• 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

I am a big fan of stern ramps for launching and recovery of boats, but they have trade offs and take up a fair bit of internal space. So I can understand why they went with the crane and the PO2 I was chatting with in North Van when HDW was here was very happy about the big crane as it allowed them to replenish the ship from the dock far faster than doing it by hand. So likley the crane won out over a stern ramp for the flexibility aspect. But it does limit your launch and recovery envelope for the landing barge. Technically the AOP's is the closest thing we have to a amphibious support ship. I expect that they will do a lot of the shore assault training in the future.
 
I am a big fan of stern ramps for launching and recovery of boats, but they have trade offs and take up a fair bit of internal space. So I can understand why they went with the crane and the PO2 I was chatting with in North Van when HDW was here was very happy about the big crane as it allowed them to replenish the ship from the dock far faster than doing it by hand. So likley the crane won out over a stern ramp for the flexibility aspect. But it does limit your launch and recovery envelope for the landing barge. Technically the AOP's is the closest thing we have to a amphibious support ship. I expect that they will do a lot of the shore assault training in the future.

Scramble nets? :giggle:

american-troops-climbing-down-scramble-nets-into-assault-craft-before-picture-id1041896204
 
I am a big fan of stern ramps for launching and recovery of boats, but they have trade offs and take up a fair bit of internal space. So I can understand why they went with the crane and the PO2 I was chatting with in North Van when HDW was here was very happy about the big crane as it allowed them to replenish the ship from the dock far faster than doing it by hand. So likley the crane won out over a stern ramp for the flexibility aspect. But it does limit your launch and recovery envelope for the landing barge. Technically the AOP's is the closest thing we have to a amphibious support ship. I expect that they will do a lot of the shore assault training in the future.
Reading this I am really happy that you got down there to see the ship yourself. I'm even happier that you were able to ask intelligent and insightful questions from the crew. I know when I'm doing the PR stuff I am much more comfortable with some salt asking nautical questions that can't be answered by a google search.

If you could capsulate your jetty visit what would you say was the thing that impressed you the most, the thing that concerned you the most, and the thing that surprised you the most about the ship.
 
Scramble nets? :giggle:

american-troops-climbing-down-scramble-nets-into-assault-craft-before-picture-id1041896204
Having done one of those off a ship - I will give a solid pass to the "obstacle course at sea", even in a moderate swell it is unpleasant - and the ship wasn't underway.
Mesh or rope rungs are terrible dry, and nasty when wet - it's easier to board a ship underway with a pole ladder than use a scramble net or Jacobs ladder. As while the boarding pole is a little dinky - it has rigid steps -
 
Reading this I am really happy that you got down there to see the ship yourself. I'm even happier that you were able to ask intelligent and insightful questions from the crew. I know when I'm doing the PR stuff I am much more comfortable with some salt asking nautical questions that can't be answered by a google search.

If you could capsulate your jetty visit what would you say was the thing that impressed you the most, the thing that concerned you the most, and the thing that surprised you the most about the ship.
What I got from the couple of crew I talked to and few I overheard is that they are really excited to be part of this adventure, new ship in class, first Westward circumnavigation of North America by the RCN since 1954.

The PO2 and I discussed a few things (he been in 20 years, wish I could remember his name, about 6' and fit)

Comparison of accommodations from the CFP's to the AOP's. He raved about the quality of the accommodations, he was worried that some of the new crew will be shocked when they go over to the CFP's. I think accommodations on the CSC are going to be far more important than the planners realize as that is what will keep people going to sea.

Talked about the ice trials, I did learn that she is equipped with flume tanks to rock the vessel. He found going through ice really exciting, which I get as I remember my first time steering a ship through ice. He said they did not push the ship to the limit in the trials, which make sense, since I know they used a lot of sensors on the hull and ice to obtain data to build the "Ice profile" for the ship.

