Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,039
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile back at the Shipyard
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
I say some pictures of the hanger of HMCS Harry DeWolf. It appears there is no overhead crane. If there usually something to that effect to change out engines and blades. Is this something they will be able to do on the class?
- Reaction score
- 17,261
- Points
- 1,010
it was never really designed to hangar a Cyclone.
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
Really?, I assume you would know. The earliest drawings depict a Cyclone inside with tail folded. When did that change?
- Reaction score
- 27,920
- Points
- 1,090
Artist's rendition <> actual plan.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,039
- Points
- 1,160
They built a helicopter hanger that won't fit the only Marine helicopter they have?
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
Not to give anything away but the ship is supposed to be Cyclone certified according to what I have seen, so at some point it is supposed to have one aboard.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,299
- Points
- 1,010
The pictures I have seen (open sources, look them up) of the flight deck and the inside of the hangar show the presence of a track for the "bear trap". What other helicopter has the CF got that can do traps?
I would have thought the hangar could house a Cyclone but, since they are not planning to have one integral to the ship, that they would not have the accommodation for maintenance crew and a full Airdet or their equipment, that it would only be for occasional storage out of the elements when circumstances warrant, like an unplanned overnight or bringing back the bird from a place where it broke down, etc.
I would have thought the hangar could house a Cyclone but, since they are not planning to have one integral to the ship, that they would not have the accommodation for maintenance crew and a full Airdet or their equipment, that it would only be for occasional storage out of the elements when circumstances warrant, like an unplanned overnight or bringing back the bird from a place where it broke down, etc.
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
The track is there however no bear trap as of yet, from what I have told some sort of helo haul down is going to be installed. The ship has a air det office, accommodations, briefing room, workshop etc. All the documentation i have seen they will take one at some point. We all know there is not enough Cyclones to go around and the MOU with the CCG has a CCG helo embarked when they go to the Arctic.
- Reaction score
- 17,261
- Points
- 1,010
It was a money saving exercise. To design the AOPs from the keel up to embark a Cyclone Det (as opposed to recover and refuel a Cyclone) would have cost money And was contrary to what the Government of the day wanted. So now, after have built and launched a couple, we are now going to spend money to figure out a way to embark a Cyclone. Make sense? 
BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...
BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,039
- Points
- 1,160
CCG uses a telescoping Hanger to accommodate their helicopters
- Reaction score
- 6,311
- Points
- 1,040
Do we really need cyclones on AOPs anyway? If we can partner with the CCG and embark their helo and crew, we would presumably be able to leverage their experience in the Artic for the ice spotting and other relevant local ops knowledge.It was a money saving exercise. To design the AOPs from the keel up to embark a Cyclone Det (as opposed to recover and refuel a Cyclone) would have cost money And was contrary to what the Government of the day wanted. So now, after have built and launched a couple, we are now going to spend money to figure out a way to embark a Cyclone. Make sense?
BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...
Really fail to see what advantage we'd get with a big ASW helo over ice, and given the lack of airframes makes more sense to reserve them for their primary purpose. A helo would generally be a big asset, but the Cyclone seems like massive overkill and frankly wasted, especially given the lack of a full ops room or any complementary systems on the AOPS (like sonar or any kind of ASW capability).
AOPs are civilian ice breakers painted gray with a small gun on the front, not a warship. Maybe we should just use them for what they were designed for, instead of trying to strap everything on afterwards and make is useful for nothing?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,039
- Points
- 1,160
I do agree somewhat, but these ships will also be assigned to duties outside of the Arctic. In a perfect world the navy would have a smaller helicopter to supplement the Cyclone, similar to the UK's "AW159 Lynx Wildcat" with a modular setup to allow some ASW, transport, ice recce, vertical replenishment, SAR and transport. Since that is unlikely to happen, TC supplies the crews and helicopters to the CCG, it might be better to have dedicated helicopters and crews to the AOP's even if owned by TC still, sort of Aviation version of the RFA. It would mean an acquisition of 6 new Bell 429 helicopters, with likely 3 being deployed at any one time. Crew normally is a pilot and maintainer, but for RCN support, I would double that, so a 4 person crew of 2 pilots and 2 maintainers. They will be paid by TC, but DND transfers the fund over.
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
The MOU that I saw mentioned difficulty in CCG helos resupplying their ships due to small load capacity and possibly having the Cyclone to support resupplying their ships in exchange of using their helos. AOPS could very well embark a ASW payload in the future.
- Reaction score
- 6,311
- Points
- 1,040
Well sure, but then you would still need trained operators (who we don't have enough of) on a platform that doesn't have a tonne of extra bunks, and adding a useful ASW payload would be pretty tricky on a ship was never intended to do.
We'll have a hard time generally keeping the CPFs and subs going with limited resources, so not sure why we'd try and get AOPs to do a bunch of any new things way outside it's design intent.
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
From the info I have access to there are very large port and stbd JP5 tanks along with JP5 overflow and JP5 ready use tanks along with a JP5 pump room. As well there is a very large crew briefing room, aviation office and on the port side a very large aviation stores and workshop. From what I can gather it will support minor maintenance so no blade or engine changes. The hanger on all the drawing I have access to show the Cyclone with it tail folded in the hanger. The other info that I saw it will support a bell 212 or 412, Cyclone and landing and refueling of a Cormorant. In 2012 they also modeled the air turbulence calculation's of the superstructure and that was in 2012. They have a Flyco station with port and stbd remote foam monitors and the other day when I onboard they has TAU units in the hanger. The ship also has accommodations for 20 more personnel over the 65 crew.It was a money saving exercise. To design the AOPs from the keel up to embark a Cyclone Det (as opposed to recover and refuel a Cyclone) would have cost money And was contrary to what the Government of the day wanted. So now, after have built and launched a couple, we are now going to spend money to figure out a way to embark a Cyclone. Make sense?
BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Points
- 1,160
I think the who idea of the TRAPS ASW Payload is to put it on a platform that it was never intended to do, that's the beauty of it. The ship also has 20 spare bunks over the 65 crew. Personnel is another matter of course.
- Reaction score
- 17,261
- Points
- 1,010
I was briefed differently on JP5 capacity, but I defer to you.
