Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

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.

My desk was 5 over from the RCAF one on the project. There was a Cylcone pilot in that chair. The Civi in charge of the hangar and aviation facilities (2 over from me) just kept asking the airforce what they wanted and needed, constantly running things by the RCAF rep and had the squadron maintenance folks on speed dial. By that time the Cyclone had deployed on VDQ, TOR and REG. And the project hadn't even built the hangar block yet. So there was direct operational feedback going in.

Everything down to briefing rooms, offices, weapons lockers, the side of the desk the MWO wanted their phone was planned. Every tool, every piece of equipment had a storage space, every spare, all the tie downs, the movement of people in and around the hangar was mapped out, including moving torps in and out of the magazine.

The detail that went into the airforce requirements at the direction or request of the Cyclone folks was immense.

All I'm trying to say is that if something was missed don't blame the RCN. If there isn't 2nd line due to platform particularities thats fine, it's going to be a very well planned/furnished first line. I expect that things will change once they operate in the space, that's a given.

 

[Underway]

No, the world has changed and the requirements are different. We gained some better capabilities, including the ability to host C2 spaces and enhanced medical spaces, plus a better ship to shore connector, and other things I probably am not aware of.

Double hull, better solid stores system, magazines that carry missile and torp reloads, containerized storage on the upper deck. Lots of neat new things. Time will tell if they are better or not. There is an argument to be made its trying to do to much.

 

[suffolkowner]

Name your poison Gents.

View attachment 90038

PS.

Army vs Navy

U.S. Army's Next Heavy Landing Ship May Outclass Marine Corps' LSM

The U.S. Army's little-known Watercraft Systems division plans to acquire a new fleet of landing ships that could outclass the U.S. Marine Corps&#...

maritime-executive.com

Marine-Moving Medium Landing Ship Critical To China Fight Put On Hold Again By Navy

The Marines say they really need a Medium Landing Ship for a future conflict in the Pacific, but Navy requirements have ballooned its costs.

www.twz.com

View attachment 90039

US Navy wants 70 sailors to transport 50 marines.
US Army wants 13-23 mariners to transport 175 soldiers.

Runnymede-class large landing craft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

General Frank S. Besson-class support vessel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....

Digression on the Landing Ships as neither of those have particular relevance to helo/uas ops.

Damen has created a better solution for the Portuguese.

Portuguese Navy orders innovative Multi-Purpose Vessel | Damen

The Damen Shipyards Group has contracted the Portuguese Navy for the design, construction and outfitting of a state-of-the-art Multi-Purpose Vessel.

www.damen.com

View attachment 90040


7000 tonnes displacement
107m LOA
48 Ships complement

94x11-metre flight deck and hangars for UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).
a stern ramp for UUVs and USVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles and Unmanned Surface Vehicles)
a 650m2 cargo deck and space for twelve 20-foot containers.
up to 300 troops.

NRP D. João II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

looks like a San Giorgio knockoff

San Giorgio-class amphibious transport dock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[daftandbarmy]

I see amphib as a important part of force projection into the Arctic. Does not need to be a helicopter carrier, even a large LST that provides the capability to land heavy equipment up there in support of various operations.

The main goal of large ships in the arctic on 'sovereignty' type tasks, based on my fairly limited experience, is to keep large numbers of people safe, warm and fed in some of the most hostile conditions on earth.

Not a ship so much as a space ship.

How about some ice capable cruise ships?

Arctic Cruise Ships | Swoop Arctic | Swoop Arctic

Need advice on which Antarctic ship is right for you? Swoop provides information on 15 vessels, from expeditionary, luxury or fly & cruise ships.

www.swoop-arctic.com

 

[Fabius]

My desk was 5 over from the RCAF one on the project. There was a Cylcone pilot in that chair. The Civi in charge of the hangar and aviation facilities (2 over from me) just kept asking the airforce what they wanted and needed, constantly running things by the RCAF rep and had the squadron maintenance folks on speed dial. By that time the Cyclone had deployed on VDQ, TOR and REG. And the project hadn't even built the hangar block yet. So there was direct operational feedback going in.

Everything down to briefing rooms, offices, weapons lockers, the side of the desk the MWO wanted their phone was planned. Every tool, every piece of equipment had a storage space, every spare, all the tie downs, the movement of people in and around the hangar was mapped out, including moving torps in and out of the magazine.

The detail that went into the airforce requirements at the direction or request of the Cyclone folks was immense.

All I'm trying to say is that if something was missed don't blame the RCN. If there isn't 2nd line due to platform particularities thats fine, it's going to be a very well planned/furnished first line. I expect that things will change once they operate in the space, that's a given.

