• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,083
Points
1,160
While I want to agree with you, I suspect that "training and micro fleet" argument will come up. We jumped onto the Cyclone bandwagon and likley it will make sense to stay on it if we play more airframes, not sure how much of the moving bits are common to the other Sikorsky products? i wonder how much in common with the VH-92?

A slight off-topic tangent for the platform specifics, but germane to the discussion because other factors in play then, still exist today in current projects...

We didn’t jump onto any bandwagon at all. We asked a bespoke bandwagon to be made just for us!

The Martin government took a deliberate action to commit Canada to an aircraft that would be notably more capable than the SH-60 Sea Hawk type, but more importantly protected Jean Chrétien’s legacy of having taken a good decision back in 1993 to cut the NSA/NSH EH-101 helicopter...”Zip! Zero! Nada!” The CH-148 Cyclone was going to be a mess from the out start because the Government assigned to role of overall capability integrator to neither Sikorsky, nor to General Dynamics Mission Systems - Canada. That resulted in the Crown retaining final responsibility for overall platform-systems integration (cue Sikorsky and GDMS-C high-fiving each other with great relief in the background).

Arguably, Sikorsky was attempting to recover at least some of the NRE it spent on FBW flight-control systems it had developed with Boeing for the RAH-66 Comanche, but even then, once they hit the limit of liquidated damages back to the Crown, they pretty much lost interest in bending over backwards to make things work well enough to market the aircraft to compete with the upper echelons of its own (SH-60) customer base
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
594
Points
890
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sikorsky also somewhat 'pitch' that the Superhawk would start to replace their legacy Blackhawk/Seahawk series, and thus be a widely supportable airframe in the future?

(Perhaps either high hopes on the part of Sikorsky, or just saying what they needed to say to secure the deal?)
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,083
Points
1,160
Soft pitch, yes, but as a utility/military variant of the S-92, designated the H-92 Superhawk, not the complex fly-by-wire MH92 that became the CH-148 Cyclone.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,162
Points
1,010

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
"Individual cabins." That is just crazy wrong!

How will any Navy Officer learn his tradecraft without being stuffed in a JOUT locker. Without hot bunking NCM's will be left to their own designs. The horror, the horror.
Oh, don’t worry. It always starts out that way with a new class of ships. Pretty soon, triple stack bunks start sprouting everywhere like dandelions.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
530
Points
1,040
Oh, don’t worry. It always starts out that way with a new class of ships. Pretty soon, triple stack bunks start sprouting everywhere like dandelions.
But don't dare suggest we include some extra capacity in the hotel services at the front end (black and grey water, food, etc). That's crazy talk as we'll never exceed the max crew of 70-some odd. 🚣‍♂️
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
530
Points
1,040
Oh, you wild eyed optimist....
I give it the first real deployment until we get a UCR for 'insufficient bunks'.

It's especially bad for AOPS with the extra restrictions on any discharges in the Artic, so the volume of holding tanks may become a limiting factor in time on station.

If I'm optimistic it would be that someone added an 'engineering safety factor' to the tank volumes to give an extra 30% sewage capacity or something so you could accomodate at least another 20 -30 on top of their 'max crew'. I wouldn't bet a coffee on that though! Time for the sneaky pete pump! :ninja::poop::poop:
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
153
Points
680
I give it the first real deployment until we get a UCR for 'insufficient bunks'.

It's especially bad for AOPS with the extra restrictions on any discharges in the Artic, so the volume of holding tanks may become a limiting factor in time on station.

If I'm optimistic it would be that someone added an 'engineering safety factor' to the tank volumes to give an extra 30% sewage capacity or something so you could accomodate at least another 20 -30 on top of their 'max crew'. I wouldn't bet a coffee on that though! Time for the sneaky pete pump! :ninja::poop::poop:
You can discharge treated effluent in the Arctic...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,457
Points
940
You can discharge treated effluent in the Arctic...
Until your command tells you not to, we were told that our icebreakers with Arctic certified sewage systems could not and we were supposed to pump our tanks into the Victoria's sewage system. A few red faces when the Chief Engineer described the ship system vs Victoria's non-existent sewage system.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
153
Points
680
Until your command tells you not to, we were told that our icebreakers with Arctic certified sewage systems could not and we were supposed to pump our tanks into the Victoria's sewage system. A few red faces when the Chief Engineer described the ship system vs Victoria's non-existent sewage system.
Just going by the environmental regulations for the Arctic for this class of ship. There's always going to be situations where you need to collect, the ship is set up for it and it has multiple ways to treat and hold. We are not the CCG.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,162
Points
1,010
I give it the first real deployment until we get a UCR for 'insufficient bunks'.

