Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

Real folks get white phos tubes…

To do what? Illuminate the deck at night with a colour that doesn't interfere with night vision gear? That's all it's there for. Nothing fancy needed.

 

[Good2Golf]

Real folks get white phos tubes…

To do what? Illuminate the deck at night with a colour that doesn't interfere with night vision gear? That's all it's there for. Nothing fancy needed.

Both can be true at the same time, although Underway is correct that external NVIS-compatible green lighting is the best, no matter the post-intensification phosphor colour…although yes, Kevin, white tubes are definitely nicer than green tubes.

 

[KevinB]

To do what? Illuminate the deck at night with a colour that doesn't interfere with night vision gear? That's all it's there for. Nothing fancy needed.

White tubes give the user much better contrast and clarity for the same resolution and sig/noise.

Not sure why the deck needs to be be lit in the visible spectrum? Wouldn’t it just be easier to have IR lighting?

 

[Baz]

White tubes give the user much better contrast and clarity for the same resolution and sig/noise.

Not sure why the deck needs to be be lit in the visible spectrum? Wouldn’t it just be easier to have IR lighting?

Lighting it in IR would allow pilots with enough currency to launch and recover on NVGs, but you'd need to be careful with spatial awareness. I would suggest you should also have visible spectrum available for pilot's that don't have that level of NVG currency.

 

[KevinB]

Lighting it in IR would allow pilots with enough currency to launch and recover on NVGs, but you'd need to be careful with spatial awareness. I would suggest you should also have visible spectrum available for pilot's that don't have that level of NVG currency.

Given the limited number of airframes you have, shouldn’t everyone be able to remain current? Or are the airframe numbers such that they are a major limiting feature?

 

[Baz]

Given the limited number of airframes you have, shouldn’t everyone be able to remain current? Or are the airframe numbers such that they are a major limiting feature?

I don't have visibility on that. However, assuming we do have the hours, the doesn't speak to the challenging environment of over the flight deck on NVGs. I wouldn't want the first time over the flight deck when regaining currency to be on NVGs. However, they may have changed the way NVG and flight deck currency works.

It also alludes to something SKT said a few days ago. The Navy used to provide sea days every six months solely for air training and currency; they were called "Salty Dips." The ship spent a week at sea, with aircrew courses in the advanced phase embarked. As well, the positions that were "sea going," but not in dets (standards, readiness, ops, etc), would fly from ashore to maintain currency. 406 Sqn instructors that didn't embark would do the same (so that there was a cadre of fligk deck current instructors). It provided depth. Unfortunately, neither the RCN nor 12 Wing seems to have capacity for that any more.

 

[Underway]

White tubes give the user much better contrast and clarity for the same resolution and sig/noise.

Not sure why the deck needs to be be lit in the visible spectrum? Wouldn’t it just be easier to have IR lighting?

You've got it backwords. The green light is for the crew onboard so they don't
a) screw up their night vision to bad when going on the upper decks
b) can still see with the naked eye
c)it doesn't blind our own aircraft accidentally when going outside and
d)keeps the IR signature lower

We do have non vis lighting for when the helo needs to see the deck at night. The green is to deconflict with helo and normal ship operations (Say rounds on the upper deck or someone going to dump organics overboard).

 

[Good2Golf]

Visible (but still NVG-compatible) light is still very useful, especially for peripheral cuing (especially when only a toilet roll’s worth of 40° viewing angle is intensified). It doesn’t have to be too intense to get the peripheral cues, as the rods in the outer portion of the retina are very sensitive to light levels, much more so than the colour-sensitive cones in the fovea (center region of the retina).

The only thing I’d wonder is whether the ship’s port-side nav light has been spec’d as ANVIS-B compatible? That fricking thing was a menace when maneuvering proximal to the fo’c’sle and port bow-to-beam.

 

[Underway]

Visible (but still NVG-compatible) light is still very useful, especially for peripheral cuing (especially when only a toilet roll’s worth of 40° viewing angle is intensified). It doesn’t have to be too intense to get the peripheral cues, as the rods in the outer portion of the retina are very sensitive to light levels, much more so than the colour-sensitive cones in the fovea (center region of the retina).

The only thing I’d wonder is whether the ship’s port-side nav light has been spec’d as ANVIS-B compatible? That fricking thing was a menace when maneuvering proximal to the fo’c’sle and port bow-to-beam.

That I do not know, but it can be turned off.

 

[Good2Golf]

That I do not know, but it can be turned off.

Yup, definitely preferred it turned off.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Someone just wrote a nice article about the Cyclone's.....

Massive high-tech Canadian helicopter helps navy in hunt for submarines

Canadian warships on a mission to promote peace in the hotly-contested waters of the Indo-Pacific includes a highly-skilled specialized crew from the Royal Canadian Air Force.

www.ctvnews.ca

Massive high-tech Canadian helicopter helps navy in hunt for submarine​

I don't have that answer, because I've retired... as well, it isn't as important as you seem to believe. The operational work arounds, including doing a better job of teaching the crew how the aircraft actually works, are in place.

How many times were the Sea Kings grounded, especially in the early years? That question is rhetorical, but if you want a shot at the answer I can try, given I have a copy of the servicing set for 12401 sitting on the shelf next to me (becuase of the research I'm doing).

I can easily get on board with replacing the Cyclone, as long as we first:

• revisit the ConOps (because it can be very dangerous to fly an aircraft in ways other then it was intended). In other words, change the ConOps to fit a different aircraft
• revisit the crewing
• revisit the TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures)
• train the crews somewhere else, at least to start with (like the P-8 and F-35)
• accept that we'll loss one of the benefits of the Cyclone, that being an excellent "cross over" aircraft (ie designed for the primary ConOps roles of ASW and ASuW, but very good at utility and SAR due to the large size and tail ramp)

But I'll reiterate, I don't think getting rid of the Cyclone will result in a new a batter maritime helicopter, I think it will result in no helicopter at all. As we've seen some other RCAF types allude to on this board, the RCAF would gladly take those trained bodies (the positions will disappear) and use them on other fleets if that happened.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That I do not know, but it can be turned off.

I am assuming the stern light is also a problem?

So conducting heliops while dragging mine sweeps at night is right out?

 

[KevinB]

I am assuming the stern light is also a problem?

So conducting heliops while dragging mine sweeps at night is right out?

I would hope that in any modern conflict white/vis light isn’t shown at night, and all spectrums of light (and electronics) are highly limited to critical needs only.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A lot of mine sweeping was post conflict.

 

[Good2Golf]

I am assuming the stern light is also a problem?

Not as bad as the port nav light in my experience.

Like KevinB said, any light, like EM/RF emission, should be tightly/appropriately controlled in operations.

 

[Furniture]

I would hope that in any modern conflict white/vis light isn’t shown at night, and all spectrums of light (and electronics) are highly limited to critical needs only.

We turned off the nav lights to sneak up on dhows in the Arabian Sea, so I would expect we would do the same to avoid visual detection by enemies as well... That said, the likelihood of getting that close to an enemy SAG and not being detected by radar is pretty low.

 

[Underway]

We turned off the nav lights to sneak up on dhows in the Arabian Sea, so I would expect we would do the same to avoid visual detection by enemies as well... That said, the likelihood of getting that close to an enemy SAG and not being detected by radar is pretty low.

You might be surprised. Lots of emissions control scenario you end up bumping into each other. This is why USV's are so challenging, you don't want your radar on to be detected by the enemy, but you want your radar on to detect USV's and other ships as well. Tough decisions.

 

[Baz]

You might be surprised. Lots of emissions control scenario you end up bumping into each other. This is why USV's are so challenging, you don't want your radar on to be detected by the enemy, but you want your radar on to detect USV's and other ships as well. Tough decisions.

What’s really funny is when warships try to be electronically something else act like a warship. Nothing like an AIS “fishing boat” scurrying to and fro at 25 knots to get somebody that has any semblance of a tactical plot interested.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We turned off the nav lights to sneak up on dhows in the Arabian Sea, so I would expect we would do the same to avoid visual detection by enemies as well... That said, the likelihood of getting that close to an enemy SAG and not being detected by radar is pretty low.

I would also add that I have personally been involved in getting very close to contacts that had no idea that we were there.

Alot of it comes down to showing an adversary what they want to see and then doing the unexpected.

 

[KevinB]

You might be surprised. Lots of emissions control scenario you end up bumping into each other. This is why USV's are so challenging, you don't want your radar on to be detected by the enemy, but you want your radar on to detect USV's and other ships as well. Tough decisions.

IS it practical to have USV's that have radar/sonar, that use a longer range tether to their "mothership" to avoid that in some situations? Sort of like a sea based unmanned RRB of sort.