We talked about the crane and the ships cargo capability, the crane was something really new for him and it's capabilities really makes a difference, the ability to load seacans and small vehicles. As I mention he was really happy that they are no longer dependent on shoreside support to load supplies and cargo. They took a Ranger patrol from one community to another, the ship was prepared to transport all their equipment, but the Rangers had already taken care of getting it moved. I think that the Northern Communities, the Rangers, the army and the RCN are going to need sometime to figure how to integrate the capabilities of the AOP's in their plans moving forward, I think it's going to bring more flexibility and opportunities than people realize. It will take time and experiments, but I suspect that the RCN is going to be very busy in the North. I have to wonder if a lesson learned is to consider a Hiab crane on the CSC's to assist in moving supplies to and from the ship?

He mentioned the armament and I stated that it was the one area where I felt they had missed the mark, we left it at that, I didn't want to spend what little time I had going over it, because I have you guys to argue with anytime I want :giggle:

I complimented them on how good the ship looked, I could see how much painting on the sides they had been doing, the ship was looking great, particularly after crossing the Arctic. You really get a sense of how big this vessel is when dockside. The ship certainly has "presence". I got a sense that the ship was comfortable and the workspaces are good. The fact that the RCN felt that a brand new ship was up to the voyage is a credit to the design work and I suspect that Northern Operations are going to be desirable for the crews and officers. All in all I will say the ship and crew are a credit to the RCN (I am aware they doing a PR cruise and won't talk much about the negatives, but I didn't get a sense that the optimism was not forced and it was clear they are proud of their new ship)

I could not stay long as I had take my daughter to the doctors. I did ask one of the officers to request the PAO to send a poster to our Cadet Hall, hopefully that happens so I can frame it. They mentioned the Margret Brooke is planned to do the same voyage, but finish in Esquimalt. Hopefully when she comes to Vancouver I can arrange a tour for our Navy League Cadets.
 
I could not stay long as I had take my daughter to the doctors. I did ask one of the officers to request the PAO to send a poster to our Cadet Hall, hopefully that happens so I can frame it. They mentioned the Margret Brooke is planned to do the same voyage, but finish in Esquimalt. Hopefully when she comes to Vancouver I can arrange a tour for our Navy League Cadets.
That would be awesome.
 
Offended no. A little sad yes. There is rarely a question about individual RCN unit fighting capabilities. For their role (ASW) Halifax Class are quite good, particularly now the Cyclone is online. The doctrine and training of the sailors often outthink and outclass their peers in exercise and in operations. NATO peers are always very happy to have an RCN frigate join because they don't need to babysit us. We carry our own weight and add capability.

USN in particular has no frigates and is overjoyed when a CPF joins. We can replace their ships one for one on ASW picket duty.

If your concern is the RCN as a whole, yes there are huge gaps. Since the 280 rusted out and the Protecteur fire there has not been a task group capability available. And a TG is the basic formation (not unit) required for independent national naval operations.

Asterix fixed that somewhat and allowed for a TG core to be created around a supply ship. JSS will be accepted in 2023-24ish timeline and create a navy only TG core.

But it won't be till the 2030's where the full TG capabilities are reborn, and then we can do the 2001-2015 full TG contribution globally again. If you want to complain about that, sure. It's not wrong, but that's not what you were saying. Other countries don't care if we have a TG. They care if we show up, help, and don't get in the way. And the RCN does that.
A nice, current, example of us still being invited to work with a seriously strong task force almost in the home waters of China.

U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific​

The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy, the U.K. Royal Navy, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy – making up a total of 17 surface ships, which included four aircraft carriers.

 
A nice, current, example of us still being invited to work with a seriously strong task force almost in the home waters of China.

U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific​

The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy, the U.K. Royal Navy, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy – making up a total of 17 surface ships, which included four aircraft carriers.

Doesn't that seem like a very small ship count for 4 carriers?
Also is the term "big deck warship" to simply get around the whole JSDF nomenclature aspect with offensive themes?
Looks like a small escort carrier (relative to the UK and US CV's)
 
Yes Japanese naval classifications are "interesting". Smaller carriers seem to be coming into favour, you can still fly off the same jet (F35B) and most nations can't afford the larger carriers or to equip them. Plus it spreads out your assets.
 