It's especially bad for AOPS with the extra restrictions on any discharges in the Artic, so the volume of holding tanks may become a limiting factor in time on station.

If I'm optimistic it would be that someone added an 'engineering safety factor' to the tank volumes to give an extra 30% sewage capacity or something so you could accomodate at least another 20 -30 on top of their 'max crew'. I wouldn't bet a coffee on that though! Time for the sneaky pete pump!
Just going by the environmental regulations for the Arctic for this class of ship. There's always going to be situations where you need to collect, the ship is set up for it and it has multiple ways to treat and hold. We are not the CCG.
Many Navy folks I know were full of shyte, so a couple of extra days holding it shouldn't cause any real problems.:p
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
530
Points
1,040
Just going by the environmental regulations for the Arctic for this class of ship. There's always going to be situations where you need to collect, the ship is set up for it and it has multiple ways to treat and hold. We are not the CCG.
Fortunately our treatment systems never break down, and then when they do, require FSR support and/or parts not held on board in large quantities.

Plus we can count on environmental regulations never getting stricter as vessel traffic increases when the passages open up...

:whistle:🎶

(hotel services can be the bane of your existence when they aren't working, so apologize in advance for being scarred by my experiences and reacting like a beaten dog around the need for functional sewage, hot water, and fresh water collection and treatment systems. Nothing like getting to make a pipe telling people NOT to flush stubby screwdrivers, or a detailed explanation of what a pusser shower is to really kill your personal morale.)
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
(... Nothing like getting to make a pipe telling people NOT to flush stubby screwdrivers, or a detailed explanation of what a pusser shower is to really kill your personal morale.)
Afraid to ask... is it something like

 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
153
Points
680
Fortunately our treatment systems never break down, and then when they do, require FSR support and/or parts not held on board in large quantities.

Plus we can count on environmental regulations never getting stricter as vessel traffic increases when the passages open up...

:whistle:🎶

(hotel services can be the bane of your existence when they aren't working, so apologize in advance for being scarred by my experiences and reacting like a beaten dog around the need for functional sewage, hot water, and fresh water collection and treatment systems. Nothing like getting to make a pipe telling people NOT to flush stubby screwdrivers, or a detailed explanation of what a pusser shower is to really kill your personal morale.)
I don't know what to tell you, been in the Arctic multiple times and my BW, GW and Rods never broke down. In fact in the Arctic my Rods worked the best, way better than the Caribbean obviously. That being said we had redundancy and multiple modes of operation for MARPOL Special Areas. and that helped immensely. Breakdowns occur of course, all I'm saying is that there are discharge regulations in the Arctic we follow in the Class SEMS and it doesn't include not discharging entirely. In regards to AOPS the fact that they can carry an extra 20 persons over their regular crew size, they have that and an extra capacity built into their treatment plant. They have to, to get the USCG certification.
 

torg003

New Member
Reaction score
2
Points
130
Just wondering, why would Canadian made ships to be used in the Canadian Arctic have to get USCG (or any other American agency's) certification?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
153
Points
680
Just wondering, why would Canadian made ships to be used in the Canadian Arctic have to get USCG (or any other American agency's) certification?
They sewage treatment system has to be certified by the USCG in order to enter US waters and discharge. These ships at times like any other ship in the RCN will be traveling in US waters at some point. Like any sewage certification they require our system to be MARPOL Annex IV compliant. All these systems are designed to have extra capacity in case of situations where there are extra people embarked. AOPS has an extra 20 bunks for embarked forces so they have that extra capacity to process as a design element.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,150
Points
940
Afraid to ask... is it something like
Pusser Shower means: A water-saving evolution in which one attempts to get clean while using as little water as possible. Basically, you turn on the shower for a few seconds to wet yourself down. Then, turn off the shower and lather everything up. Then, you turn the shower back on and rinse off.

 
Top