Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Baz]

So proper aviation facilites at sea are not "nice to haves" if you want have supportable aviation.

... and by the way, if someone wants to say that because the Protecteurs have two hangar spots they have proper support for aviation, I'd beg to differ. We don't even have proper 2nd line at the Wing (a lot of it is 1st to 3rd), and it's killing us for spares. As far as I know, there are no provisions made for 2nd line in the new AORs.

 

[Rainbow1910]

... and by the way, if someone wants to say that because the Protecteurs have two hangar spots they have proper support for aviation, I'd beg to differ. We don't even have proper 2nd line at the Wing (a lot of it is 1st to 3rd), and it's killing us for spares. As far as I know, there are no provisions made for 2nd line in the new AORs.

Every public source I have seen specifically mentions that the Protecteurs have 2nd line maintenance capability built in for the aviation aboard.

 

[Baz]

Every public source I have seen specifically mentions that the Protecteurs have 2nd line maintenance capability built in for the aviation aboard.

Yeah, they all say something like “be able to provide second-line maintenance for naval task groups” (Protecteur class - Canada.ca). Not sure what that even means, given that most of the Cyclone is 1st to 3rd. When I asked an MH guy that was at the naming as a guest what it meant he didn’t really know, and mentioned those spaces also are the spaces mentioned for C2 facilities, advanced medical facilities, etc. what that sounds like, as per the quote about the RCN carrying troops up thread, there is space available but no plan.

It really feels like the RCN leaned into that these are JSS, but in some ways they have less flexibility than what they are replacing (one example, the cranes on the old AIRs were perfect for moving broken helos off the escorts), and certainly aren’t a true JSS. They obviously have other capabilities that are new, but let’s call them what they are. One thing they aren’t is an aviation support ship.

This isn’t all on the RCN. The RCAF, ADM(Mat) and PW CONOPs for MOB 2nd line isn’t working very well, and there is no CONOPs for deployed or embarked 2nd line. Hard for the RCN to support something which doesn’t exist. Which does beg the question why the RCN saying it is one of the capabilities?

I would really like to be proven wrong, but given some of the discussions I’ve had about how we used to do it, I think the corporate knowledge, and aviation state of mind, would take a lot of money and effort to rebuild, neither of which (effort requires trained and experienced manpower) are overly abundant.

 

[Underway]

The aviation facilities are made to RCAF spec. Navy said we need this capability. Airforce said ok here's how to make that happen and we'll be part of the project to ensure it does. So if you want to bitch about them complain to the RCAF not the RCN.

There is a 5 ton (maybe 7 ton?) crane in the hangar that can pull just about any part off or out of the Cyclone (Like an engine).

You have the space, the tools and the equipment. If the problem is spares or people that's not an RCN issue, it's an RCAF one.

(BTW for those who don't know, second line is military performed maintenance that is more complex than normal preventative or basic maintenance. It doesn't require specialists from the manufacturer to perform but is relatively intense, like an engine replacement).

 

[YZT580]

The aviation facilities are made to RCAF spec. Navy said we need this capability. Airforce said ok here's how to make that happen and we'll be part of the project to ensure it does. So if you want to bitch about them complain to the RCAF not the RCN.

There is a 5 ton (maybe 7 ton?) crane in the hangar that can pull just about any part off or out of the Cyclone (Like an engine).

You have the space, the tools and the equipment. If the problem is spares or people that's not an RCN issue, it's an RCAF one.

(BTW for those who don't know, second line is military performed maintenance that is more complex than normal preventative or basic maintenance. It doesn't require specialists from the manufacturer to perform but is relatively intense, like an engine replacement).

thank you

 

[Underway]

Yeah, they all say something like “be able to provide second-line maintenance for naval task groups” (Protecteur class - Canada.ca). Not sure what that even means, given that most of the Cyclone is 1st to 3rd. When I asked an MH guy that was at the naming as a guest what it meant he didn’t really know, and mentioned those spaces also are the spaces mentioned for C2 facilities, advanced medical facilities, etc. what that sounds like, as per the quote about the RCN carrying troops up thread, there is space available but no plan.

It really feels like the RCN leaned into that these are JSS, but in some ways they have less flexibility than what they are replacing (one example, the cranes on the old AIRs were perfect for moving broken helos off the escorts), and certainly aren’t a true JSS. They obviously have other capabilities that are new, but let’s call them what they are. One thing they aren’t is an aviation support ship.

This isn’t all on the RCN. The RCAF, ADM(Mat) and PW CONOPs for MOB 2nd line isn’t working very well, and there is no CONOPs for deployed or embarked 2nd line. Hard for the RCN to support something which doesn’t exist. Which does beg the question why the RCN saying it is one of the capabilities?

I would really like to be proven wrong, but given some of the discussions I’ve had about how we used to do it, I think the corporate knowledge, and aviation state of mind, would take a lot of money and effort to rebuild, neither of which (effort requires trained and experienced manpower) are overly abundant.

There is no CONOPS for deployed or embarked Cyclones because we never had the facilities to do it. I suspect it will be written the same as the CONOPS for Cyclone employment. While deployed... lol

 

[Blackadder1916]

ASROC may be better for much of that mission.

"ASROC" always reminds me of this . . .

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The aviation facilities are made to RCAF spec. Navy said we need this capability. Airforce said ok here's how to make that happen and we'll be part of the project to ensure it does. So if you want to bitch about them complain to the RCAF not the RCN.

There is a 5 ton (maybe 7 ton?) crane in the hangar that can pull just about any part off or out of the Cyclone (Like an engine).

You have the space, the tools and the equipment. If the problem is spares or people that's not an RCN issue, it's an RCAF one.

(BTW for those who don't know, second line is military performed maintenance that is more complex than normal preventative or basic maintenance. It doesn't require specialists from the manufacturer to perform but is relatively intense, like an engine replacement).

It is not even that close to being that simple.

Unlike the Sea King, there is no second line maintenance program- we jump straight to third line on Cyclone. A bunch of folks took a stab at what aviation support facilities should look like on a tanker, but alot of it was based on what we used to do with Sea King, which is not great starting point. So- once we get SHOL sorted out, we will embark a tanker det and try to figure this out.

Keep in mind- this all only matters if we are sailing a Task Group. Otherwise- why bother doing complicated maintenance stuff at sea?

 

[Baz]

There is no CONOPS for deployed or embarked Cyclones because we never had the facilities to do it. I suspect it will be written the same as the CONOPS for Cyclone employment. While deployed... lol

The Cyclone CONOPs was written the way a CONOPs should be, before the requirement (for better or worse… I know because I helped review it)… lol

Adding insult to injury, the CONOPs should be updated (you know, the aircraft has unrealized capabilities, and the world changes, which informed new requirements) but it hasn’t been. For the same reason tactics and procedures haven’t been written down. Because there is nobody to do it… lol

I think you’re missing, as SKT also said, there is no 2nd line maintenance for the Cyclone. It’s all 1st to 3rd. So what 2nd line maintenance are they talking about?

 

[Baz]

Keep in mind- this all only matters if we are sailing a Task Group. Otherwise- why bother doing complicated maintenance stuff at sea?

Exactly.

If all we intend to do is make the tanker maintenance heavy and flight ops light, then stock them up with spares (maybe it will be a forcing event to actually buy more spares?) and more techs (hopefully experienced ones) and fly the aircraft over to do maintenance heavy stuff (the det gets a “fixed” one and the tanker the broken, and the fix it and do any test flights, etc).

If we ever want to get the benefits of concentrated air power at sea, then we need to start with a proper deck. In many peoples mind, including all of the “Tier 1” navies, it is essential to do so. I was taught at one point that a Russian Admiral (Ghorskov?) was quoted as “Sea power without air power is senseless.”

 

[Baz]

So if you want to bitch about them complain to the RCAF not the RCN.

You have the space, the tools and the equipment. If the problem is spares or people that's not an RCN issue, it's an RCAF one.

I could swear I said farther up “This is not all on the RCN…” Let me look, yep, there it is…

I’m not bitching. What I’m saying is that while Protecteur is probably the right AOR for Canada at this point, is not a JSS, nor does it have everything its predecessor had.

I’ll say it again… if we want proper air power at sea we need to start with the right attitude, develop the corporate knowledge from our allies, write the CONOPs, and then staff the requirement. Not try to half ass it in Protecteur because they happen to have a crane.

 

[Stoker]

HMCS Robert Hampton Gray

www.gg.ca

There isn’t, but the crest does look pretty nice.

View attachment 90019

She'll be staying on the EC for some time.....

 

[Baz]

I just realized, the discussion that has been going on (in the wrong thread again... maybe we need a future of Naval Air in Canada thread?) illustrates the point. As long as we think in terms of "it's the RCAF's fault, no it's the RCN's fault, no it's ADM(Mat)'s fault" we will not have a Naval Air vision.

Seems the old farts that lectured on how bad it was to loss the Bonnie and buried an RCN Officer's unifrom behind the O'Mess at Shearwater to mourn unification (tombstone and all) may have had a point about Naval Air after all...

 

[Stoker]

I just realized, the discussion that has been going on (in the wrong thread again... maybe we need a future of Naval Air in Canada thread?) illustrates the point. As long as we think in terms of "it's the RCAF's fault, no it's the RCN's fault, no it's ADM(Mat)'s fault" we will not have a Naval Air vision.

Seems the old farts that lectured on how bad it was to loss the Bonnie and buried an RCN Officer's unifrom behind the O'Mess at Shearwater to mourn unification (tombstone and all) may have had a point about Naval Air after all...

If the current CRCN had his way we would naval air reestablished.

 

[Baz]

If the current CRCN had his way we would naval air reestablished.

I’ve heard some of his close subordinates feel the same way.

I don’t really feel any connection with the RCAF as it came back just as I got out, but given my choice in hindsight I think I would have preferred to be RCN then RCAF.

Even though the current RCN aren’t air power experts, they and the CA seem to know more about air power than the RCAF knows about maritime or ground ops.

 

[Stoker]

I’ve heard some of his close subordinates feel the same way.

I don’t really feel any connection with the RCAF as it came back just as I got out, but given my choice in hindsight I think I would have preferred to be RCN then RCAF.

Even though the current RCN aren’t air power experts, they and the CA seem to know more about air power than the RCAF knows about maritime or ground ops.

Last year we had a CSC brief at our unit and the briefer mentioned a reestablishment of naval air. That being said we should be looking for a replacement of the Cyclone for the CSC and at the same time recreate naval air.

 

[dapaterson]

Giving the RCN more occupations to manage after the success of Mar Tech and Steward would certainly be one approach.

 

[Fabius]

If we ever want to get the benefits of concentrated air power at sea, then we need to start with a proper deck.

What does a proper deck look like? How is it different from what the Protector and/or CSC will have?

I find air power fascinating despite being very much a ground guy.

 

[Baz]

What does a proper deck look like? How is it different from what the Protector and/or CSC will have?

I find air power fascinating despite being very much a ground guy.

As a starting point, given where not getting a carrier:

• two or more spots, so if you have one go down during a cycle or need to do spread maintenance you still have a spot available
• a couple of stuff spots on deck, which is where you can put helos during the cycle that aren’t currently being used. It opens up hangar and spot to spot moves. Preferably sheltered.
• a smaller UAV spot.
• enough hangar space to respot without moving everything, and a corner to have a “heavy maintenance “ area
• a junkyard for support equipment, chocks and chains, etc
• maybe a VTOL (F-35, V-22) hardened spot as one of the two
• accessible air stores
• maintenance management area
• air C2, planning, mission prep, and mission analysis area
• multi crew briefing area
• 2nd line off aircraft areas as appropriate

 

[YZT580]

As a starting point, given where not getting a carrier:

• two or more spots, so if you have one go down during a cycle or need to do spread maintenance you still have a spot available
• a couple of stuff spots on deck, which is where you can put helos during the cycle that aren’t currently being used. It opens up hangar and spot to spot moves. Preferably sheltered.
• a smaller UAV spot.
• enough hangar space to respot without moving everything, and a corner to have a “heavy maintenance “ area
• a junkyard for support equipment, chocks and chains, etc
• maybe a VTOL (F-35, V-22) hardened spot as one of the two
• accessible air stores
• maintenance management area
• air C2, planning, mission prep, and mission analysis area
• multi crew briefing area
• 2nd line off aircraft areas as appropriate

seems like you are describing a Mistral sized ship and deck