Doesn't that seem like a very small ship count for 4 carriers?
Also is the term "big deck warship" to simply get around the whole JSDF nomenclature aspect with offensive themes?
Looks like a small escort carrier (relative to the UK and US CV's)
I've got a feeling that they didn't count the SSN's attached to the Taskforce.
 
As well, despite Chinese excursions aren't they generally operating under friendly skies? In those littoral waters they are generally within range of islands that have their own air forces?
 
I think I found an alternate US model for considering the role of the AOPS.

The USN has maintained two Blue Ridge LCCs in service since the 1970s. They are fleet flagships.

They are much bigger than the AOPS with much larger crews but. like the AOPS they are very lightly armed. They also don't have much aviation capacity, nor much in the way of boats and other connectors. In fact I think the AOPS might be comparably equipped if not slightly moreso.

300px-Blue_Ridge_2012.jpg


Class and typeBlue Ridge-class command ship
Displacement19,609 tons
Length634 ft (193.2 m)[2]
Beam108 ft (32.9 m)
Draft28.9 ft (8.8 m)
Propulsion2 boilers, 1 geared turbine
Speed23 knots (43 km/h)
Range10,000 nmi (18,520 km)
Complement
  • Crew: 52 officers, 790 enlisted
  • With command staff: 268 officers, 1,173 enlisted
Armament
Aircraft carried2 × Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopters
Aviation facilitiesFlight deck
 
A notional Arctic amphibious ship to deploy some 200-300 troops should probably 'recover' [ from the Blue Ridge class ] those cantilever (protruding) davits in order to accommodate not only 3-4 landing craft (LCVPs?) but some SOLAS compliant lifeboats as well,
... I guess.
 
I guess the issue is how secure the waters you are sailing are. Either "uncontested" waters, like the NWP or the Caribbean, or in the middle of a well protected fleet.

In the meantime - back to thinking about partners for the AOPS and the need for Submarines. Are they necessary for Canada?

AOPS at both ends of the NWP, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Straits of Juan de Fuca partnered with XLUUVs - 3 months endurance, 3000 miles range, 2 tonnes payload, 8 MUKP - can sit on the seabed indefinitely - no oxygen worries.

On 16 April (2019) the Ministry of Defence (MOD) released a competition document calling for extra-large unmanned underwater vehicles (XLUUV), which could mark a radical new stage in the evolution of underwater warfare.

Of course, the Royal Navy already has a number of unmanned underwater vehicles, such as the Remus 600.
These tend to be torpedo-sized devices, connected via a tether to an operator who works the vehicle by remote control. They are used for jobs such as locating and making safe underwater mines, which are typically brief and carried out relatively short range.
The new vessels will be very different. For one thing, they will be much bigger, carrying up to two tons of payload. And they will carry out missions lasting up to three months with a range of over 3,000 miles.

The Royal Navy already has some unmanned underwater vehicles, such as the Remus 600 (Picture: Kraken Robotics).

Underwater technology

Aerial drones like the RAF’s Reapers are always under the supervision of a remote pilot, but radio waves do not work underwater, so the new robot submarines need to work without human assistance.
They will navigate and avoid obstacles on their own, taking decisions which would normally require the judgement of a human captain.


In 2016, Boeing launched the Echo Voyager, a 16-metre-long unmanned submarine, the largest ever built.
Like many manned submarines, it has hybrid diesel-electric power; the diesel is used when surfaced, batteries while submerged.
Echo Voyager is designed for long-range, long-duration missions. It has successfully completed thousands of hours of sea trials, including one three-month exercise off Southern California.
Earlier this year, the US Navy ordered four ‘Orca’ XLUUVs from Boeing which are expected to closely resemble Echo Voyager. Lockheed Martin also competed for this contract, and both companies are likely to take in interest in the Royal Navy’s requirements.
The US Navy ordered four ‘Orca’ XLUUVs from Boeing which are expected to closely resemble Echo Voyager, pictured above (Picture: Boeing).

