Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 496502 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,639
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #700 on: April 15, 2015, 09:02:55 »
Honestly, how connected is the average resident of Brandon, Regina, or even Summerside with the RCN? Just because we name a boat after a town doesn't meant that town cares about the RCN. Maybe  starting a new Canadian Tradition is a good thing.

In answer: Surprisingly connected, if you ask me. All the ships make a concerted effort to stay connected with their namesake communities, even the inland ones, and the civic communities return the favour. Those units connected to cities and towns connected by water make efforts to frequently visit their namesake, and open ships tours onboard a ship that bears the name of your town are always more attended than otherwise ordinary open ships tour. At the office here, co-workers that know I used to be in the Navy always mention it to me when they heard something or other in the news about an action of HMCS MONTREAL. The very name gets their attention and grabs them - something that would not happen if it wasn't their cities namesake. They don't know much about the Navy, but they know somebody out there proudly bears their towns name. I know for sure that Regina, Edmonton and Calgary have strong ties to their Namesake ship and their Captains are invited regularly to civic events and are feted every time possible.

Before the "Cities and Towns" revival, the only ships I can think of with such connections were HMCS YUKON and HMCS MACKENZIE, which (even though River class in reality) had strong connections with their namesake Territories (NWT for MACKENZIE).

There is no way you'll get that with People's name.

Moreover, there is danger in using peoples name, as pointed above. Consider that, when I was in elementary school here in Quebec, just as the "Quiet Revolution" started and the curriculum was still heavily influenced by the religious orders, we were taught that Dollard-des-Ormeaux was a great French-Canadian hero, having saved the colony from the Iroquois by battling them to the death at Long-Sault. By the time I got into university and more enlightened historical research had been conducted, it appeared that (1) it was unclear wether the Iroquois coming down the Outaouais river really wanted to attack Ville-Marie (Montreal) or were simply returning to their wintering grounds along the St-Lawrence river, and (2) while protection of Ville-Marie may have been in the governor's plan, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and his cohort were more interested in intercepting the Iroquois at Long-Sault as they came down in small groups in order to steal their pelts (and thus get rich by not having to buy them). The Iroquois got wind of the plan and stalled their arrival upstream in order to come down "en masse". Need I tell you that Dollard-des-Ormeaux is not exactly considered a hero anymore in Quebec.

This re-discovery of history all occurred in the span of 15 years - well less than the usual lifetime of  a ship. So there is always some danger in using people's name.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,592
  • Crewman
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #701 on: April 15, 2015, 09:19:59 »
In reference to the city names, such as Regina and Brandon; historically (if I am correct) the Prairies have contributed large numbers of men to the Navy.  That would justify such naming of ships and establish the connections.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #702 on: April 15, 2015, 09:50:58 »
In reference to the city names, such as Regina and Brandon; historically (if I am correct) the Prairies have contributed large numbers of men to the Navy.  That would justify such naming of ships and establish the connections.

Yes, I am a salt water cowboy.  I know many who are.

Offline Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 93,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,008
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #703 on: April 15, 2015, 10:47:00 »
Just by way of an example, Cdr Francoeur is a native of Moose Jaw:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=698669
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lfwapao/sets/72157627047244369/detail/

Many of the other ships have similar relationships with their namesake cities.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,426
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #704 on: April 15, 2015, 11:24:43 »
The 500 class (Gordon Reid and John Jacobson) where the MCDV of the CCG although not quite as versatile. I think the new Hero class is actually a bit a step back to the R class days with a vessel very similar to the Island Class which the US went to. I have heard the internal design of the Hero class has it's flaws (hatches that can't open fully, etc). I have not heard good or bad about their sea keeping ability. but generally speed comes at a price.   



Funny that an ex CCG official would whine about the military getting ice breaking vessels when likely he and his fellows have worked hard to keep the CCG from being armed in the first place. But he is right that we do need a couple of very large Ice breakers for the Guard. For much of the rest of the buoy tending/ice breaking fleet a slightly modern version of the 1100 class would be perfect, a good all round ship.

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 27,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 407
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #705 on: April 15, 2015, 23:02:24 »
In answer: Surprisingly connected, if you ask me. All the ships make a concerted effort to stay connected with their namesake communities, even the inland ones, and the civic communities return the favour. Those units connected to cities and towns connected by water make efforts to frequently visit their namesake, and open ships tours onboard a ship that bears the name of your town are always more attended than otherwise ordinary open ships tour. At the office here, co-workers that know I used to be in the Navy always mention it to me when they heard something or other in the news about an action of HMCS MONTREAL. The very name gets their attention and grabs them - something that would not happen if it wasn't their cities namesake. They don't know much about the Navy, but they know somebody out there proudly bears their towns name. I know for sure that Regina, Edmonton and Calgary have strong ties to their Namesake ship and their Captains are invited regularly to civic events and are feted every time possible.

Before the "Cities and Towns" revival, the only ships I can think of with such connections were HMCS YUKON and HMCS MACKENZIE, which (even though River class in reality) had strong connections with their namesake Territories (NWT for MACKENZIE).

There is no way you'll get that with People's name.

Moreover, there is danger in using peoples name, as pointed above. Consider that, when I was in elementary school here in Quebec, just as the "Quiet Revolution" started and the curriculum was still heavily influenced by the religious orders, we were taught that Dollard-des-Ormeaux was a great French-Canadian hero, having saved the colony from the Iroquois by battling them to the death at Long-Sault. By the time I got into university and more enlightened historical research had been conducted, it appeared that (1) it was unclear wether the Iroquois coming down the Outaouais river really wanted to attack Ville-Marie (Montreal) or were simply returning to their wintering grounds along the St-Lawrence river, and (2) while protection of Ville-Marie may have been in the governor's plan, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and his cohort were more interested in intercepting the Iroquois at Long-Sault as they came down in small groups in order to steal their pelts (and thus get rich by not having to buy them). The Iroquois got wind of the plan and stalled their arrival upstream in order to come down "en masse". Need I tell you that Dollard-des-Ormeaux is not exactly considered a hero anymore in Quebec.

This re-discovery of history all occurred in the span of 15 years - well less than the usual lifetime of  a ship. So there is always some danger in using people's name.

I guess our definition of what constitutes public interest is very different based on the circles we run in. I for one know that the average resident of Winnipeg I spoke with had no idea that there wasdidn't know there was even a ship named for the city let alone what it was doing. I'm relatively certain that if I went home to PEI the average resident of Charlottetown or Summerside would maybe know a ship was named for the town, but would know nothing more and care not at all.

I have no doubt the chamber of commerce and those of the upper echelons of society are better informed and perhaps interested in what the namesake ship is doing, but that doesn't equate to interest in the average citizen. Maybe forcing people to ask why a ship is named what it is will generate interest in our history.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #706 on: May 08, 2015, 13:38:21 »
Whats in a name?

http://www.navalreview.ca/2015/03/naming-ships/

Copied here:


Quote
8 March 2015
by Colin Darlington, Royal United Services Institute - Nova Scotia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Steel will be cut in a few months for the first of the Harry DeWolf-class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). The official date of the cutting will be an opportunity for senior politicians, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and industry to mark the occasion with media announcements, interviews and photo-ops. The real date of first cutting will probably be sometime earlier than the official date if for no other reason than the actual shipbuilding program schedule is driven by other than times convenient to various agendas. Before all this, though, there is one date under government control, that of the announcement of names of other ships of the class. Considering the national political environment, that is likely to be soon.
 
Naming government ships, particularly warships, is a government prerogative, and that is the way it should be. Warships are a piece of Canada,(1) and with other department ships are signs of national presence and action. Past vessels of the RCN have been named according to various conventions including geographical features, first nations and animals. Of late, with the Halifax-class frigates, the Kingston-class mine warfare vessels and the Victoria-class submarines (and, to be built, the Queenston-class replenishment oiler replacements), there has been an explicit effort through naming to connect with the Canadian public. Despite some misgivings that in cases this results in warships lacking antecedents (and therefore not inheriting history and battle honours, elements important to esprit de corps in ships’ companies), naming warships after cities and towns has worked. It remains to be seen whether naming the AOPSs after people, whilst long a practice in other navies and other Canadian government departments, will work.
 
With the announcement of the name of the first AOPS to be HMCS Harry DeWolf (HAR (2)), the policy for naming the remaining ships was made public: “Subsequent ships in the class will be named to honour other prominent Canadians who served with the highest distinction and conspicuous gallantry in the service of their country.(3)” The opportunity to name the AOPSs after northern locations or animals has been passed over and the government decision has been made. Lately, Canadian Coast Guard mid-shore patrol vessels and Halifax municipal ferries have been named after Canadians whom people take to be heroes, and there has been a certain resonance with the public in the names. As long as the warships names decided upon continue to receive general support, and not be divisive, especially for the companies onboard, because of disagreement over achievements, politics, etc., then naming warships after people will continue to serve good purpose.
 
One can play a game guessing at names of subsequent HAR-class class (AOPS is a shipbuilding program name), looking at lists of recipients of the Victoria Cross and other high honours. More useful in the names announcement will be the indications of government thoughts and intentions. There may be those who would draw conclusions about class numbers from whether four or five names are announced. It may be more useful to the government, therefore, to continue to highlight the shipbuilding program but also avoid untimely controversy by announcing only two or three names at this time. The remainder can be announced at a later, more convenient, time. As an aside, when considering the number of HAR-class ships to be built, there appears not to be much public discussion as to what the ships are to do, that is, their concept of employment. They are sizable and can be fitted with a variety of capabilities. “How many are needed for Arctic operations?” and “How many are desired to be available for offshore operations elsewhere?” (balanced against shipbuilding funding), are interesting but generally unanswered questions.
 
In addition to names and numbers of ships, there are some other indications yet to come out in announcements. Canada is a signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It has an agreement that sets a standard for designating types of ships (e.g., the Kingston-class vessels are designated MM – mine warfare vessel, general). Alliances such as NATO can be useful for the development of common terminology for use by planners and operators in writing messages and plans, developing marine surveillance databases, and displaying ship locations on plots. By that NATO agreement, the HAR-class could be type designated as PSO (patrol ship, offshore) or PGB (patrol ship, icebreaker). With our national focus on the Arctic, it is believed that PGB is the more likely designation to be selected, indicative of the primary intent in the use of these ships.
 
Finally, another indication of government intent is the ‘pendant number’, sometimes known in other navies and colloquially as the ‘hull number’ because it is painted on a ship’s hull. In the RCN, the number indicates the type of ship, e.g., 300-series numbers are assigned to frigates. The 400-series is the number block for patrol ships. It is understood that HMCS Harry DeWolf and her sisters will be assigned numbers starting with 430, emphasizing their patrol role.
 
The next months will be interesting, especially for the RCN as a time of needed revival after many years of a declining fleet, but also for Canada as a whole. The building and commissioning into service of the HAR-class will provide the country a significant capability to operate ships at a wide variety of defence, security, research, national development, humanitarian and other missions, up north and deployed overseas. One can be confident that Canadians can look forward to being proud of HMCS Harry DeWolf and her sisters, whatever their names and designations.
 
________________________________
 
(1) Not quite legally; see RUSI(NS) paper “Warships: Sovereign Immunity versus Sovereign Territory” at http://rusi.ca/security-affairs-committee.
(2) The RCN assigns two and three letter initialisms to ships (e.g., HAL for HMCS Halifax) to facilitate correspondence and plotting. The three letters are usually the first three letters of the ship’s name. The two letters are usually the first and last letters of the name. Though HAR for HMCS Harry DeWolf has not been announced, it is the likely initialism.
(3) http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/18/pm-announces-name-first-royal-canadian-navys-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships, accessed 1 March 2015
 
Colin Darlington is a retired naval officer of the Canadian Armed Forces. He has served in ships named after bays, rivers, mountains, cities and characteristics. He may be contacted by e-mail at: RUSINovaScotia@gmail.com.

Cue the "How are you today HAL" jokes...

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,639
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #707 on: May 08, 2015, 16:18:28 »
Your a little late with the HAL jokes. Halifax has been in commission more than 27 years now !

The real one to ask is if three AOPS travel together, will they be considered a joke: HAR,HAR,HAR !

Just one small point: I have no idea where he got that "in the RCN, the number indicate the type" and that  400 series is for patrol. It may NOW be so, but it is NOT the continuation of a tradition.

In fact, other than corvettes and frigates of WWII, the only Canadian warship to wear a "400" number has been HMCS BRAS-D'OR, which I would not call a patrol ship. You could call the MCDV's "Patrol vessels", but they have a "700" series pendant number, which has never been used for ANY warship in Canada before - what does it say about the "type" of ship then? And it is only after 1949 and the conversion of wartime destroyers to destroyer escort that the idea that destroyers should have numbers in the "200" and frigates in the "300" was adopted.

Besides, I suspect people outside of the RCN have no clue as to what the pendant number says about the type of vessels. If you don't believe me, you may still find people that will tell you how disappointed the citizens of Portland, ORE, were the day they were visited by HMCS PORTE QUEBEC (gate vessel - 125 feet - no weapons - crew 45), when they had looked up the name in their books and only found (and were thus expecting) HMCS QUEBEC (cruiser - 550 feet - 9x6 inch guns and 600 crew).

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #708 on: May 08, 2015, 16:38:02 »
OGBD:

Haven't you also gone through redesignation of the same hulls with the same gear doing the same jobs?

I have the sense that the progression from DE through DDE, DDH, FFH, CPF has been somewhat muddied over the years.  And even though your ships have had missiles on board have there ever been any officially designated FFGs or DDGs in Canadian service?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,639
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #709 on: May 08, 2015, 18:24:42 »
Not really Kirkhill.

Until shortly after WWII, we used the British system and made sure our pendant numbers did not conflict with theirs.

This lettering system did not indicate necessarily the type of ship: HAIDA, a destroyer, was p G63, and all "tribals" were using the same style, but the River class frigate JONQUIERE, for instance, had p K318, while the Flower class corvette ASBESTOS wore p K358. There was no apparent rime or reason. [Little history lesson here: nowadays, under the agreed NATO system, we fly our international call-sign when coming in or out of harbour. While using the British system and rules, however, a ship flew his "letter" then "number" as appeared on its hull in those circumstances. The numbers were flown using the number pennants - thus the name  "pennant number", bastardized as "pendant number".]

Starting with the refit of the tribals that saw them become destroyers escort by removal of two gun turrets and installation of the squid AS weapon, they became redesignated as such and we started using the American system of designation (not NATO, which adopted a sub-set of same later). A destroyer was thus DD and the letter E specified it was an ASW escort one. Thus Haida became DDE 215. It was also the point where we started using "200" for Destroyers and "300" for frigates. This also explains why  BONAVENTURE was CVL22 as opposed to RO22, had we used the British system.

We never went through redesignation without a modifying refit, however.

Similarly, we did not "progress" through DE, to DDE, to DDH, FFH and CPF. We never had "DE's". The DDE that underwent transformations to carry helicopters became DDH after their refits only. As for the frigates, CPF was the name of the building program (Canadian Patrol Frigate), but it was never a pendant number: They were always FFH from the start.

Finally: No, we have never had FFG's or DDG's in our service. We have always adopted the supplementary designation "H", perhaps as much as a mater of pride for the size of helicopters and the sea condition we use them in compared to other nations as for the fact that in Canada, we have always considered the shipborne helicopter to be primary weapon system on the destroyers and frigates.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #710 on: May 08, 2015, 18:38:28 »
Thanks OGBD.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 93,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,008
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #711 on: May 08, 2015, 21:16:14 »
Finally: No, we have never had FFG's or DDG's in our service.

The IROQUOIS class was redesignated to DDG from DDH after the TRUMP refit.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/iroquois-history.page

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,639
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #712 on: May 08, 2015, 22:18:18 »
I stand corrected. Forgot about that one.

Occam, I shall drop and give you fifty. :salute:

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #713 on: May 08, 2015, 23:16:58 »
I thought the TERRA NOVA was the first DDG, as she was equipped with harpoons on the way to the first gulf war.  The tribals weren't ready yet.  For some reason that sticks in my head from Milners book, Canada's Navy the first century...

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,323
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #714 on: May 08, 2015, 23:34:05 »
Actually, all three ships (Terra Nova, Athabaskan and PROTECTEUR) in gulf war one were missile armed.

Terra Nova had Harpoon and Javelin; Athabaskan had Sparrow and Javelin; PROTECTEUR had Javelin.  Did that make PROTECTEUR an AOR(G)?

Offline Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 93,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,008
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #715 on: May 08, 2015, 23:35:08 »
I stand corrected. Forgot about that one.

Occam, I shall drop and give you fifty. :salute:

No need, it's not like they started out that way.   ;D

IIRC, changing the designation was almost an afterthought.  I believe they continued to use DDH for a few years before the official change was made.

I thought the TERRA NOVA was the first DDG, as she was equipped with harpoons on the way to the first gulf war.  The tribals weren't ready yet.  For some reason that sticks in my head from Milners book, Canada's Navy the first century...

I think the distinction that was made lies in that TERRA NOVA's Harpoon fit was a "bolt on and go" mission fit, rather than a full up integration during a refit.  I don't think her designation was ever officially changed. 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #716 on: May 08, 2015, 23:37:34 »
... HAIDA, a destroyer, was p G63, and all "tribals" were using the same style, but the River class frigate JONQUIERE, for instance, had p K318, while the Flower class corvette ASBESTOS wore p K358.....

Just a point on the corvettes, I believe my father-in-law, who served in corvettes ultimately as Chief Stoker, used to describe the Rivers like Jonquiere, as Twin Screw Corvettes.  Might that not explain the K series pennant numbers?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #717 on: May 09, 2015, 05:02:39 »
Never thought of that but it is possible. When the corvette Charlottetown (K244) was sunk in Sep 42, a River class frigate (twin screwed corvette?)commissioned in 1944 not only bore the old name but the original pennant as well (K244).

BTW, Colin is VERY WELL versed on this stuff and is part of that group at Dalhousie. You may have noticed too he hints that the role has changed slightly and the type name has been informally changed from Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship to Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship. The "/" makes a huge difference in it's employability.


Pat
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,639
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #718 on: May 10, 2015, 17:49:38 »
No, the blocks of letter were just assigned to Canada by the Admiralty in England.

Our WWII warships used the blocks G to K. G, H and I were used for the destroyers and J and K for everything else: minesweepers, corvettes frigates, loop layers, armed yachts, etc. Later on R and T were added at the government request. But what is important is that their pendant numbers did not denote type of ship in any way. Shhhh! Security.
 

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #719 on: May 25, 2015, 10:40:17 »
Some scuttlebut from the water cooler...

They are working on a Tele-Hospital/Doc system.  The goal is for the A/OPS to have the a fairly robust med capability apparently.  When asked why the response was "Cause they're in the friggin arctic!" (yes I asked that obvious questions... and I got the correct you're a "moron" response).

A/OPS will have an electric propulsion system with electric motors supplied by a number of DA's (Integrated Electric Propulsion if I understood him correctly).  The electrical power avail will be orders of magnitude greater than anything else the navy has worked with and they are currently working on the training systems to ensure the Engineers are prepared to deal with thousands of Amps.  It leads me to wonder if IEP is the frontrunner of CSC.

The training development and procurement side is working hard to get simulators, equipment and procedures in place for all the anticipated A/OPS needs so the first crews will at least have some dry land training before getting out on the real thing.

Essentially what we are building is a 6000 ton, ice capable, mobile base by the sounds of things (lillypads +?).  Which is a little different than many in public were expecting or anticipating, and certainly different than what was expected in many quarters.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #720 on: May 25, 2015, 11:33:49 »
.....

A/OPS will have an electric propulsion system with electric motors supplied by a number of DA's (Integrated Electric Propulsion if I understood him correctly).  The electrical power avail will be orders of magnitude greater than anything else the navy has worked with and they are currently working on the training systems to ensure the Engineers are prepared to deal with thousands of Amps.  It leads me to wonder if IEP is the frontrunner of CSC.
...


According to the 2012 STX Marine design the power plant called for 4x 3300 kW Gensets (13.2 MWe Output) driving 2x 4500 kW Propulsion Motors (9 MWe Consumption).  The other 4.2 MWe is presumably for sensors and hotel load.

Somebody was asking about deicing these things.  I don't think that is likely to be a problem.  Svalbard has a deck deicing system installed.

As I understand Gensets that 13.2 MWe Output will result in an additional production of some 25 to 30 MW of heat that has to be dissipated somewhere.  Hot showers for everybody.

The bigger question will be, in an electric CSC operating off the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf or Haiti, how will you get rid of that heat?  And what type of thermal plume might you leave in the wake?


PS. Just to put 25 to 30 MW in context - that is equivalent to the output of 60 Wind Turbines operating at 25% efficiency and power for 30,000 homes.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2015, 11:42:47 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #721 on: May 25, 2015, 13:52:50 »
.........
As I understand Gensets that 13.2 MWe Output will result in an additional production of some 25 to 30 MW of heat that has to be dissipated somewhere.  Hot showers for everybody.

The bigger question will be, in an electric CSC operating off the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf or Haiti, how will you get rid of that heat?  And what type of thermal plume might you leave in the wake?
.........

The Type 45 runs an IEP system so call the UK up and ask their lessons learned?  There's an engineering solution to it, perhaps internal fresh water chilling systems, which then transfer heat to circulated ocean water.  Thermal signatures in water disspate very quickly and can only be seen relatively close to the ship.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,323
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #722 on: May 25, 2015, 15:07:55 »
Ask the British about lessons learned on electrical systems? Are you mad? Have you never heard of Lucas?  :o

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #723 on: May 25, 2015, 15:22:55 »
Prince of Darkness aside  >:D

According to Wiki this is the 45 setup

Quote
2 shafts integrated electric propulsion (IEP):
2 × Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines, 21.5 MW (28,800 shp) each
2 × Wärtsilä 12V200 diesel generators, 2 MW (2,700 shp) each[4]
2 × Converteam electric motors, 20 MW (27,000 shp) each

What I take from that is that it is a Gas Turbine Ship with Electric Drive (2x 21.5 MW  (43 MW) driving 2x 20 MW (40 MW) motors) with 4 MW of Gensets that could be used to feed the motors but likely are just going to drive sensors, weapons and ship and hotel loads. 

Your power options would be:

1 Motor at 10% of capacity with one Diesel Genset
1 Motor at 20% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
2 Motors at 10% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
2 Motors at 50% of capacity with one Turbine
2 Motors at 100% of capacity with two Turbines

I don't know anything about the gas turbines and their cooling requirements but I would imagine a lot of the heat would go up the stack with the flue gases.

A different strategy than the AOPS seems to have adopted with the all diesel solution.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,417
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,993
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #724 on: May 25, 2015, 15:29:16 »
Third AOPS named today in Esquimalt, named after Chief Petty Officer Max Bernays. I do believe there is a Accommodations block named after him out there as well.

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/archives/articles/local-heroes/chief-petty-officer-max-bernays
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر