Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm glad we have the AOPS. It's giving our folks a new platform with good creature comforts to get sea days on.

I just hope that when the ball drops, because I think it's coming, we employ them properly and dont spend sailors and naval officers lives in situations they were woefully under equipped for.

@Underway is also correct, I don't expect most our forces that are currently afloat to be around at the end of the conflict. Our (Us and our Allies) ability to churn out cheap effective ships will be paramount.

Then we are in trouble, only SK has that abilty currently and since it is located close to any conflict zone, you can bet that capability will be interfered with, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Stoker]

There is a version of the Oto Melera 76mm, the Sovraponte, that can be mounted flat on a deck with no penetration. It was originally designed to be installed on aircraft hangars.

It has 76 rounds ready to fire, which presumably need to be reloaded by hand as there is no below-deck magazine.

The Danish Knud Rasmussen class has a Oto Melera 76mm. Did a tour as part of my job. From what I had been hearing, the 76mm is not only not fired on a regular basis, its non operational most of the time on the three ships of the class.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Almost right, Maxman: It was originally designed to be mounted on the Sparviero Hydrofoils patrol boats.

Then we are in trouble, only SK has that abilty currently and since it is located close to any conflict zone, you can bet that capability will be interfered with, either directly or indirectly.

SK doesn't have that ability. Building boxes with pointy noses called merchant ships does not compare to building warships. Besides, in any conflict with China, they are too close to the action. On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss the industrial capacity of the US and Canada to ramp up quickly in case of war. Remember, in Canada we built up in excess of 600 warships for ourselves and the UK over six years, half of which were larger than the original corvettes. And the US: they started the war (2 years later) with 6 aircraft carriers (including two pretty old ones, like the original Langley), with three more in various stages of construction. Within three years, they had built 24 more.

Even in a war with Russia or China, so long as it doesn't go nuclear, North America is pretty safe and self sufficient in raw materials to jump up production of whatever we may need. Just because we are currently manufacturing these in cheap over seas location doesn't mean we don't have the industrial capability and knowledge to restart doing it here if need be.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I recall they were transferred over from another vessel, so were not new when installed.

 

[lenaitch]

DE systems take an ass ton of energy, while that demand may decrease somewhat in the future - from my understanding the AB’s that he fielded the lasers required most of their generators to be full out - and even then they where somewhat limited. Not sure what smaller ships power plants would offer for lasers.

I’ve often wondered if the DGLN concept may be reinvigorated by the potential to use the nuclear plans for energy weapons.

Difficult to speculate. When my former police service rolled out its first mobile forensic ident laser, it required a dedicated 3-ton truck with a generator and colling system.

Now, it's in a Pelican box that plugs into a standard outlet.

 

[KevinB]

Difficult to speculate. When my former police service rolled out its first mobile forensic ident laser, it required a dedicated 3-ton truck with a generator and colling system.

Now, it's in a Pelican box that plugs into a standard outlet.

Understand that. But my point is 1-2 lasers that take the power from an AB to run, and have cycle times - when you probably need 20-30 lasers that are even more powerful / you aren’t getting that out of a briefcase.

While you may shrink the ~100KW power requirements for a laser, not many ships have excess power like that, and as such are forced to divert power from their propellers etc, that ships would need to massively expand their power generation ability to make the lasers viable.

For while I’m not a Navy guy, I doubt many would want to lose headway etc to use defensive systems.


The California class DLGM’s D2W reactors where rated at 165MW…

So an exponential ability to generate power for a DE system.

 

[Underway]

DE systems take an ass ton of energy, while that demand may decrease somewhat in the future - from my understanding the AB’s that he fielded the lasers required most of their generators to be full out - and even then they where somewhat limited. Not sure what smaller ships power plants would offer for lasers.

I’ve often wondered if the DGLN concept may be reinvigorated by the potential to use the nuclear plans for energy weapons.

I see DE and I read Diesel Electric. Took me a minute. Lol.

You can get around some of the DE power requirements with a good bank of capacitors but eventually those are drawn down and you need to recharge them.

 

[KevinB]

I see DE and I read Diesel Electric. Took me a minute. Lol.

Yeah the short forms used across services aren’t always synonymous.

You can get around some of the DE power requirements with a good bank of capacitors but eventually those are drawn down and you need to recharge them.

Ack. I’m not an Electrical Engineer so my understanding of what size/space limits exist for capacitors are fairly limited. Given what was learned from the AB departments, and that they haven’t hit the fleet yet, I’m guessing it isn’t yet there for conventional ships.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think we designed them to the "sweet spot". I rather have all the infrastructure for that stuff built in, rather than trying to adhoc it later.