Secret Missions

The MOD's competition is a Defence and Security Accelerator program to gain a better understanding of the limits and capabilities of autonomous submarines.
There’s £1m of research & development funding, with another £1.5m for field testing once the basic technology is proved.


The document lays out three vignettes describing the type of mission the unmanned submarines would carry out.
These are ‘sneakies’, clandestine operations requiring the sort of stealth and secrecy which the silent service has perfected.
Even these days, subs still sometimes return flying the skull and crossbones, the sign of a successful mission, with crews unable to discuss what they have been doing or where.
The Royal Navy has just seven fleet submarines of the Trafalgar and Astute class for such missions across the globe. Unmanned vessels would add extra capacity to carry out more operations in more places at the same time.
Echo Voyager 240419 CREDIT Boeing.jpg
The MOD's competition is a Defence and Security Accelerator program to gain a better understanding of the limits and capabilities of autonomous submarines (Picture: Boeing).
The first vignette is for covert intelligence gathering.
This scenario requires the XLUUV to leave its dock and make its way unobserved to the operational area, where it monitors traffic for up to three months.
It would carry out electronic and optical intelligence gathering using a range of sensors. For example, it might release a tethered sensor to periscope depth to get pictures of passing vessels or activity ashore, or raise an aerial to listen in on radio traffic.
Even in the age of advanced satellite observation, subs can see things which spy satellites cannot. Although not in constant communication, the XLUUV reports back whenever it spots a ‘vessel of interest’.


The second vignette is similar but applies specifically to anti-submarine warfare.
In this scenario, underwater acoustic sensors would be the chief tool for identifying activity.
An unmanned submarine has an advantage, because it can wait completely silently, with no human movement on board.
Nuclear submarines cannot turn off their reactors entirely, so electric subs like the XLUUV also have an edge when it comes to engine noise.
According to the vignette, when a submarine is spotted, the XLUUV may continue monitoring or may be re-tasked, for example trailing the submarine it has picked up.
Nuclear submarines cannot turn off their reactors entirely, so electric subs also have an edge when it comes to engine noise (Pictutre: Royal Navy).
In the third vignette, the XLUUV is sent to covertly deploy a sensor payload to the seabed and recover it sometime later.
This type of sensor played a key role in the Cold War, keeping one step ahead of the Soviets.
It might be monitoring shipping, or it might be doing something smarter, such as tapping underwater communication cables.

More for Less

The competition document sets out a 12-month research and development phase, followed by 24 months of testing.
After that, the decision will be made on whether to proceed with an unmanned underwater force.
Orca XLUUVs are 175 times cheaper than a new Astute-class submarine (Picture: Royal Navy).


While robot submarines cannot match manned vessels in many ways, they are certainly cheaper.
The US Navy is paying just £8 million for each of its new Orca XLUUVs, compared to around £1.4 billion for a new Astute-class submarine, making them 175 times cheaper.
Dropping off a small sensor with a 7,000-ton nuclear-powered manned submarine is like delivering pizzas from a chauffeur-driven limo: the vehicle can certainly do the job well enough, but it may not be the most economical way of doing it.
A fleet of XLUUVs could give the Royal Navy vastly more capability for covert operations.
The robots might also take on tasks like minelaying. This would free up the manned submarines to tackle the more challenging aspects of underwater warfare – such as those that require vessels equipped with missiles and torpedoes which still demand hands-on human control.

And Canada is already in the hunt.

 
Also is the term "big deck warship" to simply get around the whole JSDF nomenclature aspect with offensive themes?
Looks like a small escort carrier (relative to the UK and US CV's)

It is, though the JDSF's official term is "multipurpose destroyer," but I think they've pretty much abandoned that and are converting it and the Kaga to full-blown aircraft carriers. I'm a bit surprised they're not going the full SCB-125 route and adding an angled deck and CATOBAR.

Yes Japanese naval classifications are "interesting". Smaller carriers seem to be coming into favour, you can still fly off the same jet (F35B) and most nations can't afford the larger carriers or to equip them. Plus it spreads out your assets.

There's also arguments that the American supercarriers, which are larger with every new class, are excessive for their purpose and capabilities.
 
Back
Top