Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[dapaterson]

If AOPs is getting attacked by drones they may have better luck with a bunch of shotguns TBH, but they were never intended to go into an OPs area and take drone attacks (or any other attacks) so again, completely outside the CONOPs or design requirements.

The Cougar enters the discussion.

Shades of , " It's purely a training vehicle I can assure you THAT IT WILL NEVER BE USED IN AN OPERATIONAL THEATRE....
Gee , I wonder where I'd heard this beforehand.

Cougar enters the chat...

View attachment 86770

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know people deride the sate of the Halifax class, and they do have tired hulls and machinery, but the combat systems, sensors and weapons systems are still first class and quite sufficient to carry out combat missions by the side of any NATO country.

So the AOP's are going to tow them?

 

[Navy_Pete]

They do have steaming watches but can be unmanned to do maintenance, go to the heads or go to the gym.

My understanding is that unmanned is now the norm outside of specials, at least during normal sailing. They also zero-crew some alongside when nested, which is interesting.

The MCDVs have been doing that for a while and have now had two floods outside of machinery spaces recently go undetected because there are no bilge sensors around the bridge when a pipe lets go.

It can work, as long as you understand the limitations and what isn't covered, but we don't seem to take that into account when making those kinds of changes, or if we do it's understood just until APS as the reasons behind it don't get written down so people don't twig that when your remote detection or there are other defects on the automatic systems maybe can't stick with the status quo.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've heard many many times on here people in the know say that our 2 JSS will never be put in harm's way or an active combat zone. If that is true why are they getting a pair of Phalanx? Won't they need the radar systems, weapons systems and integration necessary to make the Phalanx effective?

If you're putting a ship to sea, its now in harms way. This is part that's misunderstood.

 

[Underway]

I don't know who's saying JSS isn't going into to harms way because it is. It's designed to be a forward "in the box" tanker. It's got many damage control design features, reinforced structures and armoured magazines. It's got the same CMS, main radar and ES suite as the frigates. Full link capability. It has torp decoy systems. It got 2 CIWS, 4 RWS and 4 more 50 cal. stations for small boat (and now I suppose USV) defence.

It has bays for two helicopters who's primary job is to hunt and kill subs.

It's not a combat ship but there's a reason we jokingly call it the Battle Tanker!

 

[ArmyRick]

It's kinda like SWAT equiping out the traffic cop.

As soon as you add combat capabilities to a ship you start exponentially increasing crew requirements and sensor requirements. A 25mm can get buy with a dual use EOIR camera for targeting, and a Bosn with the right course.

A 57mm requires a fire control radar, air search radar and 57mm magazine and a combat management system. Otherwise you're completely wasting a capable gun designed for AAW to make loud noises and miss everything but stuff the 25mm can damage just as easily.

The crew needed increase by about 6 weapons eng techs for gun maint and misfire, radar maintenance, fire control maintenance, ammo custodian requirements. Then add 3 NESOPs (master and two S1s) to operate the gun.

The cost for all that stuff is now multiple millions of dollars. For what I would consider low capability enhancement for the mission sets required of AOPS.

So now you're walking back AOPS low crewing requirements, increasing cost for what gain?

Thank you, very informative. I now call you my Navy Sensei

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not the same but its quite a difference. Taken in Halifax and in Boston. View attachment 86709
View attachment 86711View attachment 86712
View attachment 86710View attachment 86708

Holy crap!

 

[Stoker]

My understanding is that unmanned is now the norm outside of specials, at least during normal sailing. They also zero-crew some alongside when nested, which is interesting.

The MCDVs have been doing that for a while and have now had two floods outside of machinery spaces recently go undetected because there are no bilge sensors around the bridge when a pipe lets go.

It can work, as long as you understand the limitations and what isn't covered, but we don't seem to take that into account when making those kinds of changes, or if we do it's understood just until APS as the reasons behind it don't get written down so people don't twig that when your remote detection or there are other defects on the automatic systems maybe can't stick with the status quo.

AOPS MCR manned during specials. Still have watches but can leave and monitor from certain spaces on the ship during watch related tasks or meals. If leaving the MCR, the bridge is aware and can monitor alarms to get someone back if needed.

Yes several floods because watchkeepers weren't doing rounds correctly and the QM didn't have situational awareness. IE looking behind them at the ship at a 25 degree list.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My understanding is that unmanned is now the norm outside of specials, at least during normal sailing. They also zero-crew some alongside when nested, which is interesting.

The MCDVs have been doing that for a while and have now had two floods outside of machinery spaces recently go undetected because there are no bilge sensors around the bridge when a pipe lets go.

It can work, as long as you understand the limitations and what isn't covered, but we don't seem to take that into account when making those kinds of changes, or if we do it's understood just until APS as the reasons behind it don't get written down so people don't twig that when your remote detection or there are other defects on the automatic systems maybe can't stick with the status quo.

At the shipyards we have patrols during graveyards through the ships that float and sometimes a fire patrol for the ship in the drydock if there is no crew staying aboard.

 

[Navy_Pete]

AOPS MCR manned during specials. Still have watches but can leave and monitor from certain spaces on the ship during watch related tasks or meals. If leaving the MCR, the bridge is aware and can monitor alarms to get someone back if needed.

Yes several floods because watchkeepers weren't doing rounds correctly and the QM didn't have situational awareness. IE looking behind them at the ship at a 25 degree list.

Which is all pretty reasonable, and makes sense when, as long as the sensors and remote controls are working, the system will make the plant safe automatically. That works as long as we keep things repaired, but our track record on that is not great when the bills and repair windows required come up.

The alongside flooding one is crazy; don't get how someone on duty on a different ship noticed it before the QM on the jetty. If the ships are going to be mothballed, hopefully some of those lines are isolated and drained down, or some extra sensors are put in. There are some off the shelf ones you can put in the flats to monitor for flooding, that have a bit of a lift on them so they don't get set off by normal water on the deck from cleaning, wet boots etc.

@Colin Parkinson that used to happen, but now we seem to rely almost entirely on sensors now, where intermittent rounds would have picked that up. That only makes sense if you have working sensors with good coverage, which isn't necessarily true.