- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Kirkhill said:
Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The naby is expanding and thats a great thing I just hope there comfy
newer ships always present the hope for that.
newer ships always present the hope for that.Using a AOPS hull form for other types of ships is makes about as much sense as entering a chuckwagon in the INDY 500.
The AOPS uses a single hull optomized for slow speed in ice. The hull uses reinforced specially shaped hull form to ride up on then break thru
ice. This shape makes it a lousy seakeeping boat in open ocean. The AOR uses a double hull that is fat and deep to hold large amounts of
fuel oil and supplies and the structure of hull and shape is entirely different. A LPD is as different again as day is to night and the hull shape
so radically different from the other two to make it very , very , impractical. Would you use a Herc to replace a CF-18, a 30-30 deer rifle to replace
a c-7 . Would you use the hull of a LAV III to build a replacement for a Leopard II , makes about as much sense as using a AOPS hull for other types of ships. Its enough to make a ship designer cry. Are you on crack.
Cheers
The AOPS uses a single hull optomized for slow speed in ice. The hull uses reinforced specially shaped hull form to ride up on then break thru
ice. This shape makes it a lousy seakeeping boat in open ocean. The AOR uses a double hull that is fat and deep to hold large amounts of
fuel oil and supplies and the structure of hull and shape is entirely different. A LPD is as different again as day is to night and the hull shape
so radically different from the other two to make it very , very , impractical. Would you use a Herc to replace a CF-18, a 30-30 deer rifle to replace
a c-7 . Would you use the hull of a LAV III to build a replacement for a Leopard II , makes about as much sense as using a AOPS hull for other types of ships. Its enough to make a ship designer cry. Are you on crack.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 6,352
- Points
- 1,160
STONEY said:
You can make your point without being a sarcastic twit. You won't be told again.
Milnet.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
WEng said:The naby is expanding and thats a great thing I just hope there comfy
:facepalm: forgot spell check my bad navy*
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Guess you weren't having a great Navy day eh? ;DWEng said:
Ex-Dragoon said:
The original concept of the AOPS had a lot of LPD like features. Wouldn't take much more than money or a sacrifice of some of the other features to bring them back. It would only make sense if she was meant for transiting ice though.
Similar argument for a support vessel. There are too many sacrifices for ice breaking to make the hull form practical for use out of ice. Contrary to popular media tripe, they are quite capable at breaking ice falling roughly halfway between the type 1100 and the type 1200 in terms of capability. They have quite a bit of deck and cargo space, so they could make a decent ice-capable multi-role vessel.
As an AOR, they don't really have the capacity. To put things in perspective, the full displacement weight of the AOPS is roughly equivalent to the weight of the fuel that will be on the Polar icebreaker.
PS. On behalf of ship designers, I apologize for Stoney (provided he is one as implied). We aren't all sarcastic pricks. Just most of us. The AOPS is neither optimized for slow speed in ice, nor is it meant to ride up on ice while breaking (except when ridge ramming).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Thank you for the clarifications, RC.
So RC just to confirm, unlike what STONEY has alluded to, the AOPS does have the capability to have a multi role function but in doing so would lessen its utility as an arctic patrol vessel?
So RC just to confirm, unlike what STONEY has alluded to, the AOPS does have the capability to have a multi role function but in doing so would lessen its utility as an arctic patrol vessel?
Ex-Dragoon said:
It has the capability, with the caveat that it would only be practical if used in ice. If you didn't intend to use it in ice, you would adapt the hull form to the traditional styles of those particular vessel types and make it lighter, weaker, and less powerful.
Ship design is always a balancing act. AOPS was a particularly interesting one since the Navy wanted to optimize for somewhat contradictory capabilities. It came out reasonably well, so the idea of using it as a base platform for other mission capabilities could be a good one if the operational need is there in the future.
- Reaction score
- 8,483
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video
I was looking at this video about the Sea Ceptor (CAMM(M)) missile system and became intrigued by the computer generated graphics of the vessel from which it is being launched. Does anybody recognize the Type or is it strictly notional?
The reason I include it here under the AOPS thread is it seems to bear some resemblance in capabilities to vessels like the AOPS, LCS and HDMS Absalon.
It seems to be primarily a platform rather than a fighting ship in its own right. The view from the stern is what interests me.
The after deck is a weather deck, as is the case of the AOPS and like the AOPS it is avaiable for storing TEUs. But unlike the AOPS with its single arm crane it has a gantry crane. That crane straddles a trawler-style ramp from which small boats can be launched and recovered (similar in concept to the covered ramp of the Danish Knud Rasmussens).
The flight deck seems to be quite large in relation to the size of the hangar - suggesting that the vessel would normally operate a single small helicopter but could receive and launch much larger helicopters.
The space under the flight deck suggests a potential "Mission Bay/Flex Deck" as in the Absalon and the LCS.
Forard of the flight deck are the ships RHIBs.
Armament is sparse (apparently just a 57 or 76mm and 16 of these CAMM(M) thingies (EDIT: Just spotted a pair of what look like Goalkeepers between the Hangar and the RHIBs).
Are there elements of this design (eg stern ramp, gantry crane, mission bay, larger flight deck/smaller hangar) that could easily, effectively and usefully be incorporated in the AOPS design at this stage in its development? Or has the design been fixed? Are changes of this type necessary?
As suggested in a previous post my own personal preference/belief is that AOPS would serve best optimized for use as a domestic platform specializing as a Mothership and in Ship to Shore movements. Some of the design elements in that "cartoon" seem to my untutored eye to be a good/better fit for the AOPS.
I was looking at this video about the Sea Ceptor (CAMM(M)) missile system and became intrigued by the computer generated graphics of the vessel from which it is being launched. Does anybody recognize the Type or is it strictly notional?
The reason I include it here under the AOPS thread is it seems to bear some resemblance in capabilities to vessels like the AOPS, LCS and HDMS Absalon.
It seems to be primarily a platform rather than a fighting ship in its own right. The view from the stern is what interests me.
The after deck is a weather deck, as is the case of the AOPS and like the AOPS it is avaiable for storing TEUs. But unlike the AOPS with its single arm crane it has a gantry crane. That crane straddles a trawler-style ramp from which small boats can be launched and recovered (similar in concept to the covered ramp of the Danish Knud Rasmussens).
The flight deck seems to be quite large in relation to the size of the hangar - suggesting that the vessel would normally operate a single small helicopter but could receive and launch much larger helicopters.
The space under the flight deck suggests a potential "Mission Bay/Flex Deck" as in the Absalon and the LCS.
Forard of the flight deck are the ships RHIBs.
Armament is sparse (apparently just a 57 or 76mm and 16 of these CAMM(M) thingies (EDIT: Just spotted a pair of what look like Goalkeepers between the Hangar and the RHIBs).
Are there elements of this design (eg stern ramp, gantry crane, mission bay, larger flight deck/smaller hangar) that could easily, effectively and usefully be incorporated in the AOPS design at this stage in its development? Or has the design been fixed? Are changes of this type necessary?
As suggested in a previous post my own personal preference/belief is that AOPS would serve best optimized for use as a domestic platform specializing as a Mothership and in Ship to Shore movements. Some of the design elements in that "cartoon" seem to my untutored eye to be a good/better fit for the AOPS.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
A type 45 of the Daring class I believe.
Kirkhill said:
Stern Ramp
I personally dislike stern ramps, but regardless, you can't put one on a ship designed to break ice in reverse. AOPS can launch and recover from the two boarding RHIB davits, two flex davits, and the crane, with the four davits being faster, safer, and more effective in high sea states than a stern ramp. A stern ramp would be a little better than using the crane to launch the landing craft, but doesn't justify the lost deck space imo. The original AOPS concept was to davit launch the landing craft from an almost-well deck, but it was too expensive and likely would have had some reliability issues. I think the crane will work fine.
Gantry crane
I can't watch the video right now, so maybe i'm missing something, but one of the primary functions of the crane is loading things from ship to barge/dock/ice/landing craft. How would a gantry manage this function? A gantry would be better for shifting cargo on deck, but even science vessels, which shift a lot of kit, don't use them because they aren't as flexible.
Mission bay
AOPS has a large garage with a roll up door under the flight deck for this purpose (although it also houses the ship's truck and other land vehicles).
Heli deck and hangar
The AOPS hangar is designed to maitain a Bell 212 or house a CH 148. The heli deck can land and refuel up to a CH 149.
- Reaction score
- 8,483
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks RC.
So, short form, as a General Duties platform the AOPS has at least the range of capabilities apparently allowed for in the vessel described in the CAMM(M) video. It may not be able to carry as many TEUs, or LCVPs, or land as large a helicopter as the CH-147, or launch boats in as high a sea state, or carry as many vehicles but it has some of all of the above capabilities. As well as having secure communications and potentially offering a platform for UAVs.
The afterdeck of the AOPS is specified to be able to stow (Draft SRD Sept 2010):
Would that allow a single AOPS to transport and launch 3 LCVPs similar to the 24 kt/200 NM LCVP Mk5s if no TEUs were carried? How about a pair of CBH-90s and an LCVP Mk 5?
And Jollyjacktar:
After doing a little more digging on the internet I think I have found another possibility for the ship itself. It looks like it could be modelled as a design variant for the RN's Global Combat Ship aka Type 26/27.
So, short form, as a General Duties platform the AOPS has at least the range of capabilities apparently allowed for in the vessel described in the CAMM(M) video. It may not be able to carry as many TEUs, or LCVPs, or land as large a helicopter as the CH-147, or launch boats in as high a sea state, or carry as many vehicles but it has some of all of the above capabilities. As well as having secure communications and potentially offering a platform for UAVs.
The afterdeck of the AOPS is specified to be able to stow (Draft SRD Sept 2010):
Would that allow a single AOPS to transport and launch 3 LCVPs similar to the 24 kt/200 NM LCVP Mk5s if no TEUs were carried? How about a pair of CBH-90s and an LCVP Mk 5?
And Jollyjacktar:
After doing a little more digging on the internet I think I have found another possibility for the ship itself. It looks like it could be modelled as a design variant for the RN's Global Combat Ship aka Type 26/27.
- Reaction score
- 4,332
- Points
- 1,120
The first ship in the movie is the BMT Venator.
http://www.bmtdsl.com/?/196/853/
Details:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1708
http://www.bmtdsl.com/?/196/853/
Details:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1708
Kirkhill said:
I would challenge you on most of the limitations mentioned if you are comparing AOPS directly to the BMT concept.
Helo-ops:
I see very little chance the BMT Venator would be able to land a CH-149 (much less a CH-147) on that deck (it looks like a 6T deck and the spec mentions light helos), and they wouldn't be able to house a CH-148 with the hangar. The AOPS can in theory house a CH-148 and land a CH-149 at the same time in an emergency, which the BMT concept would not be able to do. (Sidebar: is there any ship other than a helo-carrier that can land a CH-147? That thing is a monster!). AOPS would be slightly worse for horizontal launch UAVs due to turbulence on deck created by the full size hangar, but the hangar would offer better stowage and maintenance space for same.
Boat ops:
The BMT concept has only two davits, fairly close to the water. That is half the capacity of AOPS and likely less capability in high sea state. Their only visible advantage is having a pure open water hull form. I don't count the ramp as an advantage as it is more limited in sea state than a davit. I'm not really sure what the advantage of a ramp is other than being new and flashy...
Cargo capacity:
The BMT concept limits TEU's to one high and loses the center stowage to the ramp. AOPS can carry up to 8 containers /w 6 on the aft deck and 2 on the flight deck. The BMT concept can carry 2 on the aft deck, maybe three in the cargo hangar, and none on the flight deck without a crane to handle them, so I'd put the tally at 8 for AOPS and 5 for the Venator. As mentioned, the lack of a crane on the BMT concept is a severe disadvantage for cargo.
LCVP:
I think the BMT concept, if they are able to proceed with the cargo bay doors open might be able to carry one, but they have no clear way of launching it. The LCVP Mk5 was in the original AOPS SRD as the landing craft, but it can't be carried anymore due to its length (15m vs. 12m aft deck space). The AOPS landing craft will be a barge type like the CCG uses, suitable for unloading in the shallow arctic waters.
Vehicles:
The AOPS does have a dedicated vehicle garage, with multiple ship vehicles, whereas the BMT concept would be a flex fit (ie. carry a TEU or a truck), so it's hard to compare. In terms of a cargo mission fit, AOPS has the potential to carry 8 containers, a truck, several snowmobiles, and loose fit cargo, whereas the BMT concept would probably be limited to 3 containers, a truck, snowmobiles, and minimal loose cargo.
In short, here is a brief summary of things AOPS does well and things it does not so well:
Well:
Carry cargo, vehicles, boats, and helos. This is what it is designed for.
Balance ice-breaking and open water performance.
Not so well:
Go fast.
Handle in open water.
Look pretty.
- Reaction score
- 8,483
- Points
- 1,160
RC
I thought the vessel in question displaced more. Now that NavyShooter has positively identified is as BMT's Venator I understand it to be a Corvette/Minehunter type of vessel with a displacement I would guess at being around 2000 tonnes. Given that, I understand all of your points.
I was anticipating a vessel in the 6000 tonne class like the Type 26/27, Type 45 or the Absalons, vessels that were more directly comparable to the AOPS in displacement if not in overall dimensions. (By the way: all of the above are either able to land, or will be designed to land, a CH-147 - and given that the RCAF will have CH-147s but probably not CH-148s by the time the AOPS is in the water......jus' sayin').
Type 26/27 Global Combat Ship See BAE poster at the bottom.
Type 45 Daring
HDMS Absalon (This one states that the Flight Deck is 850 m2 on a ship with a beam of 19.5 m which equals a length of about 44 m).
I guess the point I was driving towards is that while the AOPS may not be an LPH/LPD/Mother-ship, or even a Frigate/Destroyer she has (had or could have) many capabilities that would allow her to act like a mini-LPH/LPD in domestic waters where the combat threat is low even though the environmental threat is high. Or putting it another way - these ships need not be limited to the Design Operating Concept. They have inherent flexibility that they can be employed in a variety of contingencies. Perhaps they could have more without breaking the budget.
eg. Unfortunate about the 12 m limitation on the LCVP/Boats. You couldn't stitch an extra 6 m onto her stern?
Thanks as usual.
PS - I would disagree with you on the "looks pretty" end of things. But there again I have seen a lot of Trawlers whose lines I liked.
I thought the vessel in question displaced more. Now that NavyShooter has positively identified is as BMT's Venator I understand it to be a Corvette/Minehunter type of vessel with a displacement I would guess at being around 2000 tonnes. Given that, I understand all of your points.
I was anticipating a vessel in the 6000 tonne class like the Type 26/27, Type 45 or the Absalons, vessels that were more directly comparable to the AOPS in displacement if not in overall dimensions. (By the way: all of the above are either able to land, or will be designed to land, a CH-147 - and given that the RCAF will have CH-147s but probably not CH-148s by the time the AOPS is in the water......jus' sayin').
Type 26/27 Global Combat Ship See BAE poster at the bottom.
Type 45 Daring
HDMS Absalon (This one states that the Flight Deck is 850 m2 on a ship with a beam of 19.5 m which equals a length of about 44 m).
I guess the point I was driving towards is that while the AOPS may not be an LPH/LPD/Mother-ship, or even a Frigate/Destroyer she has (had or could have) many capabilities that would allow her to act like a mini-LPH/LPD in domestic waters where the combat threat is low even though the environmental threat is high. Or putting it another way - these ships need not be limited to the Design Operating Concept. They have inherent flexibility that they can be employed in a variety of contingencies. Perhaps they could have more without breaking the budget.
eg. Unfortunate about the 12 m limitation on the LCVP/Boats. You couldn't stitch an extra 6 m onto her stern?
Thanks as usual.
PS - I would disagree with you on the "looks pretty" end of things. But there again I have seen a lot of Trawlers whose lines I liked.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Maybe we are getting hung up in trying to designate the AOPS as a specific type of ship and trying to shoehorn traditional capabilities of destroyers/frigates/etc where this is no need to do so. I think like the USNs LCS, the RCN is slowly creating a new vessel type thats is all together different and gaining a uniquely Canadian mission.
Similar threads
