Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Dale Denton]

Anyone have thoughts if they'll switch out the 25mm auto-cannons on the AOPS's as the 57's begin coming offline from the Halifax's?  Would certainly give the AOPS's a better ability to 'reach out and touch someone' if the need ever came about.

I don't see them reusing the 57's on whatever we build to replace the Kingston's, though I'd be happy if they did.

I think AOPS armament has been talked-to-death on here. They're pretty useless in terms of a fightin' anything up there. Anything that's in the arctic that wants a fight would likely be either a Sukhoi or a SSN - so you're buggered with a 25MM. IMHO 25MM seems to be there just to avoid the news article "new navy ship has no gunz" and for the "silent authority of a deck-mounted gun".

I can imagine in mid-life or emergency refit that you could turn an AOPS into a light-corvette without too much work (see below RN River Class Batch 2 article for comparison).
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/

This also theoretically work in an emergency on a Kingston Class - throw on a non-deck penetrating 40MM (2.3T), some fire-control radar, and replace the .50s with Miniguns.

40MM on the type 31s look impressive: 2.3 Tonnes, non-deck penetrating, 12KM range, acts as CIWS.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think AOPS armament has been talked-to-death on here. They're pretty useless in terms of a fightin' anything up there. Anything that's in the arctic that wants a fight would likely be either a Sukhoi or a SSN - so you're buggered with a 25MM. IMHO 25MM seems to be there just to avoid the news article "new navy ship has no gunz" and for the "silent authority of a deck-mounted gun".

I can imagine in mid-life or emergency refit that you could turn an AOPS into a light-corvette without too much work (see below RN River Class Batch 2 article for comparison).
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/

This also theoretically work in an emergency on a Kingston Class - throw on a non-deck penetrating 40MM (2.3T), some fire-control radar, and replace the .50s with Miniguns.

40MM on the type 31s look impressive: 2.3 Tonnes, non-deck penetrating, 12KM range, acts as CIWS.

But what about missiles and torpedoes and stuff like that? I assume that they're pretty easy to bolt on as required, assuming we have them somewhere (says the Infantry guy who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about ).

 

[YZT580]

Certainly light deck armament is more than adequate for the north although some form of ground to air would perhaps be handy but the missions to Africa require or could require a much more robust response.  Provided the design permits a swap-out and provided the alternative systems are available in-house for installation as needed no problem but having the installation capability is useless if there are no systems in the warehouse and I haven't seen any procurement contracts that would suggest that this is being addressed.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Something like this (bolt on, highly functional gun/ missile combination). There’s not a surface combat ship in the RCN that wouldn’t benefit from having this type of system. And while the cost is pretty low, am sure DND and the procurement folks can make arrangements to transform it into the most expensive, unreliable, down levelled system in its class: https://youtu.be/iDjvc2r02V4

 

[daftandbarmy]

Something like this (bolt on, highly functional gun/ missile combination). There’s not a surface combat ship in the RCN that wouldn’t benefit from having this type of system. And while the cost is pretty low, am sure DND and the procurement folks can make arrangements to transform it into the most expensive, unreliable, down levelled system in its class: https://youtu.be/iDjvc2r02V4

You mean like the CTS program, but more important to national survival, right?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think AOPS armament has been talked-to-death on here. They're pretty useless in terms of a fightin' anything up there. Anything that's in the arctic that wants a fight would likely be either a Sukhoi or a SSN - so you're buggered with a 25MM. IMHO 25MM seems to be there just to avoid the news article "new navy ship has no gunz" and for the "silent authority of a deck-mounted gun".

I can imagine in mid-life or emergency refit that you could turn an AOPS into a light-corvette without too much work (see below RN River Class Batch 2 article for comparison).
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/

This also theoretically work in an emergency on a Kingston Class - throw on a non-deck penetrating 40MM (2.3T), some fire-control radar, and replace the .50s with Miniguns.

40MM on the type 31s look impressive: 2.3 Tonnes, non-deck penetrating, 12KM range, acts as CIWS.

Nice looking ships, now that the AOP's have the North, split the replacement of the Kingstons half for mine hunters and the half something like this.

 

[Underway]

You don't bolt on a 57mm. 

How are you going to target it?  57mm is a dual-use air and surface defensive weapon.  It requires an appropriate sensor suite to detect a target with enough accuracy to provide a fire control solution to a Combat Management System.  Its radar most likely would need to be upgraded.  The ship would need to upgrade its Combat Management System.  Despite perhaps some rumours out there to the contrary, the RCN isn't in the habit of putting weapon systems that never hit their targets onto ships.  Quite a bit of work has gone into the 57mm upgrade to allow it hit all the targets it needs to hit.

 

[OceanBonfire]

Delivery of first Arctic and offshore patrol ship delayed again


The delivery of the first Canadian Arctic and offshore patrol ship (AOPS) has been delayed once again, the Department of National Defence confirmed to Global News on Monday.

A spokesperson for the Department of National Defence said building "a new class of ships is very complex" and that the additional time is necessary "to ensure that all remaining work and tasks... are completed optimally."

"Although we had predicted the first delivery for Winter 2020, the schedule has slightly shifted to Spring 2020," Daniel Lebouthillier said in a statement.

The first vessel, HMCS Harry DeWolfe, was scheduled to be delivered by the end of March and this is only the latest in a series of delays for the vessel.

The original plan was to have Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax deliver the ship in 2018, before the date was pushed to the end of 2019 and then the first three months of 2020.

Labouthillier said that it is the department's objective to have the vessel delivered before summer. That gives Irving roughly three more months, although DND admitted that there is still a chance for the delivery date to change.

The delay will also put the timeline for the delivery of the next vessel in flux, although DND says lessons are being learned from the construction of the first vessel that will benefit the seven additional vessels to come.

Lebouthillier said the timeline for delivery on the remaining vessels is still being assessed, and updates will be shared once available.

Construction of the third and fourth vessel is already underway.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6649765/delivery-first-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship-delayed/

 

[YZT580]

Is anyone knowledgeable on the reason for the delays?  Structural, design flaws, construction errors or only a re-arranging of the deck chairs as a result of the trial runs?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You don't bolt on a 57mm. 

How are you going to target it?  57mm is a dual-use air and surface defensive weapon.  It requires an appropriate sensor suite to detect a target with enough accuracy to provide a fire control solution to a Combat Management System.  Its radar most likely would need to be upgraded.  The ship would need to upgrade its Combat Management System.  Despite perhaps some rumours out there to the contrary, the RCN isn't in the habit of putting weapon systems that never hit their targets onto ships.  Quite a bit of work has gone into the 57mm upgrade to allow it hit all the targets it needs to hit.

Funny how other navies build this type of ship with those systems installed. How do they plan to control the 25mm?

 

[Underway]

Is anyone knowledgeable on the reason for the delays?  Structural, design flaws, construction errors or only a re-arranging of the deck chairs as a result of the trial runs?

Oddly enough during trials, they are finding things that aren't working as they should!  I also think  Irving isn't that experienced with builders trials so assume they are screwing up and learning as they go. 

Funny how other navies build this type of ship with those systems installed. How do they plan to control the 25mm?

Sure installed.  What are they going to hit without proper fire control? Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  25mm is EO targeted using a control station on the bridge IIRC.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sure installed.  What are they going to hit without proper fire control? Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  25mm is EO targeted using a control station on the bridge IIRC.

I was actually referring to the Fire Control systems other navies have fitted to their ships and why we didn't?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Oddly enough during trials, they are finding things that aren't working as they should!  I also think  Irving isn't that experienced with builders trials so assume they are screwing up and learning as they go. 

Sure installed.  What are they going to hit without proper fire control? Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  25mm is EO targeted using a control station on the bridge IIRC.

Kind of like putting 40mm WWII era Bofors on the Kingston's? Where was their proper fire control?  Guess that's why they were stripped on them a few years back, only after 20yrs of them being bolted on.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

AOP's #3

 

[MilEME09]

Meanwhile the UK is taking delivery of their off shore patrol vessels, interesting note about the new filter and reduced emissions, I imagine a similar system will be on the CSC.

https://www.forces.net/news/royal-navys-newest-and-greenest-warship-arrives-portsmouth-first-time

 

[Underway]

Meanwhile the UK is taking delivery of their off shore patrol vessels, interesting note about the new filter and reduced emissions, I imagine a similar system will be on the CSC.

https://www.forces.net/news/royal-navys-newest-and-greenest-warship-arrives-portsmouth-first-time

AOPS is spectacularly environmentally friendly.  It's designed to meet the Arctic waters standards.  As for CSC, who knows.  I doubt it though.  Doesn't seem like we would write that into the requirements.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Pasted the relevant IMO diesel exhaust emissions below; tier 2 has been met by on-engine improvements, tier 3 usually requires some kind of bolt on system and is generally a challenge. For a system like the urea SCR, you normally can't carry enough to run it all the time, so it's an option to turn on when in an environmentally sensitive area (i.e. off when you are on open ocean, on when you get close to land).  There isn't really a reliable and stable solution that has been proven to work on warships.  I guess the RN can be the guinea pig; hopefully works out better then the recuperator/intercooler on the WR21 gas turbine that is on the Type 45.  That would have been a massive fuel saving/emissions reduction if it actually worked.

As an aside, the upgraded diesels on the CPFs had to meet IMO tier 2 (tier 3 wasn't feasible because it would have meant a lot more then swapping the existing DG in a box).  That's part of the public spec that was on the RFP, but there was a lot of work to see if we could make tier 3 happen. Generally speaking, the RCN rules are we meet or exceed all environmental standards unless it isn't operationally feasible, and that's also baked into the NATO ship design standards (ANEP 77), as well as the various class rules for warships. There is a process to deviate from that, but it's a total nightmare, so would generally expect all warships we get to meet whatever IMO standards exist at the time for everything environmental (or exceed it, so we meet future restrictions as we run them past their shelf life).

It's hard to adapt some of the civilian regulations based around tonnage because the ship configuration on a commercial vessel is totally different then a warship (in terms of dimensions, centre of gravity, equipment density etc) but it's definitely always a question every time we do something, even though we are specifically exempted from the IMO treaties, Canada Shipping Act, etc. I know engineers get a bad rap for being gearheads sometimes, but a lot of us are also green thumbs, and when all your training boils down to system interrelations, it's pretty hard to ignore things like emission impact on the great outdoors. For a lot of people it's a passion project to do things as greenly as practicable, but outside the project all you normally see is a simple risk/impact table, and not the weeks of work and research behind it.


https://dieselnet.com/standards/inter/imo.php

 

[Good2Golf]

Navy Pete, how close do you think FELEX Pielstik’s got toward Tier 3?

 

[Spencer100]

Pasted the relevant IMO diesel exhaust emissions below; tier 2 has been met by on-engine improvements, tier 3 usually requires some kind of bolt on system and is generally a challenge. For a system like the urea SCR, you normally can't carry enough to run it all the time, so it's an option to turn on when in an environmentally sensitive area (i.e. off when you are on open ocean, on when you get close to land).  There isn't really a reliable and stable solution that has been proven to work on warships.  I guess the RN can be the guinea pig; hopefully works out better then the recuperator/intercooler on the WR21 gas turbine that is on the Type 45.  That would have been a massive fuel saving/emissions reduction if it actually worked.

As an aside, the upgraded diesels on the CPFs had to meet IMO tier 2 (tier 3 wasn't feasible because it would have meant a lot more then swapping the existing DG in a box).  That's part of the public spec that was on the RFP, but there was a lot of work to see if we could make tier 3 happen. Generally speaking, the RCN rules are we meet or exceed all environmental standards unless it isn't operationally feasible, and that's also baked into the NATO ship design standards (ANEP 77), as well as the various class rules for warships. There is a process to deviate from that, but it's a total nightmare, so would generally expect all warships we get to meet whatever IMO standards exist at the time for everything environmental (or exceed it, so we meet future restrictions as we run them past their shelf life).

It's hard to adapt some of the civilian regulations based around tonnage because the ship configuration on a commercial vessel is totally different then a warship (in terms of dimensions, centre of gravity, equipment density etc) but it's definitely always a question every time we do something, even though we are specifically exempted from the IMO treaties, Canada Shipping Act, etc. I know engineers get a bad rap for being gearheads sometimes, but a lot of us are also green thumbs, and when all your training boils down to system interrelations, it's pretty hard to ignore things like emission impact on the great outdoors. For a lot of people it's a passion project to do things as greenly as practicable, but outside the project all you normally see is a simple risk/impact table, and not the weeks of work and research behind it.


https://dieselnet.com/standards/inter/imo.php

Can't you just route the urinals into it!  Run forever!  :rofl:

 

[Stoker]

Nice looking ships, now that the AOP's have the North, split the replacement of the Kingstons half for mine hunters and the half something like this.

Nope the Kingstons will continue in the North doing hydro-graphic work.