FD.
I didn't miss your post. I just didn't have the actual data on size comparisons. I don't have a copy of SHOP (Shipboard Helo Operations Procedures} to reference.
Quote
In fact, assuming that both the model ship and the model Cyclone in the pictures that started this whole restart of the thread a few days ago are to scale, can someone say that there isn't enough room on that FD to park three Cyclones, blades and tails folded, side by side on there? And if you can, then, with only two, isn't it clear that you could do a swap?
Obviously you have never towed a helo... three helos on the tossing deck of an AOR. Maybe if you craned them into place but not with a mule. Don't forget that on the Type 26 you'll have a bear trap to maneuver around. There's a difference between what is mathematically possible and what is actually possible.

The reality is that until this ship is actually built we're just guessing. In the meantime I'll try to find out the length of the AOR's FD. I know it was 74ft wide and 88ft long rings a bell but I can't be sure.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #995 on: May 15, 2018, 19:17:24 »
Oldgateboatdriver, as you can see I'm as passionate about the job we do at sea as any other sailor. I'm very excited about these new boats. I just believe we should be careful not to assign too much credit to their potential capabilities until we finalize their design.

The hardest thing older sailors like us will deal with is watching other people sail away in the ships we envisioned.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 124,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,398
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #996 on: May 15, 2018, 19:51:11 »
Oldgateboatdriver, as you can see I'm as passionate about the job we do at sea as any other sailor. I'm very excited about these new boats. I just believe we should be careful not to assign too much credit to their potential capabilities until we finalize their design.

The hardest thing older sailors like us will deal with is watching other people sail away in the ships we envisioned.

I fully agree with you there, and about the fact that we are taking guesses here, even though educated ones.

And your measurements for the AOR's FD jives with my own recollection from my days on PRO: 88 feet rings a bell and the width is the actual hull's width, so 74 feet. But you may recall that it narrowed toward the "pointy" stern, and my recollection is that it was only 38 feet wide at the back. Maybe one of the other tanker wankers can chime in and confirm. But a Type 45 FD is 90 feet long by 69 feet wide, and rectangular - hence my estimate that it is bigger.

BTW, I had the chance to sail for three days onboard HMS ILLUSTRIOUS once, and I know that in Canada, as we rely on the bear trap for both landing and traversing, we don't do "free" moves, but on the small carriers, they had these air people (called handlers/ nicknamed air bosn's) who went around everywhere planes/helos were and, as soon as the airplane stopped moving anywhere for more than a few seconds, proceeded to tie them down with ratcheted and turnbuckles tie-downs.

Theoretically, couldn't those be used, if the deck was equipped with the necessary recessed eyepads? 

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #997 on: May 16, 2018, 10:58:02 »
Well, we do that already. That's what the deck crew do. What you are describing is the same way we handle helos on the AOR. We jokingly call them deck monkey vice air boson. We use those "lashings" you describe on all ship types. Whenever the helo is not about to take off we lash them to the deck.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #998 on: May 16, 2018, 11:12:28 »
All the Helo stuff aside, no matter which boat we finally I regret I'll never sail on them. All 3 left in the competition look sweet. The VLS and sensors alone will get us back into the big leagues... we that and some new tankers.

There are some serious improvements on the horizon for the RCN, lead by these CSCs.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 12,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 452
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #999 on: May 16, 2018, 12:27:32 »
Well, we do that already. That's what the deck crew do. What you are describing is the same way we handle helos on the AOR. We jokingly call them deck monkey vice air boson. We use those "lashings" you describe on all ship types. Whenever the helo is not about to take off we lash them to the deck.

Blue shirts: