Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[deepblue202]

seems like you are describing a Mistral sized ship and deck

DCNS unveiled a model of a small version of the standard Mistral BPC 210 ship called the Mistral 140. Compared to the full-sized ship's 21,500 tons displacement and 199 m (653 ft) length with six helicopter landing spots, the 140 would have a displacement of 14,000 tons, 170 m (560 ft) long with five helicopter landing spots. It would be 30 m (98 ft) wide with a range of 6,000 nmi (6,900 mi; 11,000 km) at 15 knots.

 

[Fabius]

Or a San Antonio Class deck?

 

[YZT580]

DCNS unveiled a model of a small version of the standard Mistral BPC 210 ship called the Mistral 140. Compared to the full-sized ship's 21,500 tons displacement and 199 m (653 ft) length with six helicopter landing spots, the 140 would have a displacement of 14,000 tons, 170 m (560 ft) long with five helicopter landing spots. It would be 30 m (98 ft) wide with a range of 6,000 nmi (6,900 mi; 11,000 km) at 15 knots.

did it include a hangar large enough for a chinook

 

[Baz]

seems like you are describing a Mistral sized ship and deck

If what we are describing is just a class to give aviation support, the best example would be RFA Argus, probably as configured from 1985 to 2009.

What would probably be a logical leap for us, if we were to first get three or four Protecteurs instead of 2, and wanted a more robust aviation capability, while making it a more flexible ship (a Joint Support Ship, if you will), would be something like the Karel Doorman. Two spots, a couple of stuff spaces, room for containers and a crane along the starboard side, 6 hangar spaces, 1 RAS station per side, etc, etc.

Mistral is an amphib at heart. Although I can argue why an amphib would be nice (or a carrier), it requires too much more stuff, and having 5 or 6 spots is only justified if you want to be able to launch five or 6 at the sam time (that's littoral maneuver, and you need a lot more helos in the force). It's too much of a leap.

I'm not saying Karel Doorman is the right answer, because we haven't defined what other capabilites the ship could have, but in my mind it is a realistic step up.

By the way, if we had 4 Protecteurs and 2 Karel Doormans, then I'd be more comfortable with 60Rs, as long as we got enough of them, and added a logical amount of 60Ss (which is like a 60R but less ASW and more other stuff, including utility). 60Rs for the escorts, 2 x 60Ss for each AOR (to better do all the stuff other than ASW), and a mix of 60Rs and Ss on the Karel Doormans (to provide concentation of air power and support depth to both fleets deployed).

But even that would require a pretty big leap in MH capability. That is in the realm of a Squadron deployed with a Task Group, so in effect your going from one Sqn per coats to two...

 

[Baz]

Or a San Antonio Class deck?

San Antonio is the right size deck, but the ship itself (in it's current form) is too amphib heavy and joint support light, in my opinion.

 

[suffolkowner]

As a starting point, given where not getting a carrier:

• two or more spots, so if you have one go down during a cycle or need to do spread maintenance you still have a spot available
• a couple of stuff spots on deck, which is where you can put helos during the cycle that aren’t currently being used. It opens up hangar and spot to spot moves. Preferably sheltered.
• a smaller UAV spot.
• enough hangar space to respot without moving everything, and a corner to have a “heavy maintenance “ area
• a junkyard for support equipment, chocks and chains, etc
• maybe a VTOL (F-35, V-22) hardened spot as one of the two
• accessible air stores
• maintenance management area
• air C2, planning, mission prep, and mission analysis area
• multi crew briefing area
• 2nd line off aircraft areas as appropriate

what in all this can the JSS/AOR reasonably provide?
is the landing deck to small?
hangar to small?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[deepblue202]

This one has spots for two helicopters to land. Enforcer 14428 - Landing Platform Dock | Damen

 

[Baz]

what in all this can the JSS/AOR reasonably provide?
is the landing deck to small?
hangar to small?

If we adjust the Cyclone to more more supportable deployed (not only embarked) the the Protecteur class can provide some support depth, but not as much as the old Protecteurs. There is not enough deck or hangar space to provide concentration of air power, but there are examples of ships that can do this without going to full length decks.

 

[Baz]

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.

Don't disagree... just seems to me putting those two things (amphibs and helos) in the same hull is too much for us in the foreseeable future.

 

[suffolkowner]

This one has spots for two helicopters to land. Enforcer 14428 - Landing Platform Dock | Damen

always liked the Enforcer

If we adjust the Cyclone to more more supportable deployed (not only embarked) the the Protecteur class can provide some support depth, but not as much as the old Protecteurs. There is not enough deck or hangar space to provide concentration of air power, but there are examples of ships that can do this without going to full length decks.

Is there room to park a Cyclone on deck and still land one or more than two in the hangar?

 

[Baz]

Is there room to park a Cyclone on deck and still land one or more than two in the hangar?

This is an earlier rendering, so thngs may be different, but it doesn't like like it...

But at least it doesn't have that weird slope towards the hangar that the old AORs had!

I weant to reiterate that these look like excellent AORs, and Canada needs them, and probably more than 2. Having two helos and a deeper maintenance capability will definitely be of use aviation wise (be hard to get anywhere near 6 helos in the TG otherwise). They are not, however, the solution to getting serious about aviation at sea. If we want to do that then we'll need to long term plan for the type of decks and aviation assets we want (there's that latent Naval Aviator in me, it's not a ship, it's a deck).

My apologies that we are talking about AORs in the AOPS thread.

 

[Fabius]

A Karel Doorman type ship with a focus on aviation and Task Group C2 paired with the new AOR and 3-4 River Class would be interesting as a Task Group.

Would aviation and Task Group and larger C2 capabilities be a good pairing?

 

[suffolkowner]

This is an earlier rendering, so thngs may be different, but it doesn't like like it...
View attachment 90037
But at least it doesn't have that weird slope towards the hangar that the old AORs had!

I weant to reiterate that these look like excellent AORs, and Canada needs them, and probably more than 2. Having two helos and a deeper maintenance capability will definitely be of use aviation wise (be hard to get anywhere near 6 helos in the TG otherwise). They are not, however, the solution to getting serious about aviation at sea. If we want to do that then we'll need to long term plan for the type of decks and aviation assets we want (there's that latent Naval Aviator in me, it's not a ship, it's a deck).

My apologies that we are talking about AORs in the AOPS thread.

yeah looks like one landing spot for sure. Probably two spots in the hangar as stated.

at least its about ships and not Army Reserve restructuring

 

[Baz]

A Karel Doorman type ship with a focus on aviation and Task Group C2 paired with the new AOR and 3-4 River Class would be interesting as a Task Group.

Would aviation and Task Group and larger C2 capabilities be a good pairing?

I would say, historically, yes. Carriers are commonly flag ships, so that makes a good pairing.

A USN Carrier, as the CSG Flag, normally has at least 4 Capt in addition to the Flag: CO, CAG, DESRON, and COS. Although it seems it's common to have more than that now: in addition to the RAdm in Carrier Strike Group 2 there are 7 Captains on Eisenhower: COS, DESRON 22, Deputy DESRON, CO Eisenhower, XO Eisenhower, CVW-3 CAG, CVW-3 DCAG, plus the CO of Philippine Sea.

I would say that a more robust Canadian Naval Air contingent would be a composite squadron of rotary wing and UAV, commanded by a LCol. As far as I can tell most of Bonaventure's Commander Airs were Cdrs, as are the Queen Elizabeth class, so that Composite Sqn CO could also be the equivalent of Commander Air. Canadian DESRONs back then seemed to be either a Capt if in company of the carrier and emabbrked there, or the senior Cdr CO in the DESRON if not in company, but that's just a cursary knowledge. So not 8 four ringers

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't disagree... just seems to me putting those two things (amphibs and helos) in the same hull is too much for us in the foreseeable future.

Damen 120 requires a crew of 18, for domestic ops and Caribbean, that should suffice.

LST 120 - Landing Ship Transport | Damen

Damen Landing Ship Transport 120 provides access and support to shallow and small harbours and provides military clients with amphibious capability.

www.damen.com

 

[Kirkhill]

This one has spots for two helicopters to land. Enforcer 14428 - Landing Platform Dock | Damen

always liked the Enforcer

Is there room to park a Cyclone on deck and still land one or more than two in the hangar?

A Karel Doorman type ship with a focus on aviation and Task Group C2 paired with the new AOR and 3-4 River Class would be interesting as a Task Group.

Would aviation and Task Group and larger C2 capabilities be a good pairing?

Damen 120 requires a crew of 18, for domestic ops and Caribbean, that should suffice.

LST 120 - Landing Ship Transport | Damen

Damen Landing Ship Transport 120 provides access and support to shallow and small harbours and provides military clients with amphibious capability.

www.damen.com

Name your poison Gents.



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

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

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

 

[Czech_pivo]

If we adjust the Cyclone to more more supportable deployed (not only embarked) the the Protecteur class can provide some support depth, but not as much as the old Protecteurs. There is not enough deck or hangar space to provide concentration of air power, but there are examples of ships that can do this without going to full length decks.

So is this just yet another example of us replacing a piece of equipment with something that has less overall capability than we previously had?
If so, this is such an overall theme of ours. We’ve certainly come to perfect it.

 

[Baz]

So is this just yet another example of us replacing a piece of equipment with something that has less overall capability than we previously had?
If so, this is such an overall theme of ours. We’ve certainly come to perfect it.

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. The hangar is a little smaller, and given that there isn’t a robust plan for aviation support at sea it’s not fully supported.

As I said up thread, they are probably the right ships for Canada right now. If we want to do something more, we need to define the defence need, the CONOPs, and the requirement.

A missing piece here is we stopped doing much of the 2nd line at sea on the Sea King in the ‘90s, for various reasons. Changing deployments (more single ship, including the tankers), less people, less spares, different needs. Whether that influenced the future AOR requirements I don’t know.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Speaking of Helicopter carrying ships