What "sweet spot" would that be? It is customary to design ship with weight and stability margins to accept reasonable equipment refits/upgrades over its lifetime however, there is limitations and tradeoffs to doing this. If you require a ship with a large amount of extra weight and stability inherently in the design to accept extensive changes in the future, you fundamentally need a dimensionally larger vessel built to different specifications that will have wasted capability aboard until it is properly utilized. It should also be considered the period of when this ship was designed and the threats we thought might be faced at that time and in the future from that perspective.

AOPS is fundamentally not a combatant and even as an offshore patrol vessel, it has compromises due to its nature as an icebreaker. The hull form and required strengthening for ice operations does not lend itself to speed or seakeeping, the endurance both in supplies and fuel required for Northern operations necessitates a larger ship than would otherwise be required, the crewing requirements and the civilian standard construction of the ship would make for a very lacklustre combatant. As others have said, they could see some use in wartime for various roles but combatants are a poor choice for them.

I would have preferred a 76mm upfront and the 30mm covering the aft. Coupled with sensors to accommodate that range and some self defense systems. The 76 would give significantly more reach, especially for protection of any shore parties and would magnify the presence effect. Not to mention it would increase the ships abilty to protect itself from many of the emerging threats like sea and air drones.

In a decade or so I expect that lasers will have improved enough to be worth equipping the vessels with increased capability to engage some of these threats. By that time most of the CFP's will be in limp mode, the first CSC will be going through trials and the AOP's will be the primary workhorses of the fleet, along with the two JSS and a few MCDV's

76mm Sovraponte mount = 11,000 lbs~
30mm Lionfish (from CSC) = 3,200 lbs~
25mm BAE = 2,300 lbs~

These are just empty mount weights, you need to add the ammunition on the gun mount itself plus have ammunition handling areas and magazines within the ship which also adds up to more personnel to operate/maintain these systems. You need to strengthen decks to hold the guns/take the blast effects and properly built magazines to house said ammunition. Throw on your consoles, fire control radars, self defense suites, etc and you are looking at weight and space requirements adding up. AOPS would need redesigning/strengthening as there is nowhere for a centerline 30mm mount aft besides plopping it directly on top of the FLYCO station, which I would say is not ideal. Same goes for fitting a 76mm gun aft and whatever other decoy/sensor suites around the ship. The more weapons you require a ship to carry, the more you have to accommodate for everything required to operate and maintain those systems. Such an endeavor can snowball weight and space quickly.

I could see a swapping of the 25mm gun for the 30mm Lionfish mount planned for CSC to give better defensive capability and changing out the old style .50 BMG's for remote weapon stations but not much else personally.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The Danish Knud Rasmussen class has a Oto Melera 76mm. Did a tour as part of my job. From what I had been hearing, the 76mm is not only not fired on a regular basis, its non operational most of the time on the three ships of the class.

Funniest story I've heard involving that class and their main weapon is that some vessels did not receive fire control mounts for years.



You can see the mounting directly atop the bridge roof on this ship but absent on the next photo.



This is not a problem as Stoker mentions because most of the time, the ships don't have operable guns due to the need not being pressing. At one point in time, Ejnar Mikkelsen did firing trials with the 76mm gun operated locally without a proper fire control system, only for them to damage the bridge superstructure due to discharging the gun on an unsafe angle.



For all that many folks hold nations like Denmark and Norway up as militaries to emulate, we should not be following suit with many of their naval endeavors.

 

[KevinB]

Ejnar Mikkelsen did firing trials with the 76mm gun operated locally without a proper fire control system, only for them to damage the bridge superstructure due to discharging the gun on an unsafe angle.

View attachment 85845

For all that many folks hold nations like Denmark and Norway up as militaries to emulate, we should not be following suit with many of their naval endeavors.

Looks more like the gun crew wanted to off the bridge crew.

I have a cardinal rule about intentional operations
Tell everyone that there is a briefing at 1400, tell the Americans, Canadians, British and Australians the real time of 0900, get out on OPS without the rest of the nations as either they have terrible national caveats, or will tell the enemy what you are doing, or otherwise be a drag on the mission and everyone’s safety. Not sure it applies to the Navy’s of the world, but based on some of the comments here, it doesn’t seem much different.

 

[Underway]

Looks more like the gun crew wanted to off the bridge crew.

I have a cardinal rule about intentional operations
Tell everyone that there is a briefing at 1400, tell the Americans, Canadians, British and Australians the real time of 0900, get out on OPS without the rest of the nations as either they have terrible national caveats, or will tell the enemy what you are doing, or otherwise be a drag on the mission and everyone’s safety. Not sure it applies to the Navy’s of the world, but based on some of the comments here, it doesn’t seem much different.

Lets see, my last deployment...
The Spanish OHP hadn't fired its 30mm in about 12 years
The Dutch didn't want to fire their 127mm (our old ones) because they were afraid it would break and they didn't have any parts to fix it (how Canadian of them)
The Bulgarians aimed their 76mm at our smoke pit during a live fire exercise, and immediately recieved a "WTF are you doing over" radio msg from us.
The Greeks decided that they didn't want to follow the live fire direction and used HE in a range that was cleared only for practice rounds (thus immediately destroying the target and ruining the shoot for everyone who came after).
The Spanish are incapable of keeping proper station.
The German CO didn't trust any of his watch officers and requested some RCN ones to help train his own guys.
The Dutch Commodore was so happy the RCN showed up that he put our CO as ASW Commander, jumping over a more senior (Spanish) Capt(N). When asked why he just shruged and said our helicopter was better while touching his nose.

Of course we were angels and didn't make a single mistake*

*(looks at 5 hour RAS due to our massive incompetence that should have taken 2hrs, the Turks who we were refueling from just shaking their heads in frustration).

 

[KevinB]

So it seems Navies are par for the course like Ground Operations.

 

[Furniture]

Lets see, my last deployment...
The Spanish OHP hadn't fired its 30mm in about 12 years
The Dutch didn't want to fire their 127mm (our old ones) because they were afraid it would break and they didn't have any parts to fix it (how Canadian of them)
The Bulgarians aimed their 76mm at our smoke pit during a live fire exercise, and immediately recieved a "WTF are you doing over" radio msg from us.
The Greeks decided that they didn't want to follow the live fire direction and used HE in a range that was cleared only for practice rounds (thus immediately destroying the target and ruining the shoot for everyone who came after).
The Spanish are incapable of keeping proper station.
The German CO didn't trust any of his watch officers and requested some RCN ones to help train his own guys.
The Dutch Commodore was so happy the RCN showed up that he put our CO as ASW Commander, jumping over a more senior (Spanish) Capt(N). When asked why he just shruged and said our helicopter was better while touching his nose.

Of course we were angels and didn't make a single mistake*

*(looks at 5 hour RAS due to our massive incompetence that should have taken 2hrs, the Turks who we were refueling from just shaking their heads in frustration).

My NATO trip was in 2015, but that lines up with what I recall of the trip.

 

[Maxman1]

The Danish Knud Rasmussen class has a Oto Melera 76mm. Did a tour as part of my job. From what I had been hearing, the 76mm is not only not fired on a regular basis, its non operational most of the time on the three ships of the class. View attachment 85836View attachment 85837View attachment 85835

That's an older model of the Compact variant, reused from a decommissioned vessel, and in fact they don't even make that version with the round cupola any more.

There are multiple versions of the Oto Melera 76.

Almost right, Maxman: It was originally designed to be mounted on the Sparviero Hydrofoils patrol boats.

The first use was on the Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessel/light frigate, as the secondary gun on top of the hangar.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The Thaon di Revel just commissioned about two or three years ago. The Sparviero's commissioned between 1974 and 1984. We are not even talking about the same Oto Melara 76 mm gun. The one on the Knud Rasmussen, the Sparviero and also, BTW, the Iroquois, are a earlier and different variant. However, the plate mounted 76 mm of that older type was developed for the Sparviero class. The ones on the Thaon di Revel are just continuing the tradition.

 

[Kirkhill]

It strikes me that the enemy can't be everywhere so things like the AOPS and Fairmile Launches are likely to be used in low risk environments doing pretty much the same jobs they were doing in peacetime.

 

[Stoker]

That's an older model of the Compact variant, reused from a decommissioned vessel, and in fact they don't even make that version with the round cupola any more.

There are multiple versions of the Oto Melera 76.


The first use was on the Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessel/light frigate, as the secondary gun on top of the hangar.

I guess my point is that everyone rails against the HDW Class because of the size of its gun and compares it against our allies Arctic Patrol ships when in reality are armed even less than AOPS. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Gorgo]

Some navies are like pufferfishes then. Blow themselves up in size to look scary, but are really harmless.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What "sweet spot" would that be? It is customary to design ship with weight and stability margins to accept reasonable equipment refits/upgrades over its lifetime however, there is limitations and tradeoffs to doing this. If you require a ship with a large amount of extra weight and stability inherently in the design to accept extensive changes in the future, you fundamentally need a dimensionally larger vessel built to different specifications that will have wasted capability aboard until it is properly utilized. It should also be considered the period of when this ship was designed and the threats we thought might be faced at that time and in the future from that perspective.

I fully get there is no free lunch in ship design. But yes I would make sacrifices for those capabilities. We will have these ships for 30 years, and will end up doing stuff totally not anticipated. I also foresee a world that is not getting more peacefully and is likley to go through a historic churn, with Canada getting dragged into events. I also expect us to have no time to prepare for events and will have to react with what we have.