I think you hit on the key thing. The experience and understanding of task and purpose can mean that both things are true, nothing was missed yet everything was missed. This is agnostic of service or specific subject.

In theory you could have RCAF aircrew and maintainers directly taking lessons learned from operating the Cyclone on the frigates and applying them to the AOR for 1st line stuff yet have it marginal for concentration of AirPower, 2nd line stuff, etc. All because the RCAF pers misunderstood the task and purpose, likely because of both personal experience and institutional experience.

It seems this problem is growing across all services as institutional experience is shrinking in scope and breadth. It’s not deliberate it’s just people don’t know what they don’t know.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

…maybe best to just wait a bit then write it for 60Rs…

 

[Baz]

…maybe best to just wait a bit then write it for 60Rs…

If we were to get 60Rs, can we please just use the USN CONOPs, and tactics, and procedures, and training system...

 

[Good2Golf]

If we were to get 60Rs, can we please just use the USN CONOPs, and tactics, and procedures, and training system...

One would think, right?

 

[dimsum]

If we were to get 60Rs, can we please just use the USN CONOPs, and tactics, and procedures, and training system...

I’d say the same with the P-8, fold 404 Sqn, and send folks to VP-30.

 

[Good2Golf]

The sooner we lose this ridiculous “let’s have our own solution…buuuuut…we want to seamlessly integrate with the US!” approach, the better…

 

[dimsum]

The sooner we lose this ridiculous “let’s have our own solution…buuuuut…we want to seamlessly integrate with the US!” approach, the better…

Yes - to a point. Initial training should be the same curriculum but even when I wrote that, it means that when we train people is at the mercy of VP-30’s schedule. Or, establish an international (allied) P-8 school.

I’m also not advocating to disband 434 Sqn for force development, tactics development, etc. Just because the USN does it one way doesn’t mean it’s the best way - my experience has been that we and the USN do ASW (in the LRP world) in different but complementary ways. Not sure how that will go with an all P-8 fleet, but the P-8 / P-3 combo was actually really good.

 

[Baz]

Yes - to a point. Initial training should be the same curriculum but even when I wrote that, it means that when we train people is at the mercy of VP-30’s schedule. Or, establish an international (allied) P-8 school.

I’m also not advocating to disband 434 Sqn for force development, tactics development, etc. Just because the USN does it one way doesn’t mean it’s the best way - my experience has been that we and the USN do ASW (in the LRP world) in different but complementary ways. Not sure how that will go with an all P-8 fleet, but the P-8 / P-3 combo was actually really good.

Lean on the USN to do the IOT&E, Initial Cadre, and the introduction years. Once you get established, pick part of the problem and do proper trials, exercises, development, etc, etc, etc. When you come up with something better (because you will) ask the greater community (ie the USN and allies) if they want to adopt it. If so, keep doing that. If not, decide if the Canadian way is better enough to start establishing your own streams to support it.

Rinse and repeat...

An international P-8 school sounds like an excellent idea. The USAF hosts an international F-16 school at Luke AFB. From all accounts, it works well.

 

[dapaterson]

An international P-8 school sounds like an excellent idea. The USAF hosts an international F-16 school at Luke AFB. From all accounts, it works well.

I believe F35 international training is there as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Lean on the USN to do the IOT&E, Initial Cadre, and the introduction years. Once you get established, pick part of the problem and do proper trials, exercises, development, etc, etc, etc. When you come up with something better (because you will) ask the greater community (ie the USN and allies) if they want to adopt it. If so, keep doing that. If not, decide if the Canadian way is better enough to start establishing your own streams to support it.

Rinse and repeat...

An international P-8 school sounds like an excellent idea. The USAF hosts an international F-16 school at Luke AFB. From all accounts, it works well.

Isn't that what is being done with the F35A in any event?

(Eglin-Florida, Luke-Arizona and Ebbing-Arkansas)

 

[YZT580]

Lean on the USN to do the IOT&E, Initial Cadre, and the introduction years. Once you get established, pick part of the problem and do proper trials, exercises, development, etc, etc, etc. When you come up with something better (because you will) ask the greater community (ie the USN and allies) if they want to adopt it. If so, keep doing that. If not, decide if the Canadian way is better enough to start establishing your own streams to support it.

Rinse and repeat...

An international P-8 school sounds like an excellent idea. The USAF hosts an international F-16 school at Luke AFB. From all accounts, it works well.

too bad we closed
Summerside. Would have made a great host facility. But we could offer Greenwood. But there is always Goose or Gander if we were contributing enough to Nato to have a voice